Effects of script-based communicative intervention on psychological and cultural adaptation in students abroad in second-language contexts

ABSTRACT

This study examined the effects of a script-based communicative intervention (SBCI) on psychological and cultural adaptation in students studying abroad in second language (German and Spanish) contexts. Regardless of language proficiency, students with exposure to the SBCI, relative to those without the intervention, exhibited higher well-being and more positive interactions with members of the host culture. The SBCI improves confidence in authentic interactions, thus facilitating adaptation to the second-language study abroad context.

KEYWORDS:

• Study abroad
• second language abroad contexts
• psychological adaptation
• cultural adaptation
• script-based intervention

Whether students arrive abroad with developed linguistic and cultural competencies or with no prior exposure to the language and culture, adapting to a second-language (L2) study abroad context can be stressful (Savicki 2012; Vande Berg, Paige, and Lou 2012). They can experience ‘confusion, ambiguity, and disorientation which are symptomatic of culture shock’ (Weaver 1993, 150). Additionally, when students do not understand what is being said or cannot readily formulate a desired response in the L2, they can experience foreign language anxiety (FLA) (Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope 1986). As Horwitz (2000) reminds us, ‘the potential of anxiety to interfere with learning and performance is one of the most accepted phenomena in psychology and education’ (see also MacIntyre 1995; Spielberger 1966). Most FLA studies respond to anxiety in L2 classroom contexts (Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope 1986; Horwitz 2000; for alternative views, see, e.g., Aida 1994; MacIntyre 1995). Parallel to student experiences with the natural (immersive) methods of classroom instruction, students abroad in L2 contexts are also susceptible to FLA and language-related stress (Paige 1993, 7–8; Koch and Terrell 1991). Novice language students abroad report being ‘confused and uncomfortable’ because they do not understand ‘what is happening nor what is expected of them’ (Berdan 2015). Even experienced language students can experience FLA during the transition from the controlled classroom context (practice) to authentic L-2 interaction (performance). Specific performance anxiety about understanding and producing the L2 impedes the ability to react comfortably and effectively (see also Saito and Samimy 1996; Spielberger 1966 regarding FL stress and performance).

In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of a novel script-based communicative intervention [SBCI] on reducing FLA and improving psychological and socio-cultural adaptation as defined by Searle and Ward (1990) in students abroad in L2 contexts. The SBCI, developed first by the first author for the American Institute of Musical Studies in Graz, Austria, features primarily non-linguistic communicative strategies that enable students to enter the host culture more proficiently and effectively regardless of their initial language proficiency. The intervention is not a language course and is not intended to replace traditional language and culture instruction. Instead, SBCI provides both novice and advanced students with accessible, script-based strategies that deviate markedly from both standard language instruction and common orientation curriculum for students travelling abroad. The SBCI is also brief enough (1–3 hours) to fit into most study abroad orientation modules.

Components of the intervention

Focus on what you know

This mindset is the foundation of the script-based intervention. Students in L2 abroad contexts can be overwhelmed by everything that they do not understand. Focusing on what they do not know and cannot control activates the stress response. The SBCI addresses this common phenomenon by directing conscious awareness to what is already known at both the linguistic and non-linguistic levels. At the linguistic level, SBCI brings attention to cognates: words that are already known and available for use because of their similarity to the L1. This same strategy applies to non-linguistic components of common interactions that are likewise already known. Most daily transactions follow a predictable order of events, an underlying script. The known script becomes a roadmap for navigating daily interactions even if the students have only minimal linguistic facility or are confused by local dialect or native speaker speed of speech. Attention to and enhancement of the known linguistic and non-linguistic dimensions of communication is the intervention’s essential active ingredient.

The script

The script is not the same as the ‘dialogue’ commonly found in L2 textbooks. Dialogues teach students new vocabulary and general cultural information related to daily transactions in the target culture. The script, on the other hand, relies not on a mastery of words and phrases, but instead on awareness of the predictable order of events. Instead of attending primarily to what the waiter is saying in an L2 restaurant situation, for example, students are encouraged to predict where they are in the script and to plan what minimal phrase they might use to respond in the interaction. Throughout, students maintain focus on the known, whether it be the script, cognates, or visual cues and body language.

Verbal/visual cues and confirmation

Students predict where they think they are in the script and confirm by focusing on verbal and visual cues that are familiar and known. In a German context, for example, if students anticipate that the next event in the script is the drink order, they might listen for the cognate verbal cue trinken/drink while the waiter is speaking. This is an attainable goal even for a novice. Linguistic cues will obviously vary from language to language depending on the cognate set, but they will exist in all Indo-European languages. Similarly, students can use visual cues, such as a waiter holding out a menu, to confirm or augment knowledge of the script. Although visual cues provide seemingly obvious information, students who are stressed by not understanding utterances in the L2 can experience FLA-related responses that prevent them from processing this important information. By contrast, attending to the familiar script along with verbal and visual cues prior to attending to the language increases the range of the known and thus maximises situational comfort and minimises the stress effect produced by situational uncertainty.

Script-integrated greetings and politeness

Instead of teaching the basic vocabulary in phrase-book form, SBCI rehearses exactly when and how these phrases integrate into common scripts, and when and how they are appropriate responses to non-verbal cues. Although more advanced students might respond with more linguistic sophistication when unstressed, common words and phrases of politeness are often sufficient and appropriate alternatives if the student is either novice or momentarily anxious. Developing strategies to stay within the target language even under duress increases the student’s sense of control and positively impacts the quality of the interaction with the host interlocutor.

Local knowledge

While the method and structure of the intervention are widely generalisable, specific local scripts will vary even within a target language group. This is a unique component of the SBCI. For many destinations, most basic elements of the local script will mirror the order of events in the home context, thus allowing the students to first focus on what they know. The SBCI then identifies those script components that deviate from the norms of the home culture to complete the script for the entire transaction. While orientation programmes may provide a general overview of culturally diverse aspects of local daily life, they do not, in our experience, present a granular, locally specific and sequential script for navigating these common transactions. By contrast, SBCI provides the script and highlights underlying reasons for cultural variations, thus minimising negative judgement of cultural differences and negative perceptions of host interlocutors (Hurn and Tomalin 2013).

SBCI provides students the scaffolding to predict, interpret and respond to transactions in real time. We hypothesised that students receiving the intervention might adapt better psychologically (stress/anxiety) and culturally (quality of interactions) than students without the intervention.

Study 1

Methods

Participants

Participants (N = 64; female = 78%, Mage = 25.36, SDage = 5.64) were recruited from a non-language study abroad programme – The American Institute of Musical Studies (AIMS) in Graz, Austria. Participants were invited to participate in a study on a ‘one-hour survival German course’ and were eligible if they were a first time participant in AIMS and between the ages of 18 and 64. Most participants self-reported during recruitment that they had had little to no prior experience with German. Some participants had had some exposure. Participants who self-identified as native or heritage speakers or who had studied extensively abroad in a German-speaking country were excluded. Participants were paid $5 for completing each part of the study (1 class and 2 surveys) and $15 for completing all three parts for a total of up to $30. All procedures were approved by the Wake Forest University Institutional Review Board.

Surveys

Cultural-relevant adaptation

We devised a scale to measure aspects of adapting to a new culture that would be relevant for a study abroad community. The opening prompt was to ‘Please respond to the following questions about your experience in Graz in the last few days.’ This was followed by two subscales. Language use. Participants were asked how often they tried to speak in German in five contexts (greetings, please and thank you, yes and no, numbers, when paying the bill) in their interactions with the local population on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) scale. Inter-item reliability was α = .86 for T1 and .83 for T2. Interaction with locals. To measure the participants’ experience with locals, we asked them to think about one interaction they had had in the last couple of days with a local citizen and to describe that interaction in as much detail as they could. Then, participants rated that experience on positive items (‘pleasant’, ‘comfortable’, ‘successful’) and negative items (‘unpleasant,’ ‘stressful’) using a sliding scale from 0 (not at all) to 100 (highly). Inter-item reliability for the positive subscale was α = .91 at T1 and .85 at T2 and for the negative subscale were low at α = .66 at T1 and .43 at T2 (even when calculating reliability with the Spearman-Brown coefficient which corrects for scale length; reliabilities = .66 and .45 for T1 and T2, respectively). These reliabilities were too low to compute one scale so we analysed unpleasant and stressful separately.

State emotions

To measure participants’ emotional experiences we used the modified Differential Emotions Scale (Fredrickson et al. 2003; Izard 1977) on which participants were asked to ‘think back to how you felt during the last couple of days’ and to indicate how they felt on 20 items that each consisted of three related emotion words (e.g. ‘angry, irritated, annoyed’) on a 0 (‘not at all’) to 10 (‘extremely’) scale. We formed a positive emotion subscale consisting of eight positive emotion items (e.g. ‘amused’, ‘content’), which had an inter-item reliability of α = .91 at T1 and .86 at T2, and a negative emotion subscale consisting of eight negative emotion items (e.g. ‘angry’, ‘embarrassed’), which had an inter-item reliability of α = .76 at both T1 and T2.

State anxiety

To measure state anxiety, we used the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Spielberger 1983), which asked participants to indicate how they feel ‘right now’ on 20 items including those reflecting anxiety (e.g. ‘tense’, ‘strained’) and those reflecting non-anxiety that are reverse-scored (e.g. ‘calm’, ‘secure’) on a scale from 1 (‘not at all’) to 4 (‘very much so’). The state anxiety scale had inter-item reliability of α = 91 at T1 and .89 at T2.

Script-based communication intervention

SBCI is a one-hour script-based intervention that facilitates one’s ability to navigate common transactions regardless of language proficiency. The five course elements are: focus on the known and familiar, rely on the script, confirm the script with linguistic and visual cues, use only minimal active language based on proficiency and comfort, and develop empathy through understanding historical and cultural bases for differences in local norms (see Broome 2017 re: intercultural empathy). Students were provided with a handout to use as a refresher and reference guide for locally specific elements of language and cuisine.

Procedure

Participants who were participating in the AIMS summer music institute were contacted before arriving in Graz, Austria to gauge their interest in participating in a study. On the second–third day of their arrival, all participants received a link to the T1 Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.com) survey which consisted of demographic questions (age, gender, ethnicity, race, and income), the cultural-relevant adaptation scale, state positive and negative emotion, state anxiety as well as personality questionnaires (that will not be analysed here). After completing this survey, participants were contacted and informed of the intervention condition to which they were randomly assigned. Participants in the experimental condition assembled in a room within 24 hours of completing the T1 survey (approximately 3–4 days after arrival) and were given the SBCI. Participants in the wait-list control condition were told that they would receive the course 8 days later.

After 8 days, all participants (except for 3, N = 61¹, course: n = 30; wait-list control: n = 31) completed the T2 survey consisting of the cultural-relevant adaptation scale, state positive and negative emotion and state anxiety. After completing the survey, participants in the wait-list control condition received the survival skill course.

Results

To test the effect of the course on T2 outcome measures, we conducted an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with condition (course, wait-list control) as the independent variable, the T2 version of each outcome measure as the dependent variable and the T1 version of the measure as a covariate.

Cultural-relevant adaptation

The analyses yielded a significant effect of condition on language use, F(1,58) = 4.49, p = .038, η² = .07 with participants receiving the course reporting greater language use at T2 than participants in the wait-list control group (Table 1).

Table 1. Study 1 demographic and outcome variables.

	Course (n = 30)	Control (n = 31)
Demographics
Gender (% female)	87%	71%
Age	25.40 (.83)	25.03 (1.18)
Outcome variables
Language use	4.12 (.09)*	3.84 (.09)
Interactions
Positive Emotions	82.33 (3.79)*	70.84 (3.67)
Unpleasantness	4.98 (3.17)	16.38 (3.11)*
Stress	21.74 (4.87)	33.70 (4.71)**
State Emotions
Positive	7.30 (.27)**	6.56 (.27)
Negative	1.14 (.20)	2.04 (.20)*
Anxiety

Means with * denote being significantly (p < .05) higher at T2 than the other group (while controlling for T1 responses). **: p < .1

There was also a significant effect of condition on the positivity of their interactions, F(1,57) = 4.74, p = .034, η² = .077, with participants receiving the course reporting more positive interactions with the locals at T2 than participants in the wait-list control group (Figure 1). There was a similar significant effect of condition on the unpleasantness of their interactions, F(1,56) = 6.55, p = .013, η² = .105, and a marginal effect of condition on stressfulness of interactions, F(1,57) = 3.12, p = .083, η² = .052. In both cases, participants who received the course reported less unpleasantness and stress at T2 than the participants in the wait-list control group (Table 1).

Figure 1. Effect of having the ICSS course (relative to no course: control) on the positivity of the participants’ interactions with local citizens across both studies. Study 1 – Graz, Austria, Study 2 – Santiago, Chile.

Emotional outcomes

The analyses yielded a marginally significant effect of condition on positive emotions, F(1,58) = 3.77, p = .057, η² = .061, a significant effect of condition on negative emotions, F(1,57) = 10.24, p = .002, η² = .152, and a non-significant effect of condition on state anxiety, F(1,58) = .74, p = .738, η² = .002. Participants with the course reported greater positive emotion and less negative emotion than those in the wait-list control group (Table 1).

Discussion

All students tended to increase the amount of German spoken over time, but those with the course reported even greater use of German from T1 to T2. SBCI students also reported more positive interactions with locals than students without the course. Notably, this finding was replicated in a subsequent study in Vienna (not reported here due to space constraints but is available at https://osf.io/fw4hc/). Students with the course reported more positive emotion and marginally less negative emotion generally during the period of transition into the host culture than students without the course. These emotions were generalised and not linked to particular interactions, thus implying improved overall well-being and psychological adaptation to the new culture.

Study 2

The primary goal of Study 2 was to replicate these findings in a different language – Spanish. We also conducted this study with undergraduate students and added a T3 survey which was taken approximately 8 weeks after T2 to investigate whether the effects of the course on outcomes persist. As a result of this addition of T3, we did not have a wait-list control group but rather a control group who never received the course. Lastly, to assess the possible impact of the intervention on intercultural competency development, we adapted a commonly used cultural adaptation survey – the cultural intelligence scale (CQS: Ang et al. 2007).

Methods

Participants

Participants (N = 58; female = 44, Mage = 20.22, SDage = .84) were recruited from five study abroad programmes in Santiago, Chile – Wake Forest University (n = 17), Institute for the International Education of Students (IES abroad; n = 11), George Washington University (n = 4), American University (n = 11), and Council for International Educational Exchange (CIEE, n = 15). Participants were invited to participate in a study on ‘Intercultural Survival Skills’ and were eligible if they had not lived or studied in a Spanish-speaking country before, their parents were not native speakers of Spanish and had not visited extensively in Spanish-speaking countries in the past 5 years. Participants received $25 for completing T1 and T2 surveys (and course if appropriate) and a $25 gift certificate to a local superstore for completing the T3 survey. All procedures were approved by the Wake Forest University Institutional Review Board and by the directors of each of the study abroad programmes.

Surveys

Spanish language experience

We asked participants how much Spanish they studied in middle school/high school (0: none, 1: less than a year, 2: 1–2 years, 3: 3–4 years, 4: 5 or more years), college (0: none, 1: less than a year, 2: 1–2 years, 3: 3–4 years, 4: graduate level), and total (0: none, 1: less than a year, 2: 1–2 years, 3: 3–4 years, 4: 5–6 years, 5: more than 6 years). We also asked participants if they were taking Spanish as part of their study abroad experience (yes/no) and if so at what level (beginning, intermediate, advanced grammar, literature, other disciplines). Lastly, we asked participants if they were Spanish majors, had ever attended an intensive language institute and if they had a parent who is a native speaker of Spanish (all yes/no).

Cultural-relevant adaptation

We again measured Language use, but added two more items (‘when ordering food’, ‘when asking directions’; inter-item reliability was α = .83 for T1, .84 for T2, and .85 for T3), Interaction positivity (α = .86 for T1, .90 for T2, and .91 for T3) and negativity (unpleasant and stressful were computed separately again).

Cultural intelligence

To measure cultural intelligence, we used a revised version of the CQS (Ang et al. 2007) that emphasises recent cultural knowledge and understanding (as opposed to trait levels), in which participants were asked to select ‘the answer that BEST describes AS YOU REALLY HAVE BEEN in the last several days’ on 20 items using a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. The CQS has four separate subscales, metacognitive, which reflects acquiring and understanding cultural knowledge (e.g.”I have been conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people with different cultural backgrounds”; α = .65 for T1, .79 for T2, and .80 for T3), cognitive, which reflects having knowledge of cultural norms and practices (e.g. ‘I know the rules [e.g. vocabulary, grammar] of other languages’; α = .70 for T1, .75 for T2, and .73 for T3), motivational, which reflects the motivation to function in and learn about cultural situations (e.g. ‘I have enjoyed interacting with people from different cultures’; α = .79 for T1, .80 for T2, and .87 for T3), and behavioural, which reflects the ability to behave appropriately when interacting with others from different cultures (e.g. ‘I have used pause and silence differently to suit different cross-cultural situations’; α = .67 for T1, .85 for T2, and .88 for T3).

State emotions and anxiety

We again measured positive emotion (α = .88 for T1, .83 for T2, and .90 for T3), negative emotion (α = .79 for T1, .92 for T2, and .87 for T3), and state anxiety (α = .94 for T1, .93 for T2, and .93 for T3).

Duration of time in Chile

Lastly, we asked participants how long they had been in Chile at the time of the first survey.

Script-based communication intervention

SBCI format remained basically the same as in Study 1, with the exception of adapting the content to Spanish language version with a specific focus on interactions in Santiago. The live version was also conducted with PowerPoint. Students received the Chile-focused version of the SBCI handout.

The electronic version of the course was divided into five sections, and after each section, we asked the participant a simple multiple choice question to test whether they had actually watched. Note though, we did not disqualify participants because of their responses because of the wide range of responses we received.

Procedure

Electronic version

The study abroad students from IES and GW (n = 15) were offered the electronic version of the course because they arrived in Chile well before the other groups. These participants took the T1 survey, which consisted of demographic questions, Spanish language experience questions, the cultural-relevant adaptation scale, cultural intelligence scale, state positive and negative emotion, state anxiety as well as personality questionnaires (that will not be analysed here), on average 5.9 days after being in Chile (range 3 to 12 days). Participants who had been randomly assigned to take the course viewed the electronic version of the course immediately after taking the T1 survey. Three participants were excluded from data analysis for not completing the survey and one because their parent was a native Spanish speaker leaving 11 participants in the electronic version (course: n = 4, control: n = 7).

Live version

The remaining study abroad students from WFU, CIEE and American University students (n = 43) took the T1 survey in a classroom at a local university (average days in Chile was 6.4, range was 2 to 16; one participant was excluded because they had been in Chile for 40 days). After completing the survey, participants randomly assigned to the control condition were dismissed. The participants randomly assigned to take the course remained and immediately took the live version of the SBCI. Three participants were excluded from data analysis because their parent was a native Spanish speaker leaving 39 participants (course: n = 20, control: n = 19).

Both versions

Around 8 days after T1 (average number of days in Chile was 13.4 for electronic and 14.5 for live), participants (except for 2, N = 48, course = 23, control = 25) completed the T2 survey consisting of the cultural-relevant adaptation scale, positive and negative emotion, cultural intelligence, and state anxiety. Approximately 10 weeks after T1 (average number of days in Chile was 71.4 for electronic and 66.01 for live¹), participants (except for 7, N = 41, course = 19, control = 22) completed the T3 survey, which consisted of the same questionnaires that they had completed at T2. The participants who did not do the T3 survey did not differ from those who did the T3 survey in their condition assignment, χ²(1, n = 48) = .28, p = .597, or in any of the other variables of interest (all ts < 1.72, ps > .092).

Results

Spanish background and demographics

Most students had extensive Spanish language instruction with 92% of the participants having instruction in high school and 98% having instruction in college. Participants in the course and control conditions did not significantly differ in the level of previous Spanish instruction, likelihood of being a Spanish major, likelihood of attending a Spanish language institute, or in age and gender (Table 2).

Table 2. Study 2 demographic variables.

	Course (n = 24)	Control (n = 26)
Demographics
Gender (% female)	75%	77%
Age	20.08 (.15)	20.38 (.19)
Studied Spanish (high school)	5.17 (.27)	5.08 (.31)
Studied Spanish (college)	3.17 (.12)	3.04 (.10)
Spanish Major (%)	33%	19%
Attended Language institute (%)	13%	7%

Effect of course on T2 outcome variables

As in Study 1, to test the effect of the course on T2 outcome measures, we conducted an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with condition (course, control) as the independent variable, the T2 version of each outcome measure as the dependent variable and the T1 version of the measure as a covariate.

Cultural-relevant adaptation

Consistent with Study 1, the analyses yielded a significant effect of condition on the positivity of their interactions, F(1,44) = 4.24, p = .045 with those receiving the course reporting higher interaction positivity (M = 76.94, SE = 4.67) than those in the control group (M = 63.41, SE = 4.57; Figure 1). The analyses also yielded significant effects of condition on motivational cultural intelligence, F(1,46) = 7.50, p = .009, and behavioural cultural intelligence, F(1,46) = 12.74, p < .001 (Table 3), with those receiving the course reporting higher levels of these outcomes (motivational cultural intelligence: M = 5.95, SE = .10; behavioural cultural intelligence: M = 5.76, SE = .16) than those in the control group (motivational cultural intelligence: M = 5.56, SE = .10; behavioural cultural intelligence: M = 5.00, SE = .15). There were also marginally significant effects of condition on interaction unpleasantness, F(1,44) = 3.38, p = .073, and stressfulness, F(1,44) = 3.27, p = .077.

Table 3. Study 2 outcome variables.

	Course (n = 19)		Control (n = 22)
	T2	T3	T2	T3
Outcome variables
Language use	4.68 (.06)	4.83 (.07)	4.63 (.06)	4.84 (.06)
Interactions
Positive Emotions	75.15 (5.32)	88.68 (3.32)	63.35 (5.06)	81.01 (3.15)
Unpleasantness	20.19 (6.17)	5.70 (3.34)	34.88 (5.86)	11.03 (3.17)
Stress	24.15 (6.83)	16.65 (5.53)	41.05 (6.50)	22.61 (5.26)
State Emotions
Positive	7.26 (.28)	8.04 (.30)	6.48 (.26)	6.96 (.28)
Negative	1.84 (.27)	1.33 (.31)	2.14 (.25)	2.10 (.29)
Anxiety	1.59 (.08)	1.40 (.10)	1.65 (.07)	1.70 (.09)
Cultural Intelligence
Metacognitive	5.73 (.15)	5.92 (.18)	5.41 (.14)	5.94 (.16)
Cognitive	5.02 (.13)	5.42 (.17)	4.71 (.12)	5.49 (.16)
Motivational	5.96 (.11)	6.24 (.18)	5.60 (.11)	6.05 (.17)
Behavioural	5.73 (.18)	5.83 (.22)	4.99 (.17)	5.58 (.20)

All means are estimated while controlling for T1 variables. See text for statistics information.

Emotional outcomes

The analyses yielded a significant effect of condition on positive emotions, F(1,46) = 6.97, p = .011 with those receiving the course reporting more positive emotions (M = 7.19, SE = .27) than those in the control condition (M = 6.20, SE = .26; Table 3). The analysis yielded non-significant effects of condition on negative emotions, F(1,46) = .85, p = .361, and state anxiety, F(1,46) = .287, p = .595.

Effect of course on T3 outcomes

To identify the effect of the course on T3 outcomes, we conducted a 2 (Condition: course, control) x 2 (Time: T2, T3) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with each outcome measure as the dependent variable and the T1 version of the measure as a covariate.

We first examined positivity of interactions, motivational and behavioural cultural intelligence, and positive emotions because there were significant effects of condition at T2. There was a significant main effect of condition on positive emotions, F(1,38) = 8.84, p = .005, and no significant interaction of condition and time, F(1,38) = .38, p = .544, suggesting that the effect of the course on positive emotions persisted from T2 to T3 (Table 3). There were marginally significant main effects of condition on interaction positivity, F(1,37) = 3.73, p = .061, and motivational cultural intelligence, F(1,38) = 3.32, p = .076. The interaction of condition and time was not significant for these variables (Fs < .412, ps > .525) suggesting that the effect of the course on these variables at least partly persisted from T2 to T3. There was also a significant main effect of condition on behavioural cultural intelligence, F(1,38) = 4.14, p = .049, but this effect was at least partly qualified by a marginal interaction, F(1,38) = 3.72, p = .061. This seemed to be due to there no longer being a difference in behavioural cultural intelligence at T3 between the participants who took the course and those in the control condition (Table 3).

Discussion

In this study, we showed that the SBCI has generalisable effects across languages as well as participants with quite advanced levels of prior language instruction. Students taking the course again exhibited more positive interactions than those who did not, replicating this effect from Study 1. Notably, this finding, as well as other well-being metrics, showed even bigger effects as a result of the SBCI intervention in this study, which featured students at advanced levels of language study. Although there may be many factors that account for this result, we believe one factor involves SBCI strategies helping advanced students overcome the performance pressure of interacting with native speakers. The programme structure in which more students stayed with families and hence had even more opportunity to utilise SBCI strategies may also contribute to larger effects between T1 and T2.

The effect of the course was robust to a change in language, change in instructor and a change in media (electronic vs. live versions). Although we did not have enough participants who did the electronic version to test it statistically, the preliminary data showed promise that the course produces similar positive outcomes regardless of live vs electronic delivery. Future studies may investigate the efficacy of the electronic mode across larger sample sizes in both languages.

Some of the outcomes did seem to persist (positive emotions, interaction positivity, cultural intelligence) providing preliminary evidence that the effects of the intervention may persist. Study 1 did not include a T3, so we do not know if the positive outcomes would have persisted or been amplified. Future studies will have to replicate these findings for T3 outcomes across languages and initial learner language proficiency levels.

General discussion

One interesting result of the study was that SBCI strategies seemed to promote cultural and psychological adaptation for students regardless of initial language proficiency. Script-based strategies seem to boost situational awareness, overall comprehension and learner confidence thus reducing the negative effects of FLA on psychological and cultural adaptation.

The most consistent finding across both studies was the effect of the intervention on positivity of interactions. Students with the intervention were more likely to select a positive interaction or a transaction with a positive outcome while students without the intervention were more likely to select a less positive encounter. More positive interactions were perhaps precipitated by SBCI participants’ enhanced ability to act and interact effectively and appropriately across cultures. We infer that students who reported enhanced positivity of interaction therefore demonstrated greater cultural adaptation than those students who reported more negative interactions.

In addition to the finding that the course promoted cultural adaptation as shown in positivity of interaction effects in both studies and cultural intelligence in Study 2, there were also significant effects of SBCI on psychological adaptation. In Study 1 in Graz, analyses yielded a marginally significant effect of condition on positive emotions and a significant effect of condition on negative emotions. In Study 2 in Chile, analyses revealed a significant effect of condition on positive emotions and non-significant effect on negative emotions (see Figures). Importantly, questions interrogating positive and negative emotions were not tied to specific interactions but instead to overall well-being of the participants during the transitional period of their stay abroad.

Although the study netted promising findings, there were some logistical issues. Because participating programmes had differing start-dates, orientation structures and objectives, it was difficult to achieve optimal and consistent timing of T1 across the studies. Our ideal T1 date was within 48 hours of students arriving in country, which was only realisable in Study 1.

Some programmes were reluctant to add time for the study to their established orientation programmes. Some local administrators did not have the resources to help facilitate the study. Also, most programmes preferred to mediate our initial communications with their students thus decreasing our ability to recruit participants directly. Therefore, one limitation of our studies is the relatively small sample sizes, which may have contributed to some of the effects being marginal. Although studies in real-world contexts such as this one often net small sample sizes, future investigations should continue to work closely with study abroad programmes to recruit as many student participants in these types of authentic contexts as possible.

In conclusion, despite these small hurdles, the study not only provided useful and encouraging preliminary data regarding the positive effects of SBCI on cultural and psychological adaptation for students transitioning into L2 study abroad contexts regardless of language or proficiency level, it also opened new research questions for future studies, such as: 1) whether SBCI would enhance implicit/incidental language learning (greater growth of linguistic proficiency) in learners abroad, 2) whether additional SBCI interventions during the semester abroad would promote greater or more rapid intercultural competencies skill development, and 3) whether and how SBCI could be adapted to non-Indo-European language groups.

We hope that the findings of this study will contribute to continuing efforts to prepare students to benefit from their study abroad experiences as well as to ongoing research on psychological and cultural adaptation in subjects abroad in L2 contexts. The initial study findings regarding increased positivity of interaction as a marker of intercultural adaptation and increased positive emotion as a marker of psychological adaptation provide excellent bases for the continued development of student preparedness for study-abroad across a variety of programme models.

Acknowledgments

We offer sincere thanks to the leadership of each of the programmes that helped us conduct the study with their students: Theresa Ruperd, Sarah Halley, and David DiGiacobbe from the American Institute of Musical Studies in Graz, Austria; Günter Haika, Tom Phillips, and Anne Scott Livingston of the Wake Forest Flow House; Morten Solvik and Ginte Stankeviciute, of the IES; Maria Pia Albarracin of the Universidad Diego Portales in Santiago, María del Carmen Cortés of IES, Chile; Lise-Anne Strohschänk of George Washington University; and Paul Jones of Wake Forest University in Santiago. Particular thanks goes to Jerid Francom, Department of Romance Languages, WFU, Peter Siavelis, Director of Latin American Studies at Wake Forest, and Hassan Akram, Resident Director, Wake Forest Program in Santiago for their collaboration and assistance with every aspect of the Chilean version of the study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by a Pilot Research Grant and Archie Humanities Grant from Wake Forest University awarded to the authors as well as additional financial support from the Departments of German/Russian and Psychology.

Notes on contributors

Rebecca S. Thomas

Rebecca S. Thomas is Professor of German at Wake Forest University. She researches alternative communicative strategies for students abroad in second-language contexts. She also publishes on contemporary Austrian literature and culture.

Christian E. Waugh

Christian E. Waugh is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Wake Forest University. He researches stress and emotion regulation with a particular emphasis on how people use positive emotions to cope with stress. He investigates these topics using survey methods, experiments, and neuroimaging.

Notes

1. People receiving the ‘electronic version’ group received T1 and T2 surveys around a week earlier than the ‘live version’ group; however, a mix-up led to them receiving the T3 survey around the same time as the live group.