Qualitative vs. Quantitative

User Generated

tonol249

Humanities

Description

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research

Look through your textbook and examine the various methodological approaches described for different study designs.

  • Do you see more qualitative or quantitative approaches used?
  • Why do you think some psychologists are more comfortable with conducting studies using quantitative data instead of qualitative data?
  • What would be an advantage to using qualitative data along with quantitative data?
  • Using the South University Online Library find two peer-reviewed articles (one that has used a quantitative approach and one that has used a qualitative approach.) Summarize these two articles.
  • What methods of data collection were used in these articles?
  • What makes these methods quantitative or qualitative in nature

Unformatted Attachment Preview

System 71 (2017) 49e59 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect System journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system Measuring social interaction during study abroad: Quantitative methods and challenges Dan P. Dewey* Brigham Young University, USA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 21 September 2017 Accepted 21 September 2017 Available online 28 September 2017 This paper examines ways of measuring (assigning numbers to) social interaction and language use during study abroad. It reviews the development of instruments for such measurement and describes some of the connections that have been made between quantitative measures of social second language use and language development while abroad. Measures addressed include the Language Contact Profile, language logs, the Social Network Questionnaire, the Study Abroad Social Interaction Questionnaire, online social media, photo elicitation, mobile phone surveys, and other computational methodologies. The paper encourages mixed methods for clearer and more elaborate understanding and more detailed documentation of tools and procedures for better understanding of crossstudy similarities and differences. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Study abroad Second language use Social network LCP 1. Introduction Accurate measurement is important for second language acquisition (SLA) studies. (Norris & Ortega, 2003; Seliger & Shohamy, 1989). To understand language acquisition, we must observe and measure it; to determine the contribution of any variable to SLA development, we must accurately gauge that variable. We cannot draw solid conclusions about how SLA occurs without accurately measuring language acquisition and the factors that influence it. Pedhazur and Schmelkin (2013) note, “Of various definitions of measurement in socio-behavioral sciences, the preeminent, although by no means universally accepted, is one offered and elaborated upon by Stevens… (1968) ‘the assignment of numbers to aspects of objects or events according to one or another rule or convention’ (p. 850)” (p. 16). Measurement as defined here will be the focus of this paper. In the study abroad (SA) setting, one challenge is determining the degree to which learners are immersed in the second language (L2). While learners are generally thought to experience all-out immersion in the L2 while abroad, some research challenges this assumption (Diao, Freed, & Smith, 2011; Iino, 2006; Magnan & Back, 2007; Wilkinson, 1998a, 1998b). Evaluating the accuracy of this assumption and establishing more clearly the amount of contact learners have with locals and the degree to which they use the L2 are challenges that merit careful and thoughtful measurement. Studies of language contact during SA have gathered information on time spent reading, writing, listening to, and speaking rez-Vidal & Juan-Garau, 2009). the L2 (Badstübner & Ecke, 2009; Dewey, 2004; Ferenz, 2005; Llanes & Botana, 2015; Pe Understanding amount of time using the L2 and how that time is used in a SA setting can enhance general knowledge of the processes of SLA. When acquiring a language in communities where the language is not spoken natively, access to written * Brigham Young University, Department of Linguistics and English Language, 4064 JFSB, Provo, UT, 84601, USA. E-mail address: ddewey@byu.edu. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.026 0346-251X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 50 D.P. Dewey / System 71 (2017) 49e59 linguistic resources is typically greater than availability of native speaker interlocutors (see Tse, 2001). Hence, SA provides greater opportunity for exposure to and interaction in the L2 than at-home foreign language learning and social interaction in the L2 is therefore a rich topic for research in SA. From an SLA perspective, one could argue for promoting social interaction through SA in the name of increasing input (Krashen, 1981, 1985), providing opportunities for negotiating meaning with interlocutors (Long, 1985), being forced to output language necessary for various communicative interactions (Swain, 1993, 1998, pp. 127e140), or encouraging the higherorder cognitive activity involved in participation in cultural and linguistic settings requiring meaningful social interaction (Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Lantolf, 2000). Based on Krashen’s (1981, 1985) input hypothesis, one could argue for the importance of exposure to extensive input and the value of having a readily available native speaker (NS) interlocutor adjust that input to be comprehensible. One could also emphasize the importance of experiencing a broad range of communicative situations during SA (conversational frames, confirmation checks, clarification requests, self-repetitions, other repetitions, expansions, or other adjustments) where the speaker needs to work with an L2 interlocutor to accomplish various communicative goals (Long, 1985). Next, advocates of SLA through social interaction abroad could argue for SA to promote “pushed output” (Swain, 1985). Swain states, “Comprehensible output is, unfortunately, generally missing in typical classroom settings, language classroom and immersion classrooms [at home] being no exception” (p. 252). Swain contrasts classroom learners with “street learners” who are forced to engage in more “two-way, negotiated meaning exchanges” (p. 247). SA participants could be characterized as “street learners” who are pushed to engage in such negotiated meaning exchanges. Finally, advocates of sociocultural theory could argue that SA provides an ideal setting for social interaction through formal, organized institutional settings such as schooling, internships, and sport activities, but also through informal social interaction with host families, neighbors, peers, and others. Learning can be mediated by authentic objects within the SA setting and scaffolded by other speakers of the L2 (both native and nonnative), and individuals can move beyond their current independent capacities as they stretch toward the higher end of their zone of proximal development through the scaffolding of others around them. In short, interaction with and scaffolding by others in one's environment is a key component of SA in line with sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Lantolf, 2000). Johnson and Golambek (2011, 2016) illustrate well from a sociocultural perspective how SA can better prepare teachers to engage learners in dialogic interaction in the classroom based on the needs of out-of-class social interaction typical of immersive SA. From all four of these perspectives (input, interaction, output, and sociocultural), the value of investigating social interaction is clear. In this paper, I focus on the measurement of L2 social interaction during SA based on the assumptions that SA is important for SLA and that accurate measurement is critical for understanding the SA experience and its linguistic benefits. I show that social interaction can be measured in multiple ways and from various perspectives, and that each of these approaches can contribute to our understanding of SLA during SA. Although qualitative methods such as ethnographies, interviews, and journal studies are valuable for understanding social interaction, treatment of these methods is beyond the scope of this study, so they are only touched on to illustrate the value of mixed methods. 2. Measuring social interaction: the language contact profile, language logs, and social network surveys L2 social interaction abroad has been measured using a number of tools, including the Language Contact Profile (LCP), language logs, and social network surveys. The LCP and language logs focus primarily on amount of time spent using the L2 in various situations, and social network surveys focus on the individuals a person interacts with and relationships with those individuals. 2.1. The LCP Barbara Freed, a pioneer of research on SA and SLA, first published a complete version of the LCP in 2004 (Freed, Dewey, Segalowitz, & Halter, 2004) as a refinement of versions used previously in her SA research (e.g., Freed, 1990, 1995). Freed credits Seliger (1977) and Bialystok (1978) for the title and the foundational concepts behind her LCP, which she describes as “a questionnaire to assess second language contact for students entering and completing language study programs in various contexts of learning (academic classrooms, intensive domestic immersion, and study abroad)” (Freed, Dewey, et al., 2004, p. 349). The 2004 post-SA version of the LCP consists of questions on coursework and living arrangements and selection items where respondents circle the average number of days per week they used a language during their SA and select a range indicating the average number of hours they used that language on those days (0e1, 1e2, 2e3, etc.). Weekly totals are generated by multiplying the two. Questions focus mostly on interactive face-to-face contact (17 questions) but also on reading (9 questions), writing (7 questions), and listening (4 questions). In short, Freed, Dewey et al.’s (2004) LCP is a comprehensive self-report for quantifying language contact and use that “has been continuously fine-tuned and has been used in a number of complementary studies” both before and after its publication (p. 350). 2.1.1. Studies utilizing the LCP Many of the articles included in the 2004 volume of Studies in Second Language Acquisition (SSLA) in which the LCP was published utilized that same version of the LCP. Díaz-Campos (2004), for example, examined L2 Spanish phonological development, finding that the number of days per week and the number of hours each day learners reported using Spanish D.P. Dewey / System 71 (2017) 49e59 51 were significant predictors of phonological development abroad. Lafford (2004) found that “students in the SA context consistently used fewer [communicative strategies] than their classroom counterparts, and their [strategy] use correlated negatively with higher use of Spanish outside the classroom and with the host family” (p. 201). Both Díaz-Campos and Lafford could have broken down out-of-class language use to look at social language use or other subcategories, but neither used more than overall totals in their analyses. In the same SSLA issue, Segalowitz and Freed (2004) explored oral proficiency and fluency during SA and at home in Spanish, breaking down LCP results into categories. Their research showed weak (non-significant) relationships between language contact while abroad and speaking gains. In a similar SSLA study of French learners abroad and at home, Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey (2004) used the same LCP and found no connection between spoken interaction and oral fluency development. Only amount of time spent writing correlated significantly with their measures of oral fluencydthe more a person wrote in French, the more fluent he or she became in spoken French. Other LCP studies have likewise utilized figures for total language use or broken down LCP results by categories. Shively, Cohen, and their colleagues (Cohen & Shively, 2007; Shively & Cohen, 2008) had students complete the LCP and reported significant correlations between total reported out-of-class time speaking Spanish and sociolinguistic appropriateness on one of ten vignettes: asking to switch an airplane seat. For those in homestay settings, the greater frequency with which students reported having an extended conversation… in Spanish with their host family, generally favored gains in the appropriateness ratings for” apologizing to a friend for being late to a meeting and asking a professor to speak more slowly to facilitate comprehension (p. 102). Magnan and Back (2007) analyzed LCP data by questions and categories, finding only that amount of time spent speaking with classmates abroad in one's L1 (English) correlated negatively with L2 speaking proficiency gainsdthe more learners spoke English with their classmates, the less they gained in French speaking proficiency. Similarly, Mendelson (2004) analyzed interactive and noninteractive L2 use, finding no significant correlations with gains in Spanish oral proficiency. Taguchi (2008) found that amount of time spent speaking and reading was a significant predictor of gains in comprehension speed but not accuracy of comprehensiondthose who reported spending more time speaking or reading were able to make quicker judgments on pragmatic tasks. Taguchi later (Taguchi, Xiao, & Li, 2016) separated out interactive and noninteractive contact and found that interactive contributed more to Chinese L2 proficiency development than noninteractive. To summarize, attempts to connect language contact with language acquisition over SA using the LCP have resulted in mixed findings. Some found no connection at all, while others found significant relationships. These differences could be attributable to differences in the aspects of language being measured, how long learners are abroad, and other variables. However, it is clear that to understand the role of social interaction during SA, it is important to break down LCP results and analyze by items or categories involving social interaction (i.e., interactive L2 use). 2.1.2. Responses to criticisms of the LCP Critics say the LCP (1) greatly overestimates amount of time spent in the L2 when items are totaled; (2) is too lengthy, making administration impractical and discouraging learners from carefully responding; (3) is outdated, focusing only on types of contact that occurred prior to the age of social media; and (4) inaccurately estimates hours because of individual bias and limits to memory. This section will describe how researchers have responded to these criticisms and insights gained as a result. 2.1.2.1. Overestimating total time. The 2004 LCP sought to provide estimates of amounts of time spent in individual activities and not total time spent in the L2. However, SA researchers often total all LCP item responses to obtain totals for their analyses. Two problems create room for overestimating totals: first, learners are not asked to make estimates in light of any total and therefore do not take a more holistic perspective, and the typical tendency to overestimate in self-assessments (Kruger & Dunning, 1999) gets magnified due to the large number of items in the LCP. Second, there is overlap between questions in terms of interlocutors and purposes (questions ask about time with native speakers, teachers, host family members, and strangers on the street and about purposes including homework clarification, seeking information, and asking directions). Three approaches to LCP analysis address the challenges of totaling time from individual items. The first is to examine individual items relative to each other rather than focusing on totals. For example, in one of our studies (Baker-Smemoe, Cundick, Evans, Henrichsen, & Dewey, 2012), “our goal was to approximate the proportion or degree of time spent in each activity (i.e., if more hours are reported in one activity, the assumption is that it is a more frequently occurring activity, regardless of the difference in total hours in all activities)” (pp. 28e29). In that study, we found specific items, such as using the L2 to ask for information and trying to use what was taught in language classes outside of class, were significantly and positively correlated with L2 proficiency development. Taking two other approaches, we analyzed questions regarding purposes separately from questions about interlocutors, and we used online survey tools to provide running totals to guide them in moderating and estimating their responses. “As students entered their estimates, the survey tool automatically generated a total number for time spent speaking, listening to, reading and writing Japanese and English,” and students could then go back and modify individual item estimates in light of the ongoing totals generated (Dewey, Bown, & Eggett, 2012, p. 120). 52 D.P. Dewey / System 71 (2017) 49e59 2.1.2.2. Excess length. Because of concern that the LCP is too long and thus impractical to administer, scholars have reduced the number of items, focused only on specific areas, and simplified question format. Taguchi et al. (2016) included only fourteen items, seven focusing on interactive language use and seven on noninteractive. Taguchi (2008) included only seventeen items, ~ oz (2013) used a twelve-item version removing questions focusing on purpose and other redundant material. Llanes and Mun of the LCP revised for children. In a similar study also including adolescents, Llanes and Serrano (2014) mention using a version of the LCP “simplified in order to make it suitable for children” (p. 5). Children and adolescents reported interacting more with native speakers while abroad than adults did, and both children and adults had more L2 interaction abroad than learners at home. Pyper and Slagter (2015) simplified in a different way: “Whereas the 2004 LCP requires participants to first indicate the number of days per week and then the hours per day for each behavior, this proved to be cumbersome, and a number of students would discontinue the survey upon reaching these items. For this reason, the response prompt for these questions were changed to a single response of ‘hours per week’” (p. 86). Participants reported spending an average of 25.7 h per week speaking L2 Spanish and 8.5 h speaking L1 English during SA. Simplified and focused LCP-like language contact questionnaires are common. Di Silvio, Donovan, and Malone (2014, 2015) measured interaction in homestay situations, asking about “language activities conducted at home and student dispositions r, and Iwaniec (2014) collected data on direct spoken contact, direct toward the host family” (2014, p. 174). Kormos, Csize written contact, and media contact. Reported written and media contact increased, but spoken interaction decreased over time abroad. Similarly, Moyer (2006) opted for a shorter measure including one item each regarding time spent (1) interacting with friends and acquaintances, (2) using German in professional settings, (3) using German on campus or in town, (4) watching TV or films, (5) writing emails or using the Internet, and (6) doing other things. Several researchers report adjusting the LCP but give minimal details. George (2014, p. 100) used a version of the LCP lix-Brasdefer and Hasler-Barker, 2015, p. 78) used “a “based on Freed, Dewey, Segalowitz, and Halter (2004),” and Fe customized version” of the LCP, but specific modifications or customizations go unmentioned in both of these studies. Mora rez-Vidal and Juan-Garau (2011) for details; however, Pe rez-Vidal and Valls-Ferrer (2012) also give no specifics, referring to Pe and Juan-Garau do not detail what modifications were made to the LCP, simply mentioning questions “based on the Language Contact Profile” (p. 170). The lack of detail in studies using modified versions of the LCP indicates the importance of documenting changes made or alternative questionnaires used. While some of these studies show connections with interactive and noninteractive language use and language gains, others do not. Understanding these differing findings may require more careful explication of modifications of the LCP or alternative methods used. 2.1.2.3. Content. Martínez-Arbelaiz, Areizaga, and Camps (2016) articulated an additional concern: “It is clear from a cursory look at the LCP that it does not cover the whole array of emerging technologies and social media, nor the associated language uses that these technologies can facilitate” (p. 3). In their study, they include an extensive set of questions in this area and report that students regularly used a range of digital media (WhatsApp, Facebook, and other online social networks) in their mother tongues and their L2s. Stressing the importance of considering the availability and use of various technologies while abroad, Coleman and Chafer (2010) state, We would argue that the stage of development and adoption of telecommunications in home and host countries is a factor which should be, but often is not, taken into account in comparing contemporary studies with some of the most widely cited study abroad publications. The question of Internet access is extremely date-sensitive. An obvious prerequisite is that published studies should make clear at what date the subjects undertook their sojourn abroad. (pp. 164e165). Coleman and Chafer emphasize the importance of the dates data were collected, but they could also emphasize the importance of gathering information on use of social media, mobile phones, and other resources. They might also stress the need to publish questions used in such studies, so researchers can understand what SA participants were asked and how media use compares to other areas of language use while abroad. Bracke and Aguerre (2015) document changes to the LCP and questions asked about social media use by supplying a complete copy of their questionnaire. That questionnaire resembles the LCP but asks learners to indicate who they were in touch with, in which ways, and in which languages rather than estimate amount of time spent. Face-to-face, online social networking, and email communication are included in the questions. The inclusion of the actual survey is helpful, especially since others, such as Hardison (2014), have adjusted the LCP “to include electronic communication” (p. 424) without elaborating or providing illustrative items. 2.1.2.4. Hour estimates. Briggs (2015a, 2015b) has expressed concerns over the use of retrospective estimates by learners of hours spent in various activities and over wording in the LCP. She explains her concerns and modifications: Many amendments were made to the LCP for use in the present study. The most significant of these was a modification of the Likert scale from a frequency to a “how true of me” rating in order to find out which scenarios were most highly identified with by the sample. This change was made because an out-of-class situation may not present itself regularly, yet a learner may act in one particular way every time the situation occurs. Similarly, it is more difficult to accurately gauge how often something happens than to state how representative it is of one's behaviour, and frequency scales of items of a different nature cannot be treated cumulatively. (2015a, p. 299). D.P. Dewey / System 71 (2017) 49e59 53 r and Kormos (2009) also use a scale (ranging from “not at all” to “very much”) Similarly to Briggs (2015a, 2015b), Csize instead of having learners report number of hours of contact. Their items focus on direct spoken contact, direct written r and Kormos's questions were not designed to examine language contact, indirect contact, and media usage. While Csize contact in SA per se, they have proven useful in determining complex connections between indirect and direct contact with language and self-confidence, instrumentality, and other variables. ndez and Tapia Concerned that the LCP might not accurately and adequately capture language contact during SA, Ferna (2016) used another modified version of the LCP and compared results with supplemental, open-ended student comments on these items, interview responses, and observations of interactions during SA. Their version of the LCP has students write in (rather than select) number of days per week and number of hours per day in each activity and then comment about activity associated with each item. Students reported ambiguity regarding the meaning of individual LCP questions and problems with overlapping content. They also mentioned difficulty estimating number of hours of use in hindsight because amount of time varied according to their language abilities and circumstances over the course of their SA. Student concerns draw attention to the need to (1) evaluate individual items to avoid confusion, (2) consider using items that might capture differences in quality of interaction rather than or in addition to time, and (3) reconsider questions regarding amount of time students spend in various manners in light of (1) and (2). 2.2. Language logs Regarding timing of the LCP, Magnan and Back (2007) note, “Given that the LCP [is] a self-recall done at one time at the end of the program, the data might not reflect reality as much as a continuous logging of activity throughout the program would” (p. 56). Garcia-Amaya (in this issue) expresses similar concerns. To capture language use over an extended period of time and have learners reflect more immediately following language use or contact, researchers have utilized language logs instead (e.g., Martinsen, 2010; Ranta & Meckelborg, 2013). Learners are asked to log amount of time spent in various activities on a daily basis. An early example of language logs in SA literature is found in the Russian studies by Brecht and his colleagues (Brecht, Davidson, & Ginsberg, 1993, 1995; Brecht & Robinson, 1995; Ginsberg & Miller, 2000). Learners were asked to write what they did in calendar diaries, who they were with, and what language they used during each block of time. While these data were highly informative, the researchers report that the open-ended nature of the task allowed for a broad range of labeling and therefore made it difficult to categorize and tally results. They found no significant relationships between their quantified language log results and multiple measures of language gain during SA. In another more recent language log study, Martinsen, Baker, Dewey, Bown, and Johnson (2010) had learners estimate language use at the end of each day for one week at the mid-point of SA. Rather than writing in activities on a schedule, learners estimated amount of time spent on twenty specified activities each day. Learners in service-learning SA reported using the target language out of class more than learners in more traditional SA. In a different approach to daily logs, Ranta and Meckelborg (2013) had participants complete a computerized form each day consisting of a calendar and drop-down options students selected to indicate what they did, who they interacted with, where they were, and what language they used during each 15-min period throughout the day. Students submitted logs for seven days in a row once a month over a six-month period. The combination of using predetermined drop-down categories and indicating activities for each 15-min time slot throughout the day is particularly noteworthy. Students reported engaging in receptive L2 use much more than interactive. Furthermore, their reported L2 use as international students was largely for academic purposes and they tended to report using their L1 as much as or more than the L2 for daily living, social interaction, and recreational activities. Variation in timing, length of reporting, and what and how learners record their interactions make it difficult to compare language log studies. The relative immediacy of recall is an apparent benefit of this approach, but without more consistency, control, and comparison it is difficult to determine the advantages of one approach over another or of language logs over a one-time LCP. 2.3. Social network surveys One weakness of the LCP and other measures is that they often conflate two variables: how much the L2 is used and the interlocutors with whom SA participants interact. The focus of the LCP is clearly the amount of L2 use. Questions ask, “How much time did you spend speaking in Spanish [the L2] outside of class,” attaching a purpose such as “to obtain directions” or “to clarify classroom-related work.” The LCP also elaborates by adding possible interlocutors: “with classmates,” “with a host family, Spanish roommate, or other Spanish speakers in the dormitory,” etc. (Freed, Dewey, et al., 2004, p. 354). This list of interlocutors can be helpful for getting learners to think about amount of L2 use with others, but SLA can be influenced by more than time alone (Long, 1996; Ortega, 2009). The closeness and nature of learners’ relationships can also affect SLA as they contribute not only to L2 use but also to motivation to acquire the language, attitudes toward the host culture, and other € rnyei, 2003; Isabelli-Garcia, 2006; Milroy, 1987). variables that can affect SLA (Do Several SLA researchers have drawn on social network theorydtheory regularly informing fields outside of SLA ranging from mental and physical health (Nicolas, DaSilva, & Donnelly, 2011; Valente, 2010) to career development (Granovetter, 1973; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). Regarding SLA research, Mercer (2015) states, Social network theory can help us to 54 D.P. Dewey / System 71 (2017) 49e59 understand the social interactions of individuals and groups. For example, it can cast light on individuals and their in- and out-of-class language use, their contact with users of the target language and their “social capital” in terms of language use and learning opportunities. (p. 79). Social networks can determine the types of information, language, and culture a person is exposed to (Xu, Wang, & Wei, 2008), and the notion of social capital involves investment in informal networks or civic organizations (Putnam, 1995, 2001). Investment is a key contributor to SLA (Norton, 2013; Norton Pierce, 1995). When learners invest more in their SA experience, they become part of communities that provide rich linguistic input, meet immediate needs, and engage learners in cultural exchanges. When learners develop social networks, they benefit from more than simply increased time of exposure to the L2. Two research groups have quantitatively examined connections between social networks and SLA during SA: my own research group (Baker-Smemoe, Dewey, Bown, & Martinsen, 2014; Baker-Smemoe et al., 2012; Dewey, Belnap, & Hillstrom, 2013; Dewey et al., 2014) and the Southampton Language and Social Networks Abroad Project (LANGSNAP) group (McManus, Mitchell, & Tracy-Ventura, 2014; Mitchell, 2015; Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura, & McManus, 2015, 2017). My group has utilized a survey based on (1) the General Social Survey (Burt, 1985), a key instrument used in social network research, and (2) the al Index of Linguistic Integration (Segalowitz & Ryder, 2006). The General Social Survey was created to gather inMontre formation on the social landscape of the United States. It includes questions asking people through interviews (rather than paper or online surveys) to name the people they interact with and to elaborate on the nature of their relationships with them. This is done not to gather names but rather to get people to be more careful and specific in describing the quantity and types of social relationships they have. Segalowitz and Ryder (2006) built on the General Social Survey and sought to measure who people use their first and second languages with in bilingual communities. Our own survey, the Study Abroad Social Interaction Questionnaire (SASIQ), asks learners to list the people they interact with most during study abroad, rate the closeness of relationships with them, describe how they met them, etc. My group found connections between social networks, language use, and L2 gains during SA in several studies using the SASIQ. In one study of over 100 SA participants in Mexico, Spain, France, Egypt, Russia, or China (Baker-Smemoe et al., 2014), learners who made significant gains in spoken proficiency during SA reported belonging to more social groups and having stronger social relationships with their native speaker friends than those who made no significant gains. Similarly, in a study of over 200 learners in Japan (Dewey et al., 2012), dispersion (number of social groups a person is connected with) was a good predictor of perceived gains in proficiency over SA. In Arabic, SA learners reporting closer relationships with Arab friends made greater gains in Arabic proficiency (Dewey, Belnap, et al., 2013). These studies illustrate that it might be not just number of hours of language use but also number and types of relationships that influence language development during SA. In addition to quantifying relationship information, the SASIQ provides qualitative information on how learners develop friendships and what types of people they befriend (Dewey, Ring, Gardner, & Belnap, 2013; Ring, Gardner, & Dewey, 2013), helping us to test concepts such as Coleman's concentric circles model (Coleman, 2013), which categorizes relationships SA learners make and their transformation over SA. LANGSNAP involved European ERASMUS Project students on SA to French- or Spanish-speaking countries between 2011 and 2013 (Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura, & McManus, 2017; http://langsnap.soton.ac.uk/). LANGSNAP utilized a Social Networks Questionnaire (SNQ) and a Language Engagement Questionnaire, the former resembling the SASIQ and the latter the LCP. Both were given three times over SA. The SNQ asks learners to list people they regularly interact with in each of five contexts and tell how often they interact with each individual, what language(s) they interact in, what their relationships are, and how they first met. SNQ results were significant predictors of gains in fluency during SA, but not of proficiency, accuracy, or lexical complexity (McManus, Tracy-Ventura, & Mitchell, 2016). Furthermore, learners tended to develop extensive friendships in the L2 (French) early on and then those numbers dropped over time. The number of L2 English-speaking friends these SA participants reported interacting with decreased over time as well (McManus et al., 2014). Both the LANGSNAP work and my group's research indicate significant correlations between social relationships and language gains during SA. They also highlight patterns of making and developing friendships with locals. There are other studies examining connections between social networks and L2 development, but the studies by these two groups are larger than most and represent what can be done to measure social networks in order to assess connections between social networks and language gains. 3. Recent innovation in measuring L2 social interaction One of the strengths of self-reports is that they allow quantification valuable for identifying trends across the data and statistical relationships between social interaction, L2 use, and SLA abroad. This strength can also be a limitation, since selfreports tell us little about the nature of an individual's experience. Coleman (2013) and Kinginger (2009) emphasize the need to go beyond generalization and better understand the diversity of individual SA: “Individual trajectories are in fact the essence of recent SA research, in which the focus has shifted from quantitative to qualitative, from product to process, from a search for generalizability to a recognition of complexity and variation” (Coleman, 2013, p. 25). Several recent innovations allow for the tabulation of information about interlocutors and language use and provide rich qualitative information about individuals' experiences using social media, photo journaling, and mobile phone technologies, exemplifying mixed methods and their benefits to SA researchers. The limitations of quantitative methods described previously are clear, but traditional qualitative methods such as interviews and journaling have limitations as well. Back (2013) points out that traditional qualitative methods such as D.P. Dewey / System 71 (2017) 49e59 55 ethnographies, journaling, and interviews can suffer from recall bias and contrived experiences and can fatigue and demand much of both researchers and participants. Back advocates other more natural ways of gathering information on individuals' experiences abroad, reporting specifically on an analysis of the use of social media by SA participants. Language use and social interaction in Back's social media study occurred in authentic ways not contrived or manipulated by researchers but instead naturally produced by the learners as they interacted with others at home and in the SA country in the L1 and L2 as a natural part of their stay abroad. Social media posts and relationships were quantifiable, written out in situ by the learners and their interlocutors and available for various mixed methods analyses. 3.1. Social media to understand social networks Research has shown that Internet and social media use can be both beneficial and detrimental for SLA during SA. Mitchell (2012) found that learners took opportunities to produce the L2 regularly on social media in authentic situations while abroad, helping them practice patterns in appropriate and genuine ways. On the other hand, Magnan and Lafford (2012) and Dewey (2008) note that learners who used social media to stay in regular contact with home, interacting mainly in their L1, tended to suffer in terms of linguistic development. Taking advantage of learners’ tendencies to connect with both new and old friends through Facebook, Back (2013) analyzed the Facebook interactions of three learners of Portuguese on SA in Brazil, aiming to document actual (as opposed to self-reported) language use over ten months abroad and compare that with one-time LCP data. Back reports that LCP data correspond in some ways to Facebook language use but not in others and that they “do not offer the level of detail that the Facebook data offer regarding frequency of interactions over the entire observation period” (p. 385). Back reports increases in L2 use overall over time and individual variation across learnersdone who had never been abroad reported homesickness and used the L2 less on Facebook than others. A high L2 user on Facebook posted status updates in Portuguese despite having a majority of nonreaders of Portuguese as friends. Back notes the power of Facebook to elucidate language use, social interactions, and responses to SAddata useful for a range of SA research, from acquisition of specific features of the L2 to motivation and identity. The potential to conduct both quantitative and qualitative analyses of social media data is clear from her study. 3.2. Photo elicitation as a tool for understanding social networks Another tool that can contribute to the understanding of L2 interaction abroad is photo elicitation. In a mixed methods study, Umino and Benson (2016) present both quantitative and qualitative results from analyses of social interaction over four years of SA by a single learner in Japan to describe how he entered and engaged in communities of practice over time. They draw on life history approaches that use photos taken by or including a participant to elicit information regarding his or her life experiences. Their participant categorized 12,425 of his own photographs according to whether individuals appearing were local natives, fellow international students, university support staff, or others. Photos were also categorized by whether the activity captured was formally planned by the university or informally planned by those in the photo. Totals were then used to quantitatively track development over time. The number of photos showing the participant alone decreased over time, as did the number including fellow international students, largely following Coleman's concentric circle model (Coleman, 2013), with association moving gradually from conationals to others (fellow international students) and then to locals. The number of local Japanese grew gradually, moving from 3.59% in the first year to 40.75% in the last year. Qualitative analysis based on the participant's photo-elicited recall describes him moving from being a peripheral participant in Japanese social circles to being a full-fledged member. The Japanese in the pictures toward the end of the experience were highly supportive of the participant's language and social development. This study demonstrates the power of photo elicitation as a means of longitudinal analysis of social interaction over SA and as a source of data that can be both quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. 3.3. Mobile phones to understand social networks The use of mobile phone technologies to better track learners' language use and social interactions while abroad also has potential. Garcia-Amaya (in this issue) notes that his Daily Language Questionnaire (DLQ) was often taken by mobile phones and other mobile devices, allowing timely completion. In my own unpublished pilot work aiming to take advantage of mobile phone capabilities, we tracked social interaction and language use over a semester abroad by regularly contacting learners by mobile phone to ask about their interactions with others. Using a combination of Short Message Service (SMS), browser-based surveys, and telephone marketing software, we asked students to provide both selection and open-ended responses indicating how they had used their time in the most recent hour, whom they interacted with, what topics they discussed, etc. We found that learners moved from interacting primarily with fellow international students and roommates in their L1 early in their time abroad to spending significantly more time with locals speaking their L2. The number of native interlocutors dropped off towards the end as participants reported spending their time on “the most fruitful relationships.” This research also supports and has potential to shed additional light on Coleman's concentric circles model (2013), since learners moved from conationals to locals over time. In addition to quantifying time use and interlocutor information, we were able to 56 D.P. Dewey / System 71 (2017) 49e59 understand the nature of learners' interactions, interlocutors, and L2 use. Correlational analyses were not conducted since this pilot study involved only nine students. 3.4. Computational tools to measure and diagram social networks A 2015 small-scale (seven-participant) study by Gautier and Chevrot involved data collection through language logs and diaries and a social network questionnaire. Taking a unique approach to their data analysis, the authors expanded on work by Isabelli-Garcia (2006) that depicted the social networks of learners abroad graphically. They analyzed networks “using Ucinet software, and the social network graphs were created using Netdraw software (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 1999), accessible at http://www.analytictech.com/ucinet/ (p. 174). This approach to quantifying and graphically depicting social networks is common in social network research in the social sciences and is spreading to a variety of fields (Moreno & Fox, 1987; Moreno, 1946; Scott, 2012; Wasserman & Galaskiewicz, 1994; Wassermann & Faust, 1994). Gautier and Chevrot (2015) focused on the density of networks, defining it as “the proportion of pairs of network members whom the respondents indicated were likely to have contact with each other” (p. 174). They found that “learners with dense connections with L1 speakers tend to increase or maintain a high usage rate of formal variants of sociolinguistic variables, while those with a loosely connected social network that contains L2 speakers tend to decrease their usage of formal variants “ (p. 180). Their study shows how methods of analyzing and describing networks from the social sciences can inform SLA. 4. Conclusion Understanding how learners use language and interact with others while abroad is a challenge that has involved a broad range of measurement techniques. The LCP, an early tool used in this effort, is a practical and quick means of gathering data that has been extensively used in a range of variations, yielding mixed results in terms of connections with SLA. A common LCP findings is extensive reported use of the L1 during SA. Variations in LCP makeup and administration, along with differences in SA length, location, and program design make comparisons across studies difficult but also illustrate the potential to focus on any given aspect of language use by selecting the most relevant items or creating other more focused items and gaining learners' perspectives on their social language use. Language logs and social network surveys have gone beyond the LCP and provided valuable additional insights into how learners report spending their time and who they spend that time with while abroad. Asking learners about language use and social interaction at different stages of the SA experience and more immediately following their L2 interactions rather than just at the end of SA has provided greater understanding. Overall, these measurement methods show potential to elucidate the role of social interaction in SLA and to validate, elaborate on, or revise models of social interaction and SLA abroad, such as Coleman’s (2013) concentric circles model. One recent method particularly valuable for documenting L2 interaction abroad is the use of technological developments. Social media, individuals’ digital photo archives, and mobile phone technologies, for example, have great potential. Social media leaves a record of who an individual interacts with and language samples that can be analyzed in detail (Back, 2013). Digital photos can prompt recollection of events, people, and language use (Umino & Benson, 2016), and mobile phone technologies allow us to access and query learners on-the-spot as they interact and are exposed to language during SA. These tools have potential to increase accuracy of recall and reporting, yield data going beyond self-reports, and provide authentic language samples produced in situ that allow for both quantitative and qualitative analyses. Variation in language use and development over SA is a theme that consistently appears in the literature. Perhaps largely due to this variation, there are differences in the makeup of questionnaires, language logs, social network surveys, and other tools across nearly every study. Where the tools themselves do not vary, the timing and methods of administration often do. As documented earlier, changes to the LCP are often described in vague terms and without illustrative examples. Furthermore, in cases where language logs have been utilized, instructions and examples are not typically included in the reports. And journal manuscript length limitations often prevent the inclusion of social network and other surveys with the written research reports. To develop a thorough understanding of SLA and interactive L2 use while abroad, comprehensive documentation and transparency are necessary. I recommend that when variations of the LCP, DLQ, SASIQ, SNQ, or other instruments are used, changes be clearly documented so others can replicate or accurately compare. The recent option to publish supplementary material online with many academic journals makes it possible to include such revised versions. When these options are unavailable, use of IRIS, a digital repository of instruments and materials for research into second languages (Marsden, Mackey, & Plonsky, 2016), or publication via personal means (e.g., university websites or free web publication) is imperative. Openness and publication of resources and methods are key to understanding, comparing, and finding trends in SLA during SA. Using current technologies allows for better data collection, analysis, and comparison and provides more open access that facilitates progress in our understanding. While methodological diversity contributes positively to this understanding, full disclosure allows clearer insights. References Back, M. (2013). Using Facebook data to analyze learner interaction during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 46(3), 377e401. D.P. Dewey / System 71 (2017) 49e59 57 Badstübner, T., & Ecke, P. (2009). Student expectations, motivations, target language use, and perceived learning progress in a summer study abroad program in Germany. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 42(1), 41e49. Baker-Smemoe, W., Cundick, D. K., Evans, N., Henrichsen, L., & Dewey, D. P. (2012). Relationship between reported out-of-class English use and proficiency gains in English. Applied Language Learning, 22, 21e45. Baker-Smemoe, W., Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., & Martinsen, R. A. (2014). Variables affecting L2 gains during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 464e486. Bialystok, E. (1978). Language skills and the learners: The classroom perspective. In C. Blatchford, & J. Schachter (Eds.), On TESOL ’78 (pp. 224e231). Washington, DC: TESOL. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (1999). UCINET 6.0: Version 1.00. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies. Bracke, A., & Aguerre, S. (2015). Erasmus students: Joining communities of practice to learn French? In R. Mitchell, N. Tracy-Ventura, & K. McManus (Eds.), Social interaction, identity and language learning during residence abroad (pp. 139e168). Essex, UK: European Second Language Association (EUROSLA). Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D. E., & Ginsberg, R. B. (1993). Predictors of foreign language gain during study abroad. NFLC occasional papers. Washington, D.C: National Foreign Language Center. Retreived from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED360828.pdf. Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D. E., & Ginsberg, R. B. (1995). Predictors of foreign language gain during study abroad. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 37e66). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Brecht, R. D., & Robinson, J. L. (1995). On the value of formal instruction in study abroad: Student reactions in context. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 317e334). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Briggs, J. G. (2015a). A context-specific research tool to probe the out-of-class vocabulary-related strategies of study-abroad learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 291e314. Briggs, J. G. (2015b). Out-of-class language contact and vocabulary gain in a study abroad context. System, 53, 129e140. Burt, R. S. (1985). General social survey network items. Connections, 8(1), 19e23. Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. Modern Language Journal, 91, 189e212. Coleman, J. A. (2013). Researching whole people and whole lives. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (pp. 17e44). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Coleman, J. A., & Chafer, T. (2010). Study abroad and the internet: Physical and virtual context in an era of expanding telecommunications. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 19, 151e167. r, K., & Kormos, J. (2009). Modelling the role of inter-cultural contact in the motivation of learning English as a foreign language. Applied Linguistics, Csize 30(2), 166e185. Dewey, D. P. (2004). A comparison of reading development by learners of Japanese in intensive domestic immersion and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 303e327. Dewey, D. P. (2008). Japanese vocabulary acquisition by learners in three contexts. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15(Winter), 127e148. Dewey, D. P., Belnap, R. K., & Hillstrom, R. (2013). Social network development, language Use, and anguage acquisition during study abroad: Arabic language learners' perspectives. Frontiers: The. Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 22 (Spring). Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., Baker, W., Martinsen, R. A., Gold, C., & Eggett, D. (2014). Language use in six study abroad programs: An exploratory analysis of possible predictors. Language Learning, 64(1), 36e71. Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., & Eggett, D. (2012). Japanese language proficiency, social networking, and language use during study abroad: Learners' perspectives. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 68(2), 111e137. Dewey, D. P., Ring, S., Gardner, D., & Belnap, R. K. (2013). Social network formation and development during study abroad in the Middle East. System, 41(2), 269e282. Di Silvio, F., Donovan, A., & Malone, M. E. (2014). The effect of study abroad homestay placements: Participant perspectives and oral proficiency gains. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 168e188. Di Silvio, F., Donovan, A., & Malone, M. E. (2015). Promoting oral proficiency gain in study abroad homestay placements. In R. Mitchell, N. Tracy-Ventura, & K. McManus (Eds.), Social interaction, identity and language learning during residence abroad (pp. 75e94). Wessex, UK: EUROSLA. Diao, W., Freed, B., & Smith, L. (2011). Confirmed beliefs or false assumptions? A study of home stay experiences in the French study abroad context. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 21, 109e142. Díaz-Campos, M. (2004). Context of learning in the acquisition of Spanish second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 249e273. € rnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(S1), Do 3e32. lix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Hasler-Barker, M. (2015). Complimenting in Spanish in a short-term study abroad context. System, 48, 75e85. Fe Ferenz, O. (2005). EFL writers' social networks: Impact on advanced academic literacy development. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(4), 339e351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.002. ndez, J., & Tapia, A. M. G. (2016). An appraisal of the Language Contact Profile as a tool to research local engagement in study abroad. Study Abroad Ferna Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 1(2), 248e276. Freed, B. F. (1990). Language learning in a study abroad context: The effects of interactive and noninteractive out-of-class contact on grammatical achievement and oral proficiency. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 459e477. Freed, B. F. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 123e148). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The language contact profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 349e356. Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 275e301. Garcia-Amaya, L.. (in this issue). Detailing L1 and L2 use in study abroad research: Data from the Daily Linguistic Questionnaire. System. Gautier, R., & Chevrot, J. P. (2015). Social networks and acquisition of sociolinguistic variation in a study abroad context: A preliminary study. In R. Mitchell, N. Tracy-Ventura, & K. McManus (Eds.), Social interaction, identity and language learning during residence abroad (pp. 169e184). Essex, UK: European Second Language Association (EUROSLA). George, A. (2014). Study abroad in central Spain: The development of regional phonological features. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 97e114. Ginsberg, R. B., & Miller, L. (2000). What do they do? Activities of students during study abroad. In R. D. Lambert, & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 237e260). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360e1380. Hardison, D. M. (2014). Changes in second-language learners' oral skills and socio-affective profiles following study abroad: A mixed-methods approach. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(4), 415e444. Iino, M. (2006). Norms of interaction in a Japanese homestay setting: Toward a two-way flow of linguistic and cultural resources (vol. 15). Toronto, ON: Multilingual Matters. Isabelli-Garcia, C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation, and attitudes: Implications for second language acquisition. In M. A. Dufon, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 231e258). Cleveland, OH: Multilingual Matters. Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2011). Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. 58 D.P. Dewey / System 71 (2017) 49e59 Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2016). Mindful L2 teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on cultivating teachers' professional development. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. London, UK: Pallgrave Macmillan. r, K., & Iwaniec, J. (2014). A mixed-method study of language-learning motivation and intercultural contact of international students. Journal Kormos, J., Csize of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(2), 151e166. Krashen, S. D. (1981). The “fundamental pedagogical principle” in second language teaching. Studia Linguistica, 35(1e2), 50e70. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121. Lafford, B. A. (2004). The effect of the context of learning on the use of communication strategies by learners of Spanish as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 201e225. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publication Group. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second languge acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108e124. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.  & Botana, G. P. (2015). Does listening comprehension improve as a result of a short study abroad experience? Revista Espan ~ ola de Lingüística Llanes, A., Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 199e212.  ~ oz, C. (2013). Age effects in a study abroad context: Children and adults studying abroad and at home. Language Learning, 63(1), 63e90. Llanes, A., & Mun  & Serrano, R. (2014). The effectiveness of classroom instruction “at home” versus study abroad for learners of English as a foreign language Llanes, A., attending primary school, secondary school and university. The Language Learning Journal, 1e13. Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377e393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Titchie, & T. K. Bathia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413e468). New York: Academic Press. Magnan, S. S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 43e61. Magnan, S., & Lafford, B. (2012). Learning through immersion during study abroad. In S. M. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 525e540). London, UK: Routledge. Marsden, E., Mackey, A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). The IRIS repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. In A. Mackey, & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 1e21). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. Martínez-Arbelaiz, A., Areizaga, E., & Camps, C. (2016). An update on the study abroad experience: Language choices and social media abroad. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14, 350e365. Martinsen, R. A. (2010). Short-term study abroad: Predicting changes in oral skills. Foreign Language Annals, 43(3), 504e530. Martinsen, R. A., Baker, W., Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., & Johnson, C. (2010). Exploring diverse settings for language acquisition and use: Comparing study abroad, service learning abroad, and foreign language housing. Applied Language Learning, 20(1e2), 45e69. McManus, K., Mitchell, R., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2014). Understanding insertion and integration in a study abroad context: The case of English-speaking sojourners in France. Revue française de linguistique appliqu ee, 19(2), 97e116. McManus, K., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Mitchell, R. (2016). L2 linguistic development before, during, and after a nine-month sojourn: Evidence from L2 French and Spanish. In Paper presented at the second language research forum (SLRF). New York, NY: Columbia University. Mendelson, V. G. (2004). Spain or bust? Assessment and student perceptions of out-of-class contact and oral proficiency in a study abroad context. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Amherst, MA: University of MassachusettseAmherst. €rnyei, A. Henry, & P. D. MacIntyre (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language Mercer, S. (2015). Social network analysis and complex dynamic systems. In Z. Do learning (pp. 73e82). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Mitchell, K. (2012). A social tool: Why and how ESOL students use Facebook. Calico Journal, 29(3), 471e493. Mitchell, R. (2015). The development of social relations during residence abroad. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 22e33. Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N., & McManus, K. (2015). Social interaction, identity and language learning during residence abroad. Wessex, UK: EUROSLA. Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N., & McManus, K. (2017). Anglophone students abroad: Identity, social relationships, and language learning. London: Routledge. Mora, J. C., & Valls-Ferrer, M. (2012). Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 610e641. Moreno, J. L. (1946). Sociogram and sociomatrix. Sociometry, 9, 348e349. Moreno, J. L., & Fox, J. (1987). The essential Moreno: Writings on psychodrama, group method, and spontaneity. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Moyer, A. (2006). Language contact and confidence in second language listening comprehension: A pilot study of advanced learners of German. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 255. Nicolas, G., DaSilva, A., & Donnelly, S. (2011). Social networks and the mental health of Haitian immigrants. Pompano Beach, FL: Caribbean Studies Press, Educa Vision. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 716e761). UK: Blackwell: Oxford. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Toronoto, ON: Multilingual Matters. Norton Pierce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9e31. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London, UK: Routledge. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2013). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis. rez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2009). The effect of Study Abroad (SA) on written performance. EUROSLA Yearbook, 9(1), 269e295. Pe rez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2011). The effect of context and input conditions on oral and written development: A study abroad perspective. IRALPe International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(2), 157e185. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(04), 664e683. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone, Simon and Schuster. Pyper, M. J., & Slagter, C. (2015). Competing priorities: Student perceptions of helps and hindrances to language acquisition during study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 26, 83e106. Ranta, L., & Meckelborg, A. (2013). How much exposure to English do international graduate students really get? Measuring language use in a naturalistic setting. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(1), 1e33. Ring, S. A., Gardner, D., & Dewey, D. P. (2013). Social network development during study abroad in Japan. In K. Kondo-Brown, Y. Saito-Abbott, S. Satsutani, M. Tsutsui, & A. Wehmeyer (Eds.), New perspectives on Japanese language learning, linguistics, and culture (pp. 95e122). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii National Foriegn Language Resource Center. Scott, J. (2012). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 173e199. Segalowitz, N., & Ryder, A. (2006). The montreal inventory of linguistic integration (MILI). Unpublished questionnaire. Montreal, Canada: Concordia University. D.P. Dewey / System 71 (2017) 49e59 59 Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219e237. Seliger, H. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A study of interaction patterns and L2 competence. Language Learning, 27, 263e278. Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. G. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Shively, R. L., & Cohen, A. D. (2008). Development of Spanish requests and apologies during study abroad. Ikala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 13(20), 57e118. Stevens, S. S. (1968). Measurement, statistics, and the schemapiric view. Science, 161, 849e856. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 253e256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 158e164. Swain, M. (1998). The output hypothesis, second language learning and immersion education. In J. Amau, & J. Artigal (Eds.), Immersion programs: A European perspective (pp. 127e140). Barcelona, ES: Publicacions de la Universitat de Barcelona. Taguchi, N. (2008). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58(1), 33e71. Taguchi, N., Xiao, F., & Li, S. (2016). Effects of intercultural competence and social contact on speech act production in a Chinese study abroad context. Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 775e796. Tse, L. (2001). Heritage language literacy: A study of us biliterates. Language Culture and Curriculum, 14(3), 256e268. Umino, T., & Benson, P. (2016). Communities of practice in study abroad: A four-year study of an indonesian student's experience in Japan. Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 757e774. Valente, T. W. (2010). Social networks and health: Models, methods, and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wasserman, S., & Galaskiewicz, J. (1994). Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Wassermann, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wilkinson, S. (1998a). On the nature of immersion during study abroad: Some participant perspectives. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 4(Fall), 121e138. Wilkinson, S. (1998b). Study abroad from the participants' perspective: A challenge to common beliefs. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 23e39. Xu, D., Wang, X., & Wei, L. (2008). Social network analysis. In L. Wei, & M. G. Moyer (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 263e274). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. International Journal of Instruction e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ● www.e-iji.net April 2018 ● Vol.11, No.2 p-ISSN: 1694-609X pp. 585-602 Received: 08/02/2018 Revision: 28/02/2018 Accepted: 02/03/2018 The Reflection of Immigration on School Culture: A Qualitative Study A. Selcen Arslangilay Dr., Gazi University, Gazi Faculty of Education, Turkey, aslihanselcen@yahoo.com Each organization has its own system of values, beliefs and attitudes that are valid for the schools and it accompanies the concept of school culture, one of the important factors determining the success of a school. Immigration is a phenomenon that leads to great influences in every society. The purpose of this study is to determine what reflections; the Syrian asylum seekers have on school culture in a primary school, which is also used as a Temporary Training Center (TTC) in the capital city of Turkey, Ankara. 12 participants, including 5 teachers, 5 Turkish parents and 2 administrators, participated in the research, which was designed in case study design and in which qualitative data collection and analysis methods were used. The data obtained via the semi-structured interview forms prepared by the researcher were analyzed with descriptive analysis technique. According to the results of the research; after the Syrians came, there were some changes in the school culture. However, since such a massive migration is a very new experience, and school managers are sensitive to this issue and demonstrate democratic leadership features, there have been no major issues in the school. It is thought that the problems will gradually decrease, as experience about immigration increases. Keywords: school culture, migration, Syrian students, organization culture, temporary training centers INTRODUCTION There is a long history of the concept "culture", which has been started to be used to understand the behavior of human groups. The concept was first used by anthropologists to understand the difference between societies, tribes, national or ethnic groups, and later by social scientists who desired to understand the behavior patterns in business life. In official organizations, everything that affects the opinions, activities and behaviors of the members of the organization, and therefore their performance, is tried to be explained by the concept of culture (Deal & Peterson, 2009). Culture can also be thought of as a "collective agreement" that distinguishes all organizations from one another and indicates how they should be treated and what attitudes they should exhibit (Cemaloğlu, 2017). It is not so new that schools, as organizations, have a culture of their own. For the first time in 1932, the American sociologist Willard Waller suggested the Citation: Arslangilay, A. S. (2018). The Reflection of Immigration on School Culture: A Qualitative Study. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 585-602. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11240a 586 The Reflection of Immigration on School Culture: A Qualitative … following ideas that are still valid today: Schools also have their own traditions, ceremonies and rules. All these lead to school relationships and behavior (Deal & Peterson, 2009). In fact, all organizations, including schools, can perform better when they have a system of common values, traditions and rules. It is anticipated that schools, which do not have these features, will not succeed. With the common endeavor of all the participants in the school, the responsibility of learning and teaching, and all these being supported by cultural values, schools will escape the danger of being a learning factory that does not have a soul. Creating a positive and strong school culture can only be achieved with formal or informal leaders who work at school and care about culture and values (Peterson & Deal, 2009). Components forming organizational culture can be listed as; language, common values and beliefs, ceremonial events and ceremonies, symbols, stories, legends, important events and persons, and physical environments (Aslan, Özer & Bakır, 2009; Cemaloğlu, 2017; Peterson and Deal, 2009; Sezgin & Sönmez, 2017; Yavuz, 2016). The culture that schools possess forms their identities and separates them from others (Yavuz, 2016). Moreover, Cemaloğlu (2017) states that organizations are influenced by external environment as they exhibit open system characteristics and they also affect the external environment. When considered from this point of view, immigration, one of the most important phenomenon of human history has a significant influence on Turkey especially in the last few years and it is important to investigate what is its effect on school culture which exhibits open system characteristics. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2011, p. 62), regardless of purpose, duration and type, all population movements that people or groups of people carry out within a country or by moving to an international border can be considered as "migration". These include population movements, economic migrants, displaced persons for a reason such as war, and relocations for different purposes such as family reunification. Therefore, in this study, the word "migration", which refers to the displacement of Syrian asylum seekers, was used. The "immigration" phenomenon, which has always influenced humanity, has also affected our country throughout its history. When migratory movements before and after the Republic were examined, more than 2.5 million people have come to our country since 1922, apart from the foreigners who came to our country to work and study (İçişleri Bakanlığı Göç İdaresi Genel Müdürlüğü [GİGM], 2015). On April 29, 2011, 252 Syrian citizens entered our country through the Cilvegözü border gate with "open door” policy practice of our country (GİGM, 2015; Coşkun & Emin, 2016). Now approximately 3 million Syrian citizens are being hosted in our country (AFAD, 2014). Approximately 260.000 of the Syrian citizens who were admitted and given temporary protection status (Seydi, 2014) live in temporary shelter centers established by AFAD in 10 provinces, while others live outside the settlement centers in many different cities. The important point is that almost half of the 3 million Syrian citizens are from the 0-18 age group. It is therefore seen that the number of Syrians who will start school and who are in the school age is in a serious proportion (Coşkun & Emin, 2016). International Journal of Instruction, April 2018 ● Vol.11, No.2 Arslangilay 587 One of the most important problems in the countries receiving immigration is the problem of the ones coming to the country to adapt and integrate with that country. The most important thing for this is to learn the language of the hosted country. This can only be achieved through education and it is the most important factor in carrying out the education in a healthy way. While learning the language of the arrival country, it is also important not to forget the mother tongue and continue to be educated with it, which will also help people to adapt in their homeland when they return. Therefore, both the mother tongue and the language of the hosted country should be taught and learnt coordinately. In addition to the asylum seekers at the borders, the presence of a large number of Syrian citizens in large cities such as Istanbul and Ankara has led to many influences, especially in economic, cultural and social aspects. One of these effects, when the ages of the migrating community is taken into account, is the impact on the school system. The fact that the war in Syria has been going on for a long time and not a solution has been reached, indicates that the Syrian guests who are thought to reside short-term will be long term and that this community, which includes a very large young population, will not return to their countries in the short term. Therefore, our country, assuming that our guests would only be short term residents, decided to take temporary measures not to further exclude their children from education. For this purpose, first in 2012, Syrian volunteer teachers started to give Arabic education at the primary and secondary level through Syria’s own curriculum at Temporary Training Centers (TTC), to only those living in the camps who were supposed to return to their countries in a short time. With the ongoing war and the increasing migration wave, in 2013 the Ministry of National Education focused on the policy of providing education also for children outside the camps. Under the "Foreigners and International Protection Law” numbered 6458 issued in 2014, The Temporary Protection Regulation, which entered into force in October 2014, provided access to education, health and welfare services for Syrians living in camps and outside the camp. With the circular titled "Educational Services for Foreigners" dated 23 September 2014 and numbered 2014/21, which guarantees education to be provided to the Syrian children, Syrian children were granted the right for legal registration with foreign recognition documents at schools affiliated to the Ministry of National Education. Still, education services continue to be offered TTC’s inside and outside the camp and private schools opened by Syrians (MEB, 2014; ÇOÇA, 2015; Emin, 2016; Coşkun & Emin, 2016). When taken into account that organizational culture does not have a fixed structure and can also change over time, and has renewable qualities (Cemaloglu, 2017) it is thought that immigration, which is a process that affects humanity in various ways, also influences the school culture. In this aspect, this research was conducted to examine whether the presence of these students in our country make any change or influence on the cultures of the schools. When the literature is examined, studies on opinions of the teachers and administrators about the school culture (Aslan, Özer & Bakır, 2009; Güven, 2015; Paker, 2014; Sabancı, Şahin, Sönmez & Yılmaz, 2017; Şahin-Fırat, 2010), factors affecting school culture (Demirtaş & Ekmekyapar, 2012; Şahin, 2010) and metaphorical perceptions of International Journal of Instruction, April 2018 ● Vol.11, No.2 588 The Reflection of Immigration on School Culture: A Qualitative … teachers and students about school culture (Özan & Demir, 2011) are seen. Sakız (2016) conducted a survey with administrators in schools with high immigration in the Southeastern Anatolia Region, which aimed to reveal the attitudes, views and beliefs of them regarding the inclusion of immigrant students in schools. Again, Özdemir (2016) evaluated the influence of foreign students the majority of whom were Afghans attending schools in Sivas on the school climate with the opinions of teachers, administrators and Turkish and foreign students. However, there is no research that specifically examines the reflection of the Syrian immigration on school culture. From this point, the aim of this work is to see if there is any change in pre-migration and postmigration school culture in a school exposed to intense Syrian migration in the province of Ankara, with the largest number of Syrian students, serving as a TTC, from the views of administrators, teachers and parents. To this aim, detailed answers to the questions below were sought: According to the views of the administrators, teachers and parents who participated in the interview, with the attendance of the Syrian students to the school; has there been a change in the, • language spoken at school • values and beliefs • school rules • symbols • ceremonies • the specific story of the school • school's former recognition from the environment and its current recognition? • if yes, what are the changes and how are they experienced? The research questions also aimed to reveal the opinions of teachers, parents and administrators about the Syrian students and the problems they have experienced with them. METHOD The Model of the Study In the research, aimed at assessing the reflection of migration on school culture, based on the views of administrators, teacher and parents, qualitative data collection and analysis techniques were used. In this case study designed study, interview, one of the main data collection tool of qualitative research design was used. The interview provides the possibility to investigate every aspect with flexibility and gives the possibility to examine it by using probes when necessary. In addition, the interviews are among the basic data collection tools used in studies related to "organizational culture", which is also the main topic of this research (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2016). Study Group The participants of this study are administrators, teachers and Turkish parents in a primary school, in which the highest number of Syrian students are educated in Ankara International Journal of Instruction, April 2018 ● Vol.11, No.2 589 Arslangilay after the border cities, and serves as a TTC. The volunteered administrators, teachers and parents who could provide the data needed for the research, were chosen by purpose. In the study using the maximum diversity sample from the purposeful sampling methods, it was aimed to provide the maximum diversity of the persons who could be the subject of the investigated problem and therefore to be able to reveal the different dimensions of the problem in these varying situations (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2016, p. 119). Volunteered teachers who were thought to have lived the influence of migration on the school culture as they worked in pre- and post-migration periods, which could help them to compare the situation before and after the Syrians arrived, were especially interviewed. Teachers who have been working for a longer period and those who have just started their careers were especially chosen. Likewise, parents who have children who went to the school before the Syrian students came and parents whose children attend and do not attend the same class with Syrian students were purposely chosen. It was also taken into account that both administrators interviewed had worked at the school before and after the migration. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 2 administrators, 5 teachers and 5 parents who volunteered to participate in the study were done by the researcher. Data Collection Tool, Collection and Analysis of Data The data collection tool of the research consisted of semi-structured interview forms developed by the researcher. The interview forms were developed in accordance with the purpose of the research, by literature review and taking expert opinions. To determine the validity and reliability of the interview forms after the pilot study, the modified interview forms were presented again to expert opinions and finalized by the Turkish language expert in terms of language accuracy. After the necessary permissions were obtained for the interviews, the interviews were made by the researcher herself. The interviews with the teachers lasted for 10-15 minutes, with the parents about 10 minutes and with the school administrators 20-25 minutes. To prevent data loss, interviews were conducted using voice recorders by receiving permission from interviewed participants. All participants were assured that the interviews would only be used in this study and that the records could be deleted once the research is completed if they wished. Interviews conducted during the last week of the academic year at a time when students no longer came to school, was done in empty classrooms where they were away from external factors such as noise. For the analysis of the data obtained from the interviews, the voice recordings made during the interviews were transcripted and the obtained data were analyzed by descriptive analysis method. The first step of the descriptive analysis procedure was creating a framework from the research questions to summarize and interpret the data according to the themes. After eliminating the useless data and organizing the data according to the formed framework, all data were organized with the direct quotations to support them and were presented to two experts’ views. All these were represented under the findings title (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2016, p. 239-240). In the findings and interpretations section, in order to determine which quotation belongs to which participant, codes have been given International Journal of Instruction, April 2018 ● Vol.11, No.2 590 The Reflection of Immigration on School Culture: A Qualitative … to the participants. For example, T1 refers to the first teacher interviewed, P3 refers to the third parent, and A1 refers to the first administrator interviewed. FINDINGS In this section, answers given by teachers, administrators and parents to the questions directed to them were analyzed and presented in terms of research purposes. 1. Views regarding whether there is a change in the language used in the school The school, which also serves as a TTC, has bilateral education, and after the Turkish students are educated until the afternoon, the Syrian students are taking Arabic education through the Syrian curriculum. Therefore, there are Turkish students in the morning and Arab students in the afternoon at school. Only a few Syrian students in the first grade are educated with other Turkish students but next year all students would be integrated into Turkish classes until the 4th grade of elementary school, and full-time education at the school is on the agenda. Since there are very few Syrian students who attend the first class together with Turkish students in the morning, teachers working in morning time and the parents have not noticed any changes in the language spoken at the school. They explained the reason as that they come in the morning and that they are not at school at the time when the whole Syrians come to school. One of the teachers who stated that there was no change in the school’s spoken language expressed the problem that they lived in language only during breaks when they are on duty: “…When we are on duty, Syrian students do not understand what we say, for example they fight a lot. They do not understand what we say, or we don’t understand what they say, but we had no big problems. Because there are students who learn Turkish among the Syrians and out of our staff who are Syrians who are solving it easier. We also learnt ‘Yallah’ so that they enter the class. They understand it. I guess it means ‘go’, we learnt it this year…” (T4) All of the interviewed teachers stated that there was no change in the language of the school because of working in the morning and because very few Syrian students were involved in morning groups. Unlike the Turkish teachers who work only in the morning group, one of the administrators, who is in the school all day long, stated the change they observed at school and on the spoken language was as follows: “… Before, there was only a Turkish noise, now there is noise in Arabic, and this doubles, triples the intensity because; you do not understand their language… There is a decibel increase… I do not know if it is related to the spices they eat or with the genes, what we call volume is very high, they are also too many in numbers, there are 1101 students in the afternoon… For example, they do not climb the stairs without speaking… They have not yet started to speak Turkish, they still speak Arabic among themselves and you feel this very intensely… Everywhere, anytime Arabic ... You can even forget that you are in a Turkish neighborhood ... " (A2). Emphasizing that the district where the school is located has also been exposed to the Syrian migrants in a very intense way, the administrator also explained the difficulties International Journal of Instruction, April 2018 ● Vol.11, No.2 Arslangilay 591 she had experienced at the time of registration as she did not know Arabic and the Syrian parents did not know Turkish. The parents who stated that there was no change in the language spoken at school also referred to this that their children are in the morning groups and they did not encounter with the Syrian children who came to school at afternoons. In addition, they stated, even if there are Syrian students in their class, their numbers are very few and as they start to learn Turkish gradually, there is no change in the language of the school. 2. Views regarding whether there were changes in values and beliefs of the school Teachers who stated that there were some changes in the values and beliefs that existed in the school after the Syrian students came stated that they were more concerned with following the rules of cleaning, respecting the environment and respecting the belongings of others and presented examples from their experiences: “... They were opening our closets; belongings from our closets were getting lost. As a school, we made padlocks as you see, as a solution. When you left anything, it disappeared. In addition, when we arrived in the morning we found the class very dirty. Breads on the ground… leftovers … They also had a different spice that they ate, that smelled bad and we felt very uncomfortable with it. In the early days, the parents felt a discomfort. They used to come in before the morning students and disinfect the setting. Then we got used to ...” (T1). “... I always hear from the parents that they are not like us in a cultural sense... Cleanliness, etiquette, I know we are very different in these sort of things… They leave breadcrumbs, when my students arrive they are disgusted ... Pretzels, breadcrumbs, strange foods I do not know on my computer table… Everyone knows nothing is put on a teacher’s table; my students do not even come close to my table ... So I take them with a napkin, after that the kids say ‘do not take it teacher, do not throw it away, should we put it in front of the window? It is a sin to throw away food especially bread it in the trash’, this time a confusion in the minds of the children begins ...” (T5) The parents like the teachers, emphasized that they had problems with the cleaning rules especially with the Syrian students who were using the same classes in the afternoon in the school, which had two shifts. A parent, who is working as a school attendant and whose child had finished the 4th grade, explained according what she has witnessed that some of the values that Syrian children have are different from those of Turkish children: “... The first 2 years were very nice, our class had belonged to us, because now they are using it afternoon… In terms of cleanliness, the food they eat is very different, they have different cultures … The bread is being thrown into the trash into the toilet, we collect wraps from the toilets, Turkish children do not do that…” (P2) Again, the same parent expressed the change she saw in her child studying with the Syrians as follows: “… My daughter is a gentle, intelligent child; Syrians did not come to their classes. I did not see anything from her, but my son is in the same class with the Syrians… My daughter says ‘let’s play housekeeping’; he says ‘what shall we do with housekeeping!’ He is jumping on her back, hitting her… when he used to attend the nursery school he would play with notebooks pencils, with his cars… but now when he thinks about play; blood and thunder… International Journal of Instruction, April 2018 ● Vol.11, No.2 592 The Reflection of Immigration on School Culture: A Qualitative … There are 6 Syrians in his class, thank God they are submissive but my son sees the others during the break…” (P2) A parent whose first child has already graduated from this school and the second child is studying with Syrian children, who is also a class mother explained that there are changes in some values: “… At least, we are in disorder now, they do everything with noisy fighting as they have just came out of war, they do not speak Turkish, they cannot communicate with children ... They take our pens without permission, they tear our books ... We decorate the door, we cannot find that door the next day… I am a class mother, I want 15TL copying and cleaning fee, the Syrian parents say that it is forbidden by religion and don’t pay…” (P5). Another parent stated taking into account Syrian students do not wear school uniform, that: “Turkish students say ‘they do not wear it, why do I wear it’, no more respect do the Turkish students have towards school uniform (P3)”, so Turkish students had some kind of a change towards this value. The administrators stated that they had negotiated with the parents and the teachers about their dissatisfaction with the different cultural habits of the Syrians and they no more have problems like this anymore. 3. Views regarding whether there is a change in school rules In the interviews, the teachers and administrators were asked whether there was a change in the school rules after the Syrians came and whether the rules applied to the Turkish students were also applied to the Syrian students. A probe question, whether there was a relaxation in the rules and if, in which rules were added. Teachers stated that as Syrian students were generally in the afternoon group and that the few Syrian students in the morning group were generally integrated into the school so they have not experienced problems during entry and exit. However although they were no Syrian students in their class, they stated that they experienced some difficulties in applying the school rules due to the "language problem’’ during duty time. A teacher described her views in the following way: "... Sometimes we have difficulties during our duty time, because we cannot communicate with them and they have problems to understand us. We have Syrian officials, for example, they are helping us to get them in, during our duty... I mean they are a bit combative, but because they came out of a war environment… Many of them have a bad temper as they have already lost their mother or father or a close friend during the war. So they are not like our Turkish children, but more combative…” (T1). Teachers who are aware of the psychology of the children that came to our country to save their war-torn lives relate these to the difficulties children have with the rules. Again, one of the teachers mentioned a situation, which concerned the morning group but did not interfere with the school rules as follows: “…We have not experienced a problem in general. However, colleagues who work in the class with Syrian students have suffered very much because they cannot reach them in the sense of language, so in teaching. Syrian children had behavior problems; more combative, more prone to violence than our Turkish students. Otherwise, the school did not have any International Journal of Instruction, April 2018 ● Vol.11, No.2 593 Arslangilay problems in terms of general arrangement; maybe because I did not have any Syrian students, I didn’t witness such a problem. However, as I said, my colleagues who have Syrian students in their classes were telling me they had problems. For example, they did not learn, they learned too late, they made it difficult. The biggest problem was behavioral; most of them were children who do not listen to the rules because they tend to violence. In that sense, the course teacher has suffered. Otherwise, there was no disorder in the school system.”(T2) Teachers stated that if the school rules are going to be relaxed, it could be about the cultural habits of Syrians, and in terms of eating and clothing. Another teacher explained that school rules are difficult for Syrian students to apply and that their own arrangements have changed because they do not want to be assimilated: "... In general clothing or nutrition. Their eating habits are very different. However, we have a regular diet; our students bring their breakfast from home. Syrians do not fit in nutrition, this cannot be changed ...” (T4) Since the school also functions as a TTC, in the afternoons not only students but also Syrian volunteer teachers are present in the school. When asked about the school rules, Turkish teachers assessed the problems they had with the Syrian teachers in the context of the school rules and explained the problems they experienced at the beginning: “... In the first year, we were coming across with Syrian teachers. Our shift end overlapped with their shift start time. Sometimes they were early at work because they had things to do, but we have not come across since two years ... They used our glasses at that time, it is nothing nice. It was very disgusting to pick up a glass of anybody, drink water with it, just rinse and put it back. Therefore, we threw away our glasses, as they did not pay attention to cleanliness ... Or, for example, you are sitting in the teachers' room or copying in the photocopy room, they are starting to pray on their prayer rug. Now the floor is not clean, or their clothes are not clean. There is a prayer room in the school; there is a place where they can pray. Of course, s/he will surely fulfill her/his belief. There are also people among us praying, but we pray in the prayer room. Nevertheless, it is not nice to have a Syrian male teacher pray in front of me while I am photocopying there. There were such things… Toilets, for example. We did not want to use the toilet because they did not pay attention to cleanliness. Then not to make any discrimination, we used them anyway. Even if we resisted it, we got used to it…” (T2) The parents said that Syrian children did not cause any changes in the school rules, but the parent who also worked at the school emphasized the changing situation of the school at the afternoons like this: “In the mornings we do not have any trouble at school, after lunch, a very messy place. I get tired both physically and mentally…’’ (P2) Since the administrators are together with the Syrian students who are educated in the afternoons at school, they have to manage a very large number of students who do not speak Turkish and the age range of whom is very large, as opposed to the morning shift teachers and whose age gap is very big. One of the administrators stated: "... There are two types of Syrians, those who take co- education with our students, we apply the rules to them, but the second, the so-called TTC students, we cannot apply many of the rules we apply to our Turkish children there. For example, girls and boys are doing separate education; we do not have anything like that. We even separated the girls’ and boys’ schools ... They are applying the curriculum of the Syrian government ...” (A1). International Journal of Instruction, April 2018 ● Vol.11, No.2 594 The Reflection of Immigration on School Culture: A Qualitative … The other administrator explained the problems they encountered in applying the rules to the Syrian students who are educated in the afternoons: “…Our cultures are incredibly different; also we are different from them in education and everything. We apply the rules to tho...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Please let me know if there is anything needs to be changed or added. I will be also appreciated that you can let me know if there is any problem or you have not received the work. Please let me know if there is anything needs to be changed or added. I will be also appreciated that you can let me know if there is any problem or you have not received the work Good luck in your study and if you need any further help in your assignments, please let me know Can you please confirm if you have received the work? Once again, thanks for allowing me to help you R P.S: Studypool is facing high level of traffic which may delay the downloading process. MESSAGE TO STUDYPOOL NO OUTLINE IS NEEDED

Running Head: QUALITATIVE VS. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Date:

1

QUALITATIVE VS. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

2

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research
A researcher can opt to use either the qualitative or quantitative approaches. The selection
of either of these approaches must come from the initial analysis of the various factors of interest
such as the nature of the underlying facts, conclusions and also the kind of data in the context.
Failing to look at these elements may, in the end, result into mixed conclusions based on the
inappropriate pieces of evidence. Based on this no0tion, it follows that the ...


Anonymous
Really helpful material, saved me a great deal of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags