A Qualitative Study of Out-Of-Class Learning Opportunities Among First Year

A Qualitative Study of Out-of-class Learning Opportunities among First Year

ESL Freshmen in a College Town

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of

Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Yin Lam Lee, B.A., M.A.

Graduate Program in Education and Human Ecology

The Ohio State University

2012

Dissertation Committee:

Professor David Bloome, Co-advisor

Professor Alan Hirvela, Co-advisor

Professor Caroline Clark

Copyrighted by

Yin Lam Lee

2012

Abstract

This dissertation describes a five-month qualitative study of how five ESL learners and their twenty two native speaking peers socially constructed learning opportunities in out-

of-class settings in a college town in the Midwest in the 2009/10 academic year The study was driven by a gap in the literature about college level ESL learners’ social interaction and its relationship to their ESL learning. The core participants were five ESL freshmen at the college level: two from China, two from Japan, and one from Honduras.

The non-core participants were twenty-two native speaking peers of the core participants,

ranging from freshman to senior level at the college. The theoretical framework was built

upon interactional sociolinguistics. The research design was based on ethnographic

inquiry. The corpus of data included fieldnotes, interviews, diaries written by the

participants, artifacts collected from the participants, and participant observations, which

consisted of both audio and video recordings of the participants’ social interactions apart

from class time. Microethnographic discourse analysis was used to analyze the

transcriptions of participant observation, which formed the major part of the data corpus.

The empirical findings of this study serve as a rich data corpus about the kinds and nature

of out-of-class social events engaged by college level ESL learners. A structural pattern

emerged from the discourse analysis of the participant observations, i.e., initiation,

ii negotiation, uptake/acknowledgement (INU/A). In addition, a new framework capturing out-of-class learning opportunities was also generated through grounded theorizing. The new framework contributes to the fields of TESOL and literacy education both theoretically and empirically. On the theoretical level, it highlights that out-of-class learning is a dialogic, dialectic, and discursive process. On the empirical level, it serves as a rich data corpus documenting the out-of-class social interactions among ESL learners from January 2009 to May 2010.

iii

Dedicated to God and my parents, Cheungwa Li, and Yim Lau

Acknowledgements

My interest in TESOL and literacy education is closely related to my family history and the diasporas that happened in Southeast Asia in the late 1970s, when my family moved from mainland China to Hong Kong. My parents were both college- educated professionals in China, but their qualifications were not honored by the Hong

Kong society, one of the major reasons being the English education that was missing in the mainland higher education system.

Because of the relocation to Hong Kong, we suddenly turned into a disenfranchised new immigrant family, and I felt embarrassed that my parents were not proficient in Cantonese (a local vernacular) and English (an official language required in school and the workplace due to the colonization policy of the United Kingdom). Before

1997, when the sovereignty of Hong Kong was returned to China, being proficient in

English was important for survival purposes. As such, my parents took nighttime ESL classes in order to climb up the social and economic ladders. I witnessed how they struggled with ESL classes and I felt their pain, so I gradually became interested in

TESOL and literacy education. The calling of my life is to explore new ways to help new immigrants learn English.

My doctoral studies journey began in 2006 when I decided to take the challenge and move to Columbus, Ohio, a city that is nothing like Hong Kong or any of the other

v metropolitan cities in which I ever lived. But then I realized that it was the people around me who shaped and reshaped me as an educational researcher in the past five years.

First of all, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my two advisors, Dr.

David Bloome and Dr. Alan Hirvela. Without their guidance in the past years, I would never be able to accomplish my goal as an educational researcher. Dr. Bloome and Dr.

Hirvela inspired me in many ways during my dissertation writing stage, and I am indebted to them for their generous guidance and support. I am also indebted to Dr.

Clark, Dr. Samimy, Dr. Haneda, Dr. Miller, Dr. Lather, Dr. Walker, Dr. Noda, and Dr.

Li, who shared with me their expertise and experience in language education. Also, I would like to extend my gratitude to my friends in Columbus, OH: Ada & Louis So,

Michael Johnson, Shiau Jing Guo, Huili Hong, Heather Hill, Ruilan Zhao, Sanghee Ryu,

Hanning Chen, Nan Meng, and Xiaohuan Tan. Thank you very much for sharing your lives with me!

Vita January 19, 1979…………………………………………………………….Born in China

2002…..B.A. (Double-major in Linguistics & Translation) The University of Hong Kong

2004………...M.A. (Computer-aided Translation) The Chinese University of Hong Kong

2006….……..M.A. (Applied English Linguistics) The Chinese University of Hong Kong

2007-2009…....Research Associate, Foreign Language Center, The Ohio State University

2011-2012………………………………...Graduate Associate, The Ohio State University

2012…...Ph.D. (Foreign, Second, and Multilingual Education) The Ohio State University

Publications

Lee, Y.L. (2010). The application of Bakhtinian theories on second language reading comprehension: A qualitative case study. Reading Matrix, 10(2), 222-242.

Lee, Y.L. (2011). Conceptualizing the dialogic discourse between adult immigrants and their learning resources in an ESL class. Ohio TESOL Journal, 4(1), 16-18.

Lee, Y.L. (2011). Students’ and teachers’ appropriation of faith and biblical teaching: A reflection. TESOL CELT Caucus Newsletter, 3(2).

Lee, Y.L. (2012). Reappropriating my professional identity as a nonnative speaking ESL instructor in a college town. TESOL NNEST Caucus Newsletter, February.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Education and Human Ecology

Area of Emphasis: Foreign, Second, and Multilingual Language Education

Cognate Area: Discourse Analysis, Qualitative Research

vii

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………...... ii

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………..v

Vita, Publications, and Fields of Study….……………………………………………..vii

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………xiii

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………...xv

List of Photographs……………………………………………………………………..xvi

List of Illustrations……………………………………………………………………...xvii

Chapter One: Introduction

Introduction……………………………………………………..…………...…...1

Statement of the Research Problem………………………………………...... 3

Significance of the Study………………………………………………………...7

Setting and Participants of the Study……………………………………………10

Definitions of Key Terms………………………………………………….….....10

Accommodation, Assimilation, & Acculturation……………………...... 10

Acquisition versus Learning…………………...………………………...12

Appropriation……………...……………………………………………..13

College Town……………………….……………………………………14

Discourse………….…………………………………………...…………14

ESL Freshmen…………………………….………………………...……14

viii Interaction…………………………………………………………...…..15

Learning Opportunities………………………………………...………..15

Literacy Events and Practices…………………...…………………...….16

Native Speaking Peers……………………..…………………………....16

Out-of-class Learning………………………………………………...…16

Qualitative Study………………………………………………...…...…17

Second Language Acquisition……………………………………...... …18

Speech Community……………………………………………...... ……18

Language Socialization…………………………..…………………...…19

Socially Competent Participants………………………...………...…….19

Research Bias and Assumptions……………………………………………...…20

Outline of the Dissertation…………………………………………………..…..20

Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

Introduction………………………………………………………………...……21

Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………….…21

The Evolution of the Construct of Learning Opportunities……………………..23

Social Aspects of Learning in Second Language Acquisition…………………..27

Literature Review of Out-of-class Learning among ESL Learners……………...32

Chapter Three: Methodology

Contextual Information………………………………………………………….38

Participants………………………………………………………………38

ix Core Group: Five first year ESL students ………………………38

Noncore Group: 22 conversational partners of ESL students…...39

Research Site…………………………………………………………….40

My Role as a Researcher………………………………………...……....46

Qualitative Inquiry…………………………………………………...………….47

Research Design………………………………………………………………...50

Research Timeline………………………………………………………...……..54

Discussions on Data Collection Methods……………………………………….55

Fieldnotes……………………………………………………………….55

Diaries…………………………………………………………………..55

Collection of artifacts from the core participants ……………………...56

One-on-one structured interviews with the core participants…………..56

One-on-one structured interviews with noncore participants……….….57

Participant observation………………………………………………....57

Data Analysis………………………………………………………………..….63

Using a Microethnographic Approach to Analyze the Video Recordings from

Participant Observations…………………………………………………….…67

Other Means of Data Analyses………………………………………………...70

Chapter Four: Findings

Grand Tour……………………………………………………………..74

Participation in Tutorial Sessions………………………….…...76

x On-campus Employments……………………………………....81

Lunch and Dinner Gatherings…………………………….…….86

Social Gatherings at the Dormitories…………………….……..91

Social Events Organized by the Dormitories, International Office,

and College……………………………………………………..95

Domain Analysis……………………………………………………….100

Domain of Actors……………………………………………....102

Domain of Places………………………………………………110

Domain of Activities…………………………………………...118

In-depth Analysis………………………………………………………132

Moments of Language Learning……………………………….133

Excerpt A……………………………………………....133

Excerpt B……………………………………………….146

Excerpt C……………………………………………….153

Recontextualization of Cultural Knowledge…………...………159

Excerpt A……………………………………………….159

Excerpt B…………………………………………...…..175

Excerpt C…………………………………………...…..185

Negotiation of Social Identity…………………………………..196

Excerpt A……………………………………………….197

Excerpt B……………………………………………….203

Excerpt C……………………………………………….215 xi

Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings & Conclusion

Discussion of RQ1: What kinds of out-of-class learning opportunities do

first year ESL students have in the research setting?...... 225

Discussion of RQ2: How are such learning opportunities initiated,

negotiated, and taken up?...... 234

Discussion of RQ3: What are the conditions for learning opportunities to

happen?...... 243

Significant Findings of the Study…………………………………...... 257

Assertion One…………………………………………………..258

Assertion Two………………………………………………….260

Assertion Three………………………………………………...263

Empirical Contributions to the Fields…………………………………..269

Theoretical Contributions to the Fields………………………….……...273

Limitations……………………………………………………………...280

Closing Comments………………………………………….…………..282

Appendix A: Courses Taken by Core Participants…………………………….……….284

Appendix B: Interview Questions for Core and Non-core Participants…….………….285

References……………………………………………………………………………...287

xii

List of Tables

Table 1: Core Participants…………………………………………………….39

Table 2: Six Non-core Participants…………………………………………...40

Table 3: Ethnic Background of the Student Body of the College…………….41

Table 4: Descriptions of the Dormitories……………………………………..42

Table 5: ESL Program of the College………………………………………...44

Table 6: Research Timeline…………………………………………………..54

Table 7: Descriptions of Data Collection Methods…………………………..59

Table 8: Descriptions of Data Collected from Core Participants…………….60

Table 9: Correspondence between the Research Questions, Data Corpus, and Data

Analysis………………………………………………………………62

Table 10: Overview of the Video Taping of Out-of-Class Learning

Opportunities………………………………………………………….63

Table 11: Four Types of Out-of-class Interactive Events…………………….66

Table 12: Microethnographic Discourse Analysis……………………………68

Table 13: Frequency and Duration of Out-of-class Social Events of the Core

Participants……………………………………………………………74

Table 14: Tutorial Sessions…………………………………………………...76

xiii Table 15: On-campus Employment…………………………………………...82

Table 16: Lunch and Dinner Gatherings……………………………………...86

Table 17: Social Gatherings at the Dormitories ……………………………...91

Table 18: Social Events Organized by the Dormitories, International Office, and

College………………………………………………………………………..95

Table 19: The Nature of Labeled Learning Opportunities …………………..129

Table 20: Grouping of the Labeled Learning Opportunities…………………131

Table 21: Excerpt A of Moments of Language Learning…………………….134

Table 22: Excerpt B of Moments of Language Learning…………………….147

Table 23: Excerpt C of Moments of Language Learning…………………….154

Table 24: Excerpt A of Recontextualization of Cultural Knowledge………...161

Table 25: Excerpt B of Recontextualization of Cultural Knowledge………...176

Table 26: Excerpt C of Recontextualization of Cultural Knowledge………...186

Table 27: Excerpt A of Negotiation of Social Identity……………………….197

Table 28: Excerpt B of Negotiation of Social Identity……………………….204

Table 29: Excerpt C of Negotiation of Social Identity……………………….215

Table 30: Transcription Key……….………………….……………………...223

Table 31: Kinds of Out-of-class Learning Opportunities Engaged by the Core

Participants……………………………………………………………………225

Table 32: INU/A Pattern………………….………………….……………….235

Table 33: Learners’ Learning Profiles...………………………………………244

xiv

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Opportunity Framework………………….……………………..25

Figure 2: Spradley’s (1979) Hourglass Design………………….……………..52

Figure 3: Spradley’s (1980) Representation of Domains……………………..100

Figure 4: Domain of Actors………………….………………………………..102

Figure 5: Domain of Places………………….………………………………...110

Figure 6: Joe’s artworks………………….…………………………………....160

Figure 7: Joe’s Breakthrough……………………………………………….....204

List of Photographs

Photograph 1: Pigeon Envelopes at a Restroom of F Hall…………………….248

Photograph 2: Bible Verse (Psalm 133:1) at a Corridor of F Hall…………….249

Photograph 3: Bible Verse (Galatians 5:22-23) at a Corridor of F Hall………250

xvi

List of Illustrations

Illustration 1: Relationship between the Learner, Other Interlocutors, and the

Immediate Learning Environment………………….………………….259

Illustration 2: INU/A Pattern………………….………………….……………260 Illustration 3: Framework of Out-of-class Learning Opportunities among College Level ESL learners……………………………………………………..274

xvii Chapter One: Introduction

This is a qualitative study of how first year international students learned English

as a second language (ESL1) in a small, four-year Christian college in the Midwest of the

United States. The aim was to explore the scope and nature of available out-of-class

learning opportunities, and how these learning opportunities were taken up by the

students.

The theoretical framework is built upon Gumperz’s interactional sociolinguistics

first published in 1982, which focuses on “speech exchanges between two or more actors,

with the aim to show how individuals participate in such exchanges use talk to achieve

their communicative goals in real life situations” (Gumperz, 1999, p. 454). Interactional

sociolinguistics aims at showing how people act and react to each other and thus is a

useful framework for conceptualizing the co-construction of learning opportunities among interlocutors.

In addition, the theoretical framework includes discussions of the construct of learning opportunities, drawn from selected studies conducted by interactional sociologists. These studies include Baquedano-Lopez, Solis, & Kattan, (2005); Lave,

(1996); and Yeager, Florian, & Green, (1998), among others. A detailed discussion of the construct of learning opportunities is provided in the next chapter.

1 In this study, English as a second language (ESL) is operationalized as the English language being an additional language after the native language has been learned (c.f. Gass & Selinker, 2001, p. 5). From a social perspective, ESL is viewed as the English language used within the Inner and Outer Circles mentioned in Kachru (1992), “the Inner Circle refers to the traditional cultural and linguistic bases of English. The Outer Circle represents the institutionalized non-native varieties (ESL) in the regions that have passed through extended periods of colonization…The Expanding Circle includes the regions where the performance varieties of the language are used essentially in EFL contexts” (p. 356-357). 1

The data collection and analysis of this study can be characterized as qualitative inquiry. The corpus of data includes fieldnotes, interviews, diaries written by the participants, artifacts collected from the participants, and participant observations, which include audio and video recordings of the participants’ social interactions apart from class time. Microethnographic discourse analysis drawn from Bloome et al. (2005) was used to analyze the transcriptions of the participant observations, which form the major part of the data corpus. During data analysis, themes and patterns of behavior were identified, and other data sources were used to corroborate claims made. Multiple levels of triangulation were conducted (at the data collection and analysis stages) to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.

With the analysis of the findings, I answer questions about the kinds of outside classroom learning opportunities available to the ESL students, how these opportunities were negotiated and taken up by the ESL students, and the conditions which facilitated the occurrence of these outside-of-classroom learning opportunities.

Statement of the Research Problem

According to the Open Doors2 published by the Institute of International

Education (IIE), the number of enrolled international students at colleges and universities

in the U.S. increased to a record high of 723,277 in 2010/11.

Among the 723,277, 205,869 were undergraduate degree seeking students.

Among these undergraduate students, 52,111 were freshmen, with an 8.1% increment.

With reference to the IIE statistics, there has been a gradual increase in the number of

international students coming to the U.S. for the pursuit of higher education. Because of

the continual influx of international students to U.S. colleges and universities,

international students have become increasingly important research subjects in TESOL

and literacy studies.

As far as second language learning is concerned, there is a gap in the research

literature regarding how college level ESL students take up learning opportunities in out-

of-class contexts. Based upon a literature review using the keywords, “out-of-

class/school,” “ outside class/school,” “ social,” “ college,” and “ESL,” in research

databases such as JSTOR, ERIC, and INGENTA, fewer than twenty relevant articles

were found, with only a handful (five) of them related to out-of-class studies among ESL

students at or above the college level3 (Ernst, 1994; Genesee et al., 2005; Kamhi-Stein,

2003; Valdes, 1998; Yi, 2005).

2A survey report about enrollment in U.S. institutions published by the Institute of International Education (IIE). 3 In addition, I also used a combination of these keywords in OSCAR (search engine of the libraries of The Ohio State University), OhioLink, WorldCat, and well recognized journals in the fields of TESOL, such as 3

In addition, these five studies focused on reading and writing practices rather than

social interactions in naturalistic settings and how such interactions may lead to further

learning. Thus, there is a gap in the research literature regarding how college level ESL

students take up learning opportunities in social settings apart from class time.

The lack of studies in out-of-class settings is partly due to the documented uncertainty about the correlation between out-of-class social interactions and ESL learning. Krashen (1981) addressed such uncertainty and discussed two relevant hypotheses in SLA:

i) The informal environment can be efficiently utilized by the adult second

language learner, and

ii) Formal study, or its essential characteristics, is significantly more efficient

than informal exposure in increasing second language proficiency in

adults. (p. 41)

He compared various studies and found that the situation was inconclusive as to whether hypothesis (i) or (ii) was true. A lack of qualitative studies may have made it impossible to corroborate hypothesis (i). The studies that Krashen reviewed—Carrell

(1967), Mason (1971), and Upshur (1968)—all utilized pre-test/post-test experiments to compare the learners who took classes and who didn’t and how such differences contributed to their English proficiency. The exit test was the only means used to measure learning, which was one-sided and could not reflect the multidimensionality of second language learning. As such, knowledge was defined as a product, which could be

TESOL Quarterly, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Modern Language Journal, English for Academic Purposes, and English for Specific Purposes, in order to find the relevant studies in the field. 4

easily assessed by a true or false, or multiple-choice test. This study is situated in an alternative set of ontological and epistemological assumptions.

Learning, in a broad sense, is happening 24 hours a day. For instance, learners are building their vocabulary knowledge when hanging out with friends, by asking questions and negotiating word meanings during the process. Social interactions do not stop when classes end.

In the area of SLA, Krashen’s Input Hypothesis ( i+1) and Schmidt’s notion of incidental learning are the most relevant theories regarding out-of-class learning of ESL.

Both of them stress the importance of scaffolding and awareness. However, Krashen’s

Input Hypothesis and Schmidt’s incidental learning4 are mostly applied in vocabulary

acquisition and reading (Ellis, 1994; Krashen, 1989; Laufer, 1989; Paribakht & Wesche,

1999). In addition, Krashen and Schmidt viewed English as discrete skill sets to be

acquired via exposure to significant amounts of what Krashen called “comprehensible

input.” The common expectation is that ESL students are mainly exposed to “proper”

language in class. However, questions have been raised about the value of learning in

naturalistic occurrences and how ESL learners take up learning opportunities without

formal instruction in proper English. This study provides possible answers to these

questions and contributes to the field by expanding the theoretical base of ESL learning at

the college level.

English, being the target language as well as the means of learning, belonged to

the Anglo Saxons solely. In any context where English is taught and learnt as a second

language, it is highly valued and is seen as a significant asset among teachers and

4 According to Schmidt (1990), incidental learning means learning without intention. 5

students. In the recent years, English has been reframed to foreground the

communications between non-native speakers (Canagarajah, 2007; Jenkins, 2007; Kachru

& Nelson, 2006; McKay, 2002) and has been named a lingua franca (Dewey, 2007) rather than a native language. How does such a change affect the “learning-in-actions”

(Firth & Wagner, 2007) among non-native speakers of English? Other questions addressed in the field include, how do ESL students negotiate their ownership of English in naturalistic settings? Also, the uncomfortable relationship between cognitivists and sociocultural theorists the field of second language acquisition (SLA),which is well documented (Firth & Wagner, 2007; Lafford, 2007; Swain & Deters, 2007), raises questions about the best ways to research SLA. Recently, many researchers have agreed upon the expansion of SLA studies to include qualitative and ethnographic approaches

(Lafford, 2007). Despite their efforts, others remain skeptical about qualitative studies, which are perceived by some scholars as “soft science.” The skepticism is based on the assumption that language learning mainly occurs in the brain (Wigglesworth, 2005), and thus only cognitively based experiments can prove whether learning occurred.

Also, in places like the United States, ESL students are often labeled as deficient learners because of limited English proficiency or “negative identities” (Bashir-Ali, 2006;

Clark, 2003; Hsieh, 2005; Kubota, 2001). “Many are targeted as victims of ridicule because of their ‘funny accents,’ their low level of English proficiency, and their dress”

(Bashir-Ali, 2006). These phenomena can be explained by (i) students being required to take ESL classes, which are regarded as sub-standard because native speaking students are not required to take those for the fulfillment of their degrees, (ii) ESL students are

newcomers to the United States and therefore do not have the cultural knowledge which

is shared by their native speaking counterparts, and (iii) ESL students’ skin-colors,

accents, non-verbal communication habits, and ways of dressing constantly remind their

native speaking counterparts that they are foreigners and outsiders. Meanwhile, what is

happening among the ESL students and their native speaking counterparts in out-of-class

contexts? How do their social interactions affect the negotiation and uptake of learning

opportunities? These questions were explored in this study. More specifically, the study addressed the following research questions:

1) What kinds of out-of-class learning opportunities did the first year ESL students

have in the research setting?

2) How were such learning opportunities initiated, negotiated, and taken up by the

ESL students?

3) What were the conditions which enabled learning opportunities to occur?

Significance of the Study

On a methodological level, this study contributes to the field of TESOL by

providing a systematic logic of inquiry for the investigation of the out-of-class learning opportunities among ESL freshmen. One of the reasons why out-of-class learning is under-researched may be a lack of systematic inquiry, or the difficulty to carry out such an inquiry. How can out-of-class social interactions be observed, recorded, and represented in a systematic way? My study contributes to the field by bringing in qualitative inquiry, ethnographic methods, and microethnographic discourse analysis, so

as to expand the current methods of research in TESOL.

On the empirical level, this study contributes to the field of TESOL and literacy

education by showing the significant role out-of-class social interactions play in the

learning processes among ESL students. In the area of SLA, the effect of out-of-class

learning has long been overlooked and under-valued by researchers and educators. The

general assumption is that international students in the USA only speak and use English

in a classroom setting. Once they step out of the classroom, they tend to go back to their

ethnic groups and communicate in their native languages. However, this assumption

might be an overgeneralization. For the ESL students who reside in rural areas, or for

those who intentionally focused on speaking with native speakers after class, the out-of-

class learning could be significantly different from those who only interact only or

primarily within their ethnic groups. What happens when ESL students are provided with

more focus on social interactions with their native speaking peers? What are the

conditions which facilitate such interactions? How do such interactions relate to their

learning in out-of-class situations? The findings of this study are useful for educators and

researchers to reconsider what is learning and what it means to be ESL learners in the

U.S. and other Anglophone countries, such as Australia, Canada, and the United

Kingdom.

As an ESL instructor to the core participants, my study can also be characterized

as an action research study bridging in-class and out-of-class learning. Since I taught most of the ESL core courses to the participants, I understood what was taught in class and what was not. Therefore, when the ESL students made references to something

learned in class in a social gathering, I was able to connect that to their knowledge

learned in class. When they learned something new in out-of-class contexts and used it in class, I would be able to attribute that to their out-of-class learning. As such, my study is positioned to answer important questions such as how classroom instruction and out-of- class learning were related to each other, which is one of the areas where the research community does not yet have many studies.

The nature of out-of-class learning is different from in-class learning. It is discursive across settings, unpredictable, and uncontrolled. Students could be learning a cultural practice such as what a dance party is like in an American college, which would not be included in formal instruction or exit examinations, and yet this piece of information could be more important than going to class (at least according to the students I interviewed). For instance, the expression, “You don’t know Jack,” seems like nonsense and is useless in academic English. However, if a twenty-year old male student does not know how to use it with native speaking peers, the psychological dissonance that results could have a negative impact on the student’s motivation to learn. Another example would be learning when to interject when talking to native speakers. In an ESL class, the ESL students would only learn how to interact with each other. However, in out-of-class situations, they have to overcome the fear of speaking to interject and raise questions when surrounded by a group of native speakers.

While the students in this study spent 4 hours per day working on English in class, they could have been spending up to 12 hours doing so out-of-class. The learning that occurred during the 12 hours could be significant in many ways, e.g., helping them

become a competent participant in the college, assisting an ESL student to consolidate

expressions that he or she studied before, and giving an ESL student chances to learn

colloquial English. Therefore, out-of-class learning deserves attention in the TESOL research community. By investigating how ESL students socially construct learning opportunities with their native speaking counterparts in out-of-class situations, researchers and educators would have a better understanding of such social interactions among ESL students, and more informed decisions could be made in curriculum design.

Setting and Participants of the Study

The research site was a four-year private Christian college located in a rural area in the Midwest of the United States. Over 90% of the residents in the college town were

White.5 Therefore the research site created a “sink-or-swim” environment for the ESL students, as they had fewer opportunities to talk in their native languages when compared to international students in urban locations, with many peers from the same places of origin to speak with. The participants of the study included two groups: Core (Five ESL freshmen) and Noncore (Twenty two conversational partners of the ESL students).

Definitions of Key Terms

Accommodation, Assimilation, & Acculturation

5 According to the Census form of 2010, the categories of race include White, Black, African American, or Negro, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian Indian, Japanese, Native Hawaiian, Chinese, Korean, Guamanian or Chamorro, Filipino, Vietnamese, Samoan, Other Asian (Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on), and other Pacific Islander (Fijian, Tongan, and so on). http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/interactive-form.php

Many educational researchers have investigated the human learning experience and came up with constructs such as accommodation, assimilation, and acculturation for modeling such experiences.

Accommodation and assimilation were first discussed by Piaget, who was a social cognitivist studying children’s acquisition of new knowledge. Piaget postulated that young children internalize new objects into an originally existing schema, which is an assimilation process. On the other hand, the children modify an existing schema due to a realization of the realities of the object, which is an accommodation process (Atherton,

2011). Later on, social psychologists and sociologists developed a clearer distinction between accommodation and assimilation. The former relates to how learners retain both the original knowledge and new knowledge without integrating them, whereas the latter relates to how they integrate new knowledge into the old. For example, an ESL learner accommodates identities as both a Chinese and an American, but when he or she assimilates into the target culture, some of his or her original identity may be modified and diminished. In the context of this study, accommodation is defined as the learner’s choice of retaining the knowledge of both the home and target cultures, so that the two sets of cultural knowledge co-exist and there is no interference between them, while assimilation is defined as the integration of knowledge of the target culture into the home culture, with certain particularities of the home culture being changed or replaced.

Regarding acculturation, an important acculturation model in terms of second language learning was created by Schumann in 1986. Schumann’s (1986) acculturation model stems from social psychology of acculturation and is defined as “the social and

11 psychological integration of the learner with the target language group” (p. 379). In his model, Schumann highlighted nine factors: social, affective, personality, cognitive, biological, aptitude, personal, input, and instructional. He explained how each factor has a role to play when the learner integrates knowledge about the target group psychologically. This is the notion of acculturation adopted for the purposes of this study.

In Chapter Five, the notion of acculturation is readdressed with the discussion of the study’s findings.

Acquisition versus Learning

In the area of SLA, acquisition has always been a contested term of reference.

Krashen (1982) made a distinction between acquisition and learning by arguing that acquisition involves subconsciously picking up the target form, whereas learning is consciously knowing rules about the language (paraphrased, p.10). As Krashen saw it, learning can never become acquisition; instead, its role is to serve as a ‘monitor’ during acquisition. However, it is almost impossible to draw a clear line between conscious and subconscious internalization of information. Therefore, there have been numerous counterarguments to Krashen’s definition (as cited in Gass & Selinker, 2001, p. 2003).

Still, Krashen’s distinction is considered useful in demarcating differences between acquisition and learning.Since the word acquisition has strong sociohistorical ties to cognitivism and input-output theory, and I situate my study within interactional sociolinguistics, I use the word “learning” to include all processes when internalization of new information occurs.

Many educational researchers believe that learning cannot be conceptualized as

mere brain activities. One of the best ways to assess learning is by observing the learner’s

behavior. If a student learns an idiom and then is able to use the idiom successfully in

conversation, then learning has occurred. From the interactional sociolinguistic

perspective, it is not necessary to determine whether the internalization of an idiom is

conscious or subconscious; rather, it is critical to find out what happened when learning

occurred in naturalistic settings. Therefore, in this study, learning is defined as a social

appropriation process. When a student learns a new word or cultural rule by engaging in

conversations with other people or texts, learning occurs when he or she acknowledges

uptake.

Appropriation

Bakhtin (1981) believed that “we communicate by crossing barriers.” (p. 424). In his book, Dialogic Imagination, appropriation is a social and cultural process when an individual embraces the social meaning as well as the ideological references of a word or an idea. For example, when a Christian recites the Lord’s Prayer, he or she appropriates the meaning and its ideology to indicate his closeness to the world view of the text, whereas a non-Christian keeps a distance from appropriating the meaning and ideology of the text (paraphrased, Bakhtin, 1981, p. 424). In the learning sense, a learner appropriates new information by embracing the meaning, which is socially referenced, and the ideology behind it. In this study the term appropriation is used in the sense of a learner’s incorporation of new cultural and ideological practices into his or her own cultural and ideological practices.

College Town

College town refers to the geographical location of the four-year Christian college

in the Midwest, which is the research site of the study. The college was located in a small

town setting where the college provides for the most economic and scholastic

opportunities to the townspeople residing in the community. As the participants did not

only stay on-campus, but took part in many community-based activities, such as festive events in various off-campus locations, the term “college town” was chosen over

“college” in the title of the dissertation. The geographical area comprising the college town was about several square miles.

Discourse

Gee (1999a) posited discourses as the utterances made by interlocutors “among ways of using language, of thinking, valuing, acting, and interacting, in the right places and at the right times with the right objects” (p. 17). Gee (1999a) defined Discourse with a capital “D” for the aforementioned ways of being in the world, and he defined discourse with a small “d” as the stretches or pieces of language (paraphrased, p. 17). This was how discourse was treated in this study.

ESL Freshmen

In this study, English as a second language (ESL) was operationalized as the

English language being an additional language after the native language has been learned

(c.f. Gass & Selinker, 2001, p. 5). In the area of TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of

Other Languages), ESL is viewed as the English language used within the Inner and

Outer Circles mentioned in Kachru (1992): “the Inner Circle refers to the traditional

cultural and linguistic bases of English. The Outer Circle represents the institutionalized

non-native varieties (ESL) in the regions that have passed through extended periods of

colonization…The Expanding Circle includes the regions where the performance

varieties of the language are used essentially in EFL contexts” (p. 356-357).

ESL freshmen were first year college level international students who were identified by the school administration as requiring ESL instruction while pursuing an undergraduate degree.

Interaction

This study drew heavily from interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz, 1982).

Gumperz defines interaction as the everyday, natural exchanges between members of a speech community. In this study, interaction is defined as the communicative exchanges between interlocutors when they “act and react to each other.” (Bloome et al., 2005, p. 7)

As such, interaction is inherently social and dialogic.

Learning Opportunities

Learning processes have been conceptualized as “emergent, improvisational, recursive” (Baquedano-Lopez, Solis, & Kattan, 2005) actions. During interaction, these processes overlap with chances provided for “students to take up the actions and language” (Yeager, Florian, & Green, 1998, p. 9). In this study, learning opportunities are defined as social interactional events when the learners co-construct new knowledge by

“acting and reacting to each other” (Bloome et al., 2005, p. 6).

Literacy Events & Practices

In this study, a literacy event is defined as “a bounded series of actions and

reactions that people make in response to each other at the level of face-to-face

interaction.” (Bloome et al., 2005, p. 6) A literacy practice, in its original definition, is

defined as “the broader cultural conception of particular ways of thinking about and

doing reading and writing in cultural contexts.” (Street, 2003, p.2) As such, a literacy

practice encompasses a range of socially appropriate behaviors which occur in the local

context. In this study, “literacy” is defined to include all out-of-class interactions relating

to knowledge construction, and therefore is not confined to reading and writing events.

Concepts from New Literacy Studies have been borrowed to enrich the theoretical and

analytical lens of the study, but the term “social event,” which encompasses the everyday

social interactional event that is a bounded series of actions and reactions (Bloome et al.,

2005), is more frequently used than literacy event in this study.

Native Speaking Peers

The native speaking peers in this study were the classmates, dorm mates, and

schoolmates of the ESL learners who spoke English as their mother tongue. In this study,

the definition of native speaking peers include all native speaking college level peers of

the ESL learners irrespective of their academic standing, i.e., freshmen, sophomores,

juniors, and seniors are included.

Out-of-class Learning

The differentiation between the terms “out-of-school” and “out-of-class” is as follows. “School” refers to the campus area and can be expanded to cover the entire

college town. It is used as a reference to the location of events. Since the core and non-

core participants of this study resided in a college town which was secluded, it was

ineffective to refer to them as in or out-of-school because the participants would always be within “school” if the boundary was set by location. With reference to Hull & Schultz

(2001), “there are school-like practices at home or non-school-like activities in formal classroom” (p. 12) and so the authors also argue that physical space does not provide a good boundary for demarcating out-of-class learning.

Thus, I use the term out-of-class with reference to “the time spent apart from class time” to distinguish between school-based and non-school-like activities. Defining out- of-class as activities occurring apart from class time is helpful, but there could still be school-based activities apart from class time, e.g., tutorial sessions for completing a school assignment. Thus, in this study, the “purpose” of the social practice was also used to demarcate out-of-class from class-based learning. Social gatherings, informal conversations, tutorial sessions (with the component of hanging out), dining, and participation in extra-curricular activities were the major out-of-class learning opportunities that the participants engaged in. Therefore, for an event to be considered relevant for analysis in this study, it had to be i) conducted apart from class time, and ii) not purposefully set up for dealing with academic work.

Qualitative Study

Qualitative studies aim at investigating naturalistic occurrences with various means (e.g., participant observation, content analysis, formal and informal interviewing, videotaping etc.), so as to gain an emic perspective of the group of people being studied

(Creswell, 2003; van Maanen, 1982). Qualitative study is an umbrella term which covers a variety of social inquiries that involve qualitative data (paraphrased, Schwandt, 2001, p.

213). It is intended to give a detailed and rich description of a social phenomenon observed at the research site. For example, ethnography is “a particular kind of qualitative inquiry by the fact that it is the process and product of describing and interpreting cultural behavior.” (Schwandt, 2001, p. 80)

Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

According to Gass & Selinker (2001),

“SLA refers to the process of learning another language after the native language has been learned. Second language (L2) can refer to any language learned after learning the L1, regardless of whether it is the second, third, fourth, or fifth language. SLA refers to the learning of a nonnative language in the environment in which that language is spoken” (p.5).

Kachru (1992) identified three circles of English regions,

“The Inner Circle refers to the traditional cultural and linguistic bases of English. The Outer Circle represents the institutionalized non-native varieties in the regions that have passed through extended periods of colonization… The Expanding Circle includes the regions where the performance varieties of the language are used essentially in EFL contexts” (p.356-357).

As defined by Gass & Selinker (2001) and Kachru (1992), second language acquisition is a process occurring when a nonnative English speaker acquires English as a second language after the native language has been learned.

Speech Community

A speech community is “a community sharing knowledge of rules for the conduct and interpretation of speech.” (Hymes, 1974,p. 51) Hymes postulates that people who

18 share membership in a community also share the same interpretation and connotation of a sign. There can be multiple speech communities at the same geographical location, depending on the kinds and nature of memberships shared among the people.

Language Socialization

Language socialization is defined in accordance with Schieffelin and Ochs (1986) who stated that “language socialization begins at the moment of social contact in the life of a human being.” (p. 164). The process of language socialization, therefore, is an interactive process. Applying Schieffelin and Ochs’ definition, this study documents the language socialization that began when the newly arrived ESL learners interacted with their native speaking peers during their first year of college education in the USA.

Socially Competent Participants

Following Schieffelin and Ochs’ (1986) definition of language socialization and

Lave and Wenger’s (1991) Communities of Practice, socially competent participants are defined as the members of a speech community who become socially competent by engaging in a social practice with other peers who share the same goal. Social competence is the ability to communicate with other members of the community both verbally and non-verbally and to convey meaning in a manner which is socially appropriate in the local community.

Research Bias and Assumptions

Before commencing data collection, I listed my personal biases and assumptions on a piece of paper, which was an attempt to flush out my a priori ideas that might affect the data collection and interpretation of findings. These assumptions included: i) Out-of-class interaction has a more important role to play in the participants’ social lives than in-class learning. ii) Out-of-class learning might be more meaningful to the participants than in-class learning because young people (18 to 22 years old) are more concerned with the judgments from peers than from instructors. iii) The more sociable and outgoing ESL students would benefit the most from out-of- class learning. iv) The less outgoing students would have a hard time fitting in with the local students, and thus they might not be able to construct learning opportunities successfully with native speakers.

As I conducted the study and engaged in analysis, I kept my a priori assumptions in mind in order to monitor any undue influence in the conduct of the study.

Outline of the Dissertation

The dissertation is divided into five chapters: Chapter One: Introduction; Chapter

Two: Literature Review; Chapter Three: Methodology; Chapter Four: Findings; and

Chapter Five: Conclusion.

Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

Introduction

This chapter is devoted to the discussion of the theoretical underpinnings which guided the design of this study and the relevant studies in second language learning.

Firstly, I discuss the theoretical framework of the study with a primary focus on the work of Gumperz. Secondly, I explain why a construct of learning opportunities is needed to better inform the learning aspect of the study. Lastly, I provide a chronological review of related studies from the research literature.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study stems primarily from Gumperz’s interactional sociolinguistics. Gumperz writes (2001),

Interactional sociolinguistics is an approach to discourse analysis that has its origin in the search for replicable methods of qualitative analysis that account for our ability to interpret what participants intend to convey in everyday communicative practice. (p. 215)

He further explained that the approach is to better understand how meanings are constructed in daily conversations. In the following paragraphs, I explain the historical development of Gumperz’s interactional sociolinguistics.

Gumperz’s interactional sociolinguistics is derived from the ethnography of communication. One beginning of the ethnography of communication is in 1962 when

Dell Hymes and John Gumperz organized a panel for the American Anthropology

Association that brought together researchers from the fields of linguistics and

anthropology (paraphrased, Schultz & Hull, 2002, p. 13). Hymes underscored the pivotal

role of context and culture. Gumperz wrote (1984),

Hymes argued that communication in the sense of engaging in meaningful interaction with others is a function of membership in a speech community and not simply a matter of grammatical competence. Speech communities are human collectivities held together by shared history and long term participation in networks of relationships. Ethnographic evidence shows that such communities are frequently not identical with collectivities defined by control of grammatical rules (p. 3).

In other words, Hymes and Gumperz disapproved of the linguistic formalism that

foregrounded grammar and structure rather than language-in-use and brought about a new paradigm. “Speech community”, “communication”, and “collectivities” are key concepts within the framework. According to Hymes and Gumperz, people construct meaning by interacting as a group in a community. Hymes proposed sixteen components of speech event, i.e., message form, message content, setting, scene, speaker/sender, addressor, hearer/receiver/audience, addressee, outcomes, goals, key, channels, forms of speech, norms of interaction, norms of interpretation, and genres (Hymes, 1974, p.53-62).

The meaning making process is based on language (or semiotics), the interlocutors, purpose, and contexts.

In 1982, Gumperz built upon the ethnography of communication and introduced an approach called interactional sociolinguistics. This approach takes a closer look at how two or more people communicate in a social setting. His interactional sociolinguistics is also informed by Goffman’s (1981) idea that “conversation is separate both from grammar and from macro social structures and must be analyzed in its own

terms” (p. 216); Garfinkel’s (1967) idea that “interaction is constituted by goal-oriented

moves”; and Grice’s (1989) social principles of conversational cooperation.

The key component of Gumperz’s interactional sociolinguistics is a

contextualization cue, which is “any verbal sign which, when processed in co-occurrence with symbolic grammatical and lexical signs, serves to construct the contextual ground for situated interpretation and thereby affects how constituent messages are understood”

(Gumperz, 2001, p. 221). Within this approach, speaking is “treated as a reflexive process such that everything said can be seen as either directly reacting to preceding talk, reflecting a set of immediate circumstances, or responding to past events, whether directly experienced or indirectly transmitted” (Gumperz, 2001, p. 221).

I draw upon Gumperz’s interactional sociolinguistics because it directly captures how interlocutors act and react to each other, and it underscores the importance of the co- construction of meaning in the communicative process. However, as the main aim of the study is to find out how students co-construct and take up learning opportunities, there is a need to propose a construct of learning opportunities in the study. I discuss the construct of learning opportunities in the following section.

The Evolution of the Construct of Learning Opportunities

In the area of educational research, learning opportunity is often viewed as the contact time between the instructor and students (Carroll, 1963). The hypothesis is that more contact time leads to better education. The earliest definition of learning opportunity can be dated back to Carroll (1963), who defined learning opportunity as the

“time allowed for learning” (p. 729). Holding similar hypothesis about this construct,

Flanders’ matrix (1970) involves a study in which the observer put a tally mark according to the type of participation as defined in the following key: Category 1 – Accepts feeling,

2 – Praises or encourages, 3 – Accepts or uses ideas of pupils, 4 – Asks questions, 5 –

Lecturing, 6 – Giving directions, 7 – Criticizing or justifying authority, 8 Pupil-talk- response, 9 – Pupil-talk-initiation (p. 34). Learning opportunity was thus operationalized as the quantity of interactions between the teacher and students, which overlooked other significant processes of learning that happened concurrently with teaching.

Many language educators and researchers objected to Carroll’s and Flanders’ definition of learning opportunity (e.g., Allwright, 2005; Crabbe, 2003; Wang, 1998) due to various reasons. Wang (1998) argued that Caroll’s definition oversimplified complex learning behavior, and she proposed “four dimensions (content coverage, content exposure, content emphasis, and quality of instructional delivery) to address the multidimensionality of classroom opportunity to learn” (p. 139). Allwright (2005) agreed with Wang’s (1998) multidimensional definition and he underscores that, “learning opportunities are dynamic characteristics that result from the interplay between people themselves and between people and the learning material they are dealing with” (p. 23).

He also stresses that a model of learning opportunity has to address the notions of quality and effectiveness because it is difficult to measure reception of learning opportunities.

Crabbe (2003) further defined an opportunity for L2 learning as “access to any activity that is likely to lead to an increase in language knowledge or skill” (p. 18) Crabbe

(2003) built a framework for L2 opportunity stemming from input-output theory.

According to his framework, learning opportunity mainly addresses “access” and “use”,

e.g., whether the students can receive input, rehearse, and produce output. The following

table illustrates the framework proposed by Crabbe (2003).

The Opportunity Frameworki Take-up of opportunity affected by personal factors such as Affect Style/experience Motive Learning Do you feel Do you have a Do you have a good opportunity anxious/relaxed? preference for reason to take this access and speaking, listening, opportunity? use by reading, or writing? language learners

Figure 1: The Opportunity Framework (Crabbe, 2003)

(Adapted from “The Quality of Language Learning Opportunities,” by D. Crabbe, 2003, TESOL Quarterly6, 37(1), p. 20)

Based on the aforementioned framework and the studies reviewed, I am of the

view that i) these studies are deeply rooted in psycholinguistics and behavioral studies

and ii) most of the definitions of learning opportunities are geared towards formal

instruction and classroom interactions. Though Allwright (2005) and Crabbe (2003)

expanded the framework by stressing the importance of the quality of the social

interactions, their propositions are limited to the provision of learning opportunities rather

than the reception of such opportunities.

On a related issue, many researchers objected the quantitative approach which was

once popular in the 1960s and 1970s and their perspectives are mainly based on the social

6 According to the reprint policy mentioned on the website of TESOL Quarterly, less than 150 words in the referent article were cited. 25 and cultural perspectives of learning (e.g., Baquedano-Lopez, Solis, & Kattan, 2005;

Gaies, 1983; Herras, 1993; Kumaravadivelu, 1999; Lave, 1996; Yeager, Florian, &

Green, 1998). This could be explained by the social turn in language education research.

According to Bloome (1991, 2003) and Gee (1999a) there has been a “social turn” in looking at learning and learning opportunities. Bloome (1991, 2003) argued that one of the future directions in educational research was to build on anthropological perspectives so as “to examine how classroom environments can be transformed to provide a broad range of learning opportunities” (p. 62). Gee (1999a) mentioned that due to the New Literacy movement, the focus of research approach has shifted to the

“moment-by-moment intricacies of social and verbal interaction which produces and reproduces that order” (p. 3). He redefined discourse as Discourses with a capital D and discourse with a little d. In which “Discourses” with a capital D refers to the “socially accepted associations among ways of using language, of thinking, valuing, acting, and interacting, in the right places and at the right times with the right objects, and discourse with a little d refers to the stretches of language (like conversations or stories)” (Gee,

1999b, p. 17) Gee’s definitions of D/discourse symbolizes the social turn in looking at discourses in learning, that learning is not the autonomous acquisition of grammatical structures but also involves the social intricacies embedded in the everyday exchanges..

As Gee notes, learning has evolved from quantity of contact time to “participation in socially situated practices” (Lave, 1996). Learning opportunities are therefore defined as chances for constructing meaning and it is “emergent, improvisational, and recursive”

(Baquedano-Lopez, Solis, & Kattan, 2005, p.1), also it is “embedded in everyday

26 activities” (Lave, 1996, p. 151), and it is “provided for students to take up actions and language” (Yeager, Florian, & Green, 1998, p. 9). The construct of learning opportunities addressed in Baquedano-Lopez, Solis, & Kattan (2005), Lave (1996), and Yeager,

Florian, & Green (1998) recognizes the multidimensionality, recursivity, and unpredictability of the construct, and therefore their definitions were employed in this study.

As this study focuses on ESL learners’ social construction of learning opportunities, a review of the theories about the social aspects of learning in the area of second language acquisition (SLA) will be discussed in the following section. These theories influenced my view on language and language learning, and therefore are to be covered in this Chapter.

Social Aspects of Learning in Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

As noted in the previous section regarding the conceptualization of learning opportunities in the field of education, there was a “social turn” (Bloome, 1991, 2003;

Gee, 1999a) that happened in 1990s, which brought about paradigmatic shift and subversive power to the traditional cognitive and behavioral approaches of learning. The social turn was also noted in the field of second language acquisition (SLA).

Before the social turn, SLA was deeply rooted in structural linguistics, behaviorism, and psycholinguistics (c.f., Chomsky’s Language Acquisition Device and

Universal Generative Grammar; Skinner’s operant conditioning; Pavlov’s classical conditioning). Language acquisition was postulated as “a complex set of processes that

27 largely take place in the learner’s head.” (Wigglesworth, 2005, p. 98) In the 1990s, a re- reconceptualized SLA emerged (Firth & Wagner, 2007; Swain & Deters, 2007), which was a collaborative effort of researchers working from a social perspective of SLA. These researchers purport that second language learning is a “social accomplishment”, and it is also situated in “everyday, natural settings” (Firth & Wagner, 2007, p. 807).

Among the theories which argue for a social perspective on SLA, communicative competence dominated the area of SLA in the 1990s. Building on Hymes’ communicative competence, Canale & Swain (1980) identified four components, grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence within the original communicative model. Bachman (1990) reorganized the components into organizational competence, which included grammatical and discourse competence, and pragmatic competence, which included sociolinguistic and illocutionary competence. Though being criticized as overly reliant on fluency rather than accuracy, communicative competence remained as the most popular theory in language teaching and learning in the 1980s (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).

Based on communicative competence, more approaches related to the social and cultural aspects of learning burgeoned in SLA. Among them, the New Literacy Studies shed new light on the fundamental definition of literacy and literacy acquisition.

Traditionally, “literacy” was defined as ‘the ability to read and write; and/or the knowledge of a particular subject, e.g. computer literacy. In 1993, Brian Street extended the definition of literacy to oracy (Street, 1993). Together with James Paul Gee, Brian

Street brought about “a broader consideration of literacy as a social practice and in a

28 cross-cultural perspective.” (as cited in Jones and Jones, 2000) He rebutted the autonomous model of literacy, which narrowly defined literacy as “a set of value-free skills, which were virtually devoid of contextual features”, and proposed the ideological model, which views literacy as situated within cultural and political structures and contexts (Street, 1995). As such the acquisition of literacy skills is no longer a quest for decontextualized skill sets, rather, it is a socialization process through which a learner appropriates the literacy practices which are socially, culturally, and politically bound.

New Literacy Studies drove SLA researchers to a new horizon, where language learning is no longer defined as a decontextualized drill of linguistic and grammatical skills. As such, language learning evolved into a socialization process which helps learners to merge into the literacy practices at the target language societies through social interactions.

The language socialization model to be discussed next was first developed by anthropologists, Elinor Ochs and Bambi Schieffelin, who borrowed the notion of speech community from Gumperz and communicative competence from Hymes to form the theoretical base of their studies. Ochs and Schieffelin investigated Kaluli and Samoan people’s language acquisition in late 1970s and documented these people’s language socialization in 1985. They proposed an ecological view of how the people became competent members of a social group (May & Hornberger, 2008).

Schieffelin and Ochs (1986) underscored that language socialization is predicated upon interaction. They explained that the interactional character of socialization was derived from Vygosky’s zone of proximal development. When a newcomer enters a

29 learning environment, he or she is guided by the more knowledgeable old timers. So they gradually become knowledgeable participants through guided and facilitated learning.

Shirley Brice Heath investigated how a white working-class community of families in Roadville and a black working-class community in Trackton socially interact within their speech communities for the duration of a decade. Heath (1983) found that the “space and time orderings, problem-solving techniques, group loyalties, and preferred patterns of recreation” (p. 344) were different between the two groups, whereas the school practice invariably favored the practice of the children from Roadville. In 2011,

Heath published a follow-up study of the Roadville and Trackton communities after thirty years of investigation at the research site located in Piedmont Carolinas. Her book documented the later life of those children in her seminal study published in 1983.

Also working on language socialization, Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger developed the Communities of Practice (CoP) approach in early 1990s, which studied how apprentices in various work environments moved from the periphery to the center.

Communities of Practice (CoP) are formed by people who engage in collaborative learning through working at the same job or sharing the same goal or passion (Wenger,

2007). With reference to Wenger (2007), CoP has three fundamental elements, the domain, the community, and the practice. Within a domain, the people with the same passion or goal work together as a learning community through practice in a collective manner. The newcomers learn the tricks of the trade by interacting with the old timers, thereby moving from the periphery to the center of practice.

Ochs and Schieffelin (1985), Heath (1983, 2011), and Lave and Wenger (1991) underscored the social aspect of learning in a community. Their studies were not conducted with second language learners in mind, however, Schumann’s (1986) acculturation model focuses on SLA among second language learners, and therefore is to be discussed in the following paragraph.

Schumann’s (1986) acculturation model stems from social psychology of acculturation and it is defined as “the social and psychological integration of the learner with the target language group.” (p. 379) In his model, Schumann highlighted nine factors: social, affective, personality, cognitive, biological, aptitude, personal, input, and instructional, and he explained how each factor has a role to play when the learner integrates knowledge about the target group psychologically. Schumann’s definition of social factor involves the social dominance patterns. For instance, when there has been historical dominance of the target group over the second language group, the latter experiences resistance towards the target group while acquiring the target language and culture. Schumann’s acculturation model is a conceptual framework about how second language learners socialize into the target culture. It is a comprehensive model which summarizes various psycho-social factors that may lead to success or failure in second language learning.

Closely related to Schumann’s acculturation model, Piaget’s assimilation and accommodation processes model the acquisition of new information among children.

Piaget postulates that young children internalize new object into an originally existed schema, which is an assimilation process. Whereas the children modify an existing

schema due to a realization of the realities of the object, which is an accommodation

process (Atherton, 2011). Both the assimilation and accommodation model and the

acculturation model were developed from sociocognitive psychology, which focuses on

how new information is internalized from the outside world into the brain. As such, its

limitation relies on a lack of thorough understanding and explanation of the complexities

which go beyond dominance and resistance.

As far as second language socialization is concerned, there is a need to have a

social-interactional approach to learning, which focuses on disentangling yet

problematizing the existing complexities in the learning communities. This view is also

purported by Firth & Wagner (2007). With reference to Firth & Wagner (2007), a social-

interactional approach focalizes learning in and among social interaction (p. 807),

borrowing concepts from CoP, ethnomethodology, and conversation analysis.

Literature Review of Out-of-class Learning among ESL Learners

In this section, I discuss the studies of ESL out-of-class learning in chronological order. First I begin with studies which connected home and school (Eggins and Slade,

1985; Heath, 1980; Knobel, 1999; Suh et al., 1999; and Valdes, 1998). These are important findings before 2000 which supports my claim that out-of-school learning is critical in educational research.

The overarching concern is that in the past educators and researchers have had a mistaken assumption that schooling only involves classroom instruction. Among these studies, Heath conducted a groundbreaking study in 1980 about community learning.

Her study is important because her work foregrounds the social and cultural aspects of

32 learning, which is not confined by the classroom. In her study,Heath (1980) conducted a ten-year longitudinal study to examine literacy practices in the Piedmont Carolinas. She used ethnographic methods to document the use of language of Roadville and Trackton students in and out-of-school. Some of the differences among Roadville and Trackton school children observed by Heath are:

choice of words (comin’ up in Trackton versus bringin’ up in Roadville), intonation pattern, place of stress, story-telling habit, ways of asking questions, politeness in language behavior, drop of first consonant in a word, sequencing on schedule (Roadville children had grown up on schedule while Trackton children did not have timed tasks or time-task links), accepting of the rule deduced from pictures etc. (p. 291).

Heath found that there were striking differences in terms of literacy among Roadville,

Trackton and the townspeople. So that the output observed reflected a great deal of variation in terms of the behaving, feeling, believing and valuing among the school children in school and at home.

Also interested in non-school learning environment, Eggins and Slade (1985) observed casual conversations at dinner parties, workplace coffee breaks, women at the hospitals, and family gatherings. The data corpus involved variations in age, generation, gender, socioeconomic background, ethnicity, and nationality (paraphrased, p.1). The researchers concluded that casual conversation is the type of talk in which we feel most relaxed, most spontaneous, and most ourselves, through these conversations we interact with people and are in the process of making meanings, thus casual conversation is critical for the social construction of reality (paraphrased, p. 16).

Following Eggins and Slade were Valdes (1998) and Suh et al (1999) where ESL students’ out-of-class learning experiences were studied. Valdes (1998) investigated how

middle school Latino children functioned inside and outside of school. Some

representatives of her participants include Lilian and Elisa. Lilian’s English was close to

zero and she could only understand a few words like “dog, cat, ice-cream”. Elisa had the

same plight and she spoke very little English. The participants were all living in low- income urban neighborhood that was described as “full of gangsters”. The plight was not

just English learning but adjusting themselves in two distinctively different worlds. Suh

et al (1999) interviewed eight international students about their leisure activities and

concluded that watching TV and movies, chatting with a conversation partner, and

listening to music are the major ways of using English outside of school. They concluded

that “out-of-class leisure activities may play an important role in any program designed to

improve the English conversation skills of students.” (p. 17)

Unlike the aforementioned studies which focused on the participants’

conversations and hobbies, Knobel (1999) published vignettes (written by himself) of the

participants’ home and community involvement which greatly affected their literacy

developments. For instance, Jacques’s family is involved in a variety of literacy-related

religious activities outside of school. How can such activities be connected to her

academic literacy studies? Do we count the outside school literacy practices when

evaluating success in school?

The overarching concern of the studies conducted before the year 2000 is that

language use outside of school involved complexities such as socio-economic status,

family and racial background, and influence from the neighborhood. The learning

opportunities provided in and out-of-school constitute two very different worlds, and the

learners were constantly making adjustments when moving between the two worlds.

They had to make decisions when taking up the learning opportunities which affected

their social identities and relationships with other people in the communities. Some of the unanswered questions include how learners make transitions consciously or unconsciously between the two worlds? How do they take up the learning opportunities which might be rooted in different ideologies and beliefs about what count as knowledge?

From 2000 to 2010, based on the findings in the previous decade, educational researchers identified implications from the previous studies and formulated directions for future research. In 2001, Hull & Shultz published their observations about the previous studies conducted out-of-school. Some of the key points made by them include:

1) the boundaries between inside and outside school aren’t always clear. There are within school activities which are casual and not school like, however, there are also outside school events which are academically focused; 2) Bridging the inside and outside school literacy practices seems critical for enhancing the learning experience of students; 3) the time is ripe for us to acknowledge the gap between what is expected in school and what is actually happening outside of school (Hull & Shultz, 2001). In 2002, Shultz and Hull published a well received book, School’s out!, which was designed to bridge the gap between school and home literacies. It is found that learners are using the internet, text messaging, and instant messaging to bridge the school and non-school boundaries.

With reference to Hull & Shultz, there were non-academic activities happening on campus which are pertinent to language learning, thereby creating another layer between

school and home. Regarding studies conducted on campus, McKinney et al (2004) used

questionnaires to find out the out-of-class activities of senior sociology majors. The three most influential out-of-class learning with people includes meeting with a faculty member, participating in a campus club, and participating in a study group. Also interested in native speaking students’ out-of-class learning, Sanders (2006) looked at chat room productivity among Spanish majors and found that production of Spanish was greater when students met outside of class, which confirmed that out-of-class learning is significant in the students’ overall language development.

Regarding the literacy practices among international students in the United States,

Yi (2005) studied with Korean immigrant students in American high schools. She mainly employed checklists and interviews for data collection. She found that the prior literacy experiences are vital in the participants’ current literacy practices, particularly in writing.

Her study broadened the field of out-of-class literacy and shed light on how immigrant students engaged in out-of-class writing.

Also interested in campus studies, Strong (2007) did an influential study in the residential learning community. Also using qualitative methods, Strong investigated undergraduate students’ out-of-class student-faculty interaction in dormitories. The study involved 14 second year undergraduate science majors. Ten out of fourteen lived at the same dormitory. According to Strong (2007), residential community has been proven to bring positive learning experiences to students (Berger, 1997; Blimling, 1993;

Chickering, 1974; Edwards & McKelfresh, 2002; Golde & Pribbenow, 2000; Inkelas et al., 2006) (as cited in Strong, 2007, p. 25). His findings suggested that the residential

learning community is an important environmental influence on the student’s learning.

Motivation, friendship, access to resources, and heightened morale are the key factors

which assisted students to learn in the residential community.

The abovementioned studies conducted on campus suggest that out-of-class

learning opportunities are critical to assist students to learn. The findings across studies

seem consistent, that out-of-class literacy practices are critical in shaping the learners’

language use. However, the cited studies are mainly conducted with native English

speakers, or are focused on reading and writing practices only. This is also purported by

Yi & Hirvela (eds.) (2009) and Haneda (2006). With reference to Yi & Hirvela (eds.)

(2009), “the dominant population in this line of research has been monolingual English-

speaking students. Bilingual and biliterate students have remained on the fines of such

research” (p. 2). Haneda also made the same observation that “Despite the considerable

amount of research on children’s out-of-school literacy practices in L1 settings, there has been a dearth of similar research for ELLs” (Haneda, 2006). First year college-level ESL students who have just arrived in the USA are still the minority of research participants in this area.

To conclude, based on the above literature review, there is a need to explore the out-of-class learning opportunities of ESL freshmen and my study intends to fill such gap. In the next chapter, I discuss the methodological considerations regarding the study.

Chapter Three: Methodology

Contextual Information

Participants

The participants in this study were divided into two groups: the core participants, comprising the international students who were the focus of the study, and the noncore participants, who played various roles in the core participants’ acquisition of English outside the classroom setting.

Core Group: Five first year ESL students

There were five international students identified by the school administration as in need of ESL instruction in Spring 2010. The decision was based on their TOEFL ibt scores, GPA in Fall 2009, and faculty recommendations. As seen in Table 1, except for country of origin, all five participants had different majors, personalities, and hobbies, a combination which was hypothesized to affect the types and scopes of social interactions they engaged in. More importantly, such variations were hypothesized to affect how learning opportunities were created, negotiated, and taken up among them. Thus, conducting case studies on the five students was viewed as likely to show the multidimensionality in the social construction of out-of-class learning in the study, and to ensure the internal and external validity of the study. In order to provide details as to what courses were taken by the core participants, I compiled Appendix A as a supplementary information table.

Place of Gender TOEFL Majors/Minors On- Extra- Origin, Scores & campus curricular languages GPA in Jobs activities spoken Fall 20097 Joe China, Male TOEFL Graphic Cafeteria Basketba (Pseudonym) Chinese ibt: 20-30 Design/Architec ll, art GPA: 1.5- ture design, 2.0 pool, breakdan cing Lily China, Female TOEFL Film Cafeteria Writing (Pseudonym) Chinese ibt: 50-60 Studies/English novels, GPA: 3.0- reading, 3.5 video gaming, singing Mary Honduras, Female TOEFL Spanish/Undeci Spanish Texting, (Pseudonym) Spanish ibt: 50-60 ded teaching facebook GPA: 3.0- assistant ing, 3.5 dancing, church Edith Japan, Female TOEFL Business/Music Cafeteria Choir, (Pseudonym) Japanese ibt: 70-80 orchestra, GPA: 1.5- internatio 2.0 nal club Yuki Japan, Female TOEFL English/Library Library Cheerlea (Pseudonym) Japanese ibt: 70-80 Science assistant ding, GPA: 3.5- reading 4.0

Table 1: Core Participants

Noncore Group: Twenty-two conversational partners of ESL students

As the aim was to find out how ESL students took up learning opportunities, it was essential to identify the people with whom they typically interacted with outside of class. I had recruited 22 conversational partners of the ESL students. Among them, six

7 The core participants’ TOEFL scores and GPAs were shown in the range of 10 and 0.5 respectively to protect their privacy. 39

were particularly interested in helping the ESL students, and they spent the most time

with the ESL students. Table 2 below provides relevant information about them.

Place of Gender Majors/Minors On-campus Extra- Origin, Jobs curricular language activities s spoken Carmen Minnesot Female Education (TESOL ESL Playing the (Pseudonym) a, minor) Teaching guitar, English Assistant, learning and Spanish Chinese Spanish Tutor language Jeanie Iowa, Female Psychology ESL Tutor Painting, (Pseudonym) English playing pool Mandy Iowa, Female Social Work ESL Tutor Playing pool (Pseudonym) English Ada Iowa, Female Education (Spanish ESL Tutor Choir (Pseudonym) English minor) Lina Iowa, Female English Writing Choir (Pseudonym) English Consultant Dana Nebraska Female Nursing ESL Tutor Choir (Pseudonym) , English

Table 2: Six Non-core Participants

Research Site

The research site was a 4-year baccalaureate college in the Midwest, which was a

private Christian liberal arts institution with an emphasis on critical thinking, humility,

and whole-person development. The following information was retrieved from the college’s website8. The college had about 1,200 students, with European Americans

being the majority. More than 1,100 were native English speakers of European-American

heritage. Table 3 provides a breakdown of the ethnic background of the student body:

8 The URL link of the college’s website is not shown for confidential reasons. 40

Native English speakers of About 1100 European-American heritage African American About 10 Native American Less than 5 Asian American About 10 Hispanic About 20

Table 3: Ethnic Background of the Student Body of the College

International students were considered a small minority on campus. Among the 1,200 students, about 40 were international students.

Except for “Cross-Cultural Issues” and “English Literature,” all other ESL courses were required for international students with a TOEFL score below 79 (ibt). The goal of the ESL courses was to prepare the international students for regular classes offered by the college. As seen in Table 4, all the courses were designed to prepare the students to function in their major and minor classes, where they had to communicate effectively with the instructors and classmates in English. There was an assumption that for each credit earned, the student should have spent one hour in class and one hour for each writing assignment per week. Thus, for a four-credit course, a student should have spent four hours in class and four hours of assignment writing after class each week. The instructional context was that the teaching should be aiming for academic preparedness.

Among the core participants, Joe, Lily, and Mary were not allowed to take courses other than ESL in the first semester. They were allowed to take regular classes in the second semester. Edith and Yuki did not have such limitations and could take regular classes

41 right from the start. Such a decision was made by the school administration, based on their TOEFL scores and prior education records.

The following table is a description of the ESL program offered by the college:

First Semester Credit Hours

Cross-Cultural Issues 2 Required for all first year international students. The course is to build the knowledge base of American culture among them. Political structures, sports, religions, and American history are the focuses of the course.

Speaking* 4 Required of all ESL students. The course is based on a textbook focused on listening and speaking skills. Students are trained to take notes in class, participate in group discussions, and give individual presentations.

Writing* 4 Required of all ESL students. The course is based on a textbook focused on reading and writing skills. Students are required to write six essays in total, one for each chapter designed for a particular discipline, e.g., anthropology, business, psychology, literature, economics, and biology. Students should be equipped with the skills for writing expository and argumentative essays for various academic disciplines after finishing the course.

English for Specific Purposes* 2 Required of all ESL students. The course is based on a textbook focused on the four skills required in business settings. Students are equipped with basic presentation skills for business purposes in the course.

English Literature 4 Elective for all international students. The course is to build the required vocabulary and reading skills for comprehending American literature works.

Table 4: ESL Program of the College (Continued)

Table 4: Continued Second Semester Credit Hours ESL for religious studies* 4 The course is required for all ESL students. It is to build the knowledge of the Bible among ESL students. Upon completion of the course, the students should have fundamental knowledge of the biblical stories chosen by the instructor. Advanced Speaking* 4 The course is for ESL students who have successfully completed the Speaking course. It is to build upon the pre-requisite to help students communicate effectively with native speakers in academic context. The focus is on individual and group presentational skills. English for Academic Purposes* 4 The course is required for all ESL students. The focus is on the reading and writing skills required in the academic setting. Students are required to write substantial essays for various academic disciplines.

(*The names of the original courses have been altered to keep them confidential, courses with an asterisk were taught by me.)

The college was located in a small town in the Midwest of the United States. The town was located about a one-hour drive away from a larger city. There were not many off campus entertainment options, so that most of the core participant’s interactions took place on campus. All first year international students were required to stay in the dormitories provided by the college. There were all together six dormitories on campus:

A, B, and C halls for men, and D, E, F halls for women. Most of the dormitories were two or three-stories high, and each room accommodated two students. Each room had a bunk bed, dresser, desks, chairs, and bookshelves provided for the students. Each dormitory had various entertainment facilities, lounges, and computer rooms. The table below portrays the main features of each residential hall:

Men’s Residential Hall Women’s Residential Hall Dorm A Dorm B Dorm C Dorm D Dorm E Dorm F Year built 1960 1950 1981 1965 1968 1996 Number of 200 100 85 100 200 204 residents Amenities TV Study Plenty of Community Communit TV lounge, lounge, lounge, communit lounge, y lounge, computer game computer y space computer study lounge, room, ping rooms, room, lounge, study room pong, prayer prayer room computer pool, study lounge room lounge, computer rooms Traditions Praise and Harvest Man Talent Pajama Each wing worship, bash, night, production, bowling, decorates gallon melon week of beach bash, Christmas the hall challenge, and gourd rice, late Super Bowl party, skate based on a Olympics, night party, night theme, hog roast capture Thanksgivin secret the flag g meal, turkey Valentines week, dinner, hunt Christmas and fire, celebration spirit week

Table 5: Descriptions of the Dormitories

Besides the four hours’ class time each day, most of the first year ESL students

stayed in the dormitory, cafeteria, or gym during the rest of the day. The time an ESL

student spent outside of a classroom was significantly greater than that spent inside a

classroom. Due to the isolated location of the college, the ESL learners could hardly find

friends to speak in their mother tongue, which resulted in more social interactions (in

English) between the ESL learners and the native English speakers. As a result, the

college was an ideal research site for observing their out-of-class interactions with native speakers. 44

The college was devoted to providing resources for ESL students to refine their

English skills in out-of-class locales. Each ESL student was assigned a tutor, who was

typically a sophomore, junior, or senior student. The tutor provided five hours of tutorial

services to the student per week. The tutor and tutee could negotiate how to make good

use of the five hours. Most often the tutees would directly ask for what they wanted. In a

certain week, for instance, Joe wanted more conversational practice, Lily wanted to focus

more on the required reading from class, Mary needed more read-aloud practice, Edith requested more writing corrections, and Yuki asked for conversations in colloquial

English. These kinds of school-like literacy events between the tutor and tutee may have had a critical influence on the students’ language development. However, the boundaries between a school-like academic tutorial and a casual and relaxed tutorial were not clear.

Most often, a tutorial session would be a mixture of both. For instance, at a typical tutorial session, the tutor would check the tutee’s homework, and afterwards they would hang out by carrying out casual conversations afterwards.

In addition, each ESL student was coupled with a native speaker roommate, who expressed interest in helping international students develop their language skills. The dormitory room was therefore another potential site for the ESL student to improve his or her English conversational skills.

Besides the classrooms and dormitories, other locales included the cafeteria, library, gym, and nearby restaurants. As the college was a small community isolated from other towns or cities, the relationship between the students, faculty and staff members

45 was close. The strong bonding among the participants, faculty and staff members was perceived to be one of the factors that helped the ESL students adapt to the environment.

My Role as a Researcher

When I obtained IRB approval for the study, I had been teaching ESL courses at the college for nearly one semester. I taught a writing class, an oral class, and an English- for-specific-purposes class at the college in Fall 2009. The core participants had all taken either one, two, or three classes with me, depending on their English proficiency and personal choice. Students A, B, and C took all three of the abovementioned courses with me. Students D and E took the oral class with me. A detailed list of the courses taken by each core participant can be found in Appendix A.

As an instructor at the college, I understood that the purpose of the ESL curriculum was to help students learn English for academic purposes as quickly as possible. Nonetheless, due to the pressure of interacting with native speakers within the confined community, the ESL students felt the need to learn colloquial expressions to interact with the local students. Therefore, they were actively seeking learning opportunities apart from class time. Based on limitations of available transportation, the first year ESL students tended to stay on campus to interact with friends, which created many learning opportunities for them to increase their English proficiency.

I obtained IRB approval in January, 2010. By that time I had known the ESL students for one semester, and I had knowledge about their whereabouts after class.

Therefore, once I started data collection, I already had a sense of how to collect data for the study. My prolonged involvement in the community was helpful when making sense

of what the students were doing after class and was useful when making methodological

decisions.

Besides the role of an instructor and a researcher, I also considered myself to be a

friend to the participants. Many international students had experienced cultural shock

after they arrived. They were not used to the climate, food, and living style in the college

town. Also, as an international student in the USA9 myself, I had been through the same

situations, and I shared with them my personal experiences about coping with culture

shock and other adjustments necessary to cope with the new surroundings.

My triadic role as an instructor, a researcher, and a friend, allowed me to gain

access to many of the participants’ out-of-class activities, e.g., casual conversations in the cafeteria and extra-curricular activities on campus. I believe that the small campus provided valuable, authentic opportunities for the ESL students to use English with monolingual native speakers. The ESL students were aware of the learning opportunities available out-of-class. However, how they took up the opportunities was complicated and multifaceted, and the process was affected by many factors. Each participant made different lifestyle choices that significantly affected how and what they learned.

Qualitative Inquiry

The major reason for adopting a qualitative inquiry approach in this study had to

do with the notion of logic-of-inquiry discussed in Gee & Green (1998). In brief, the

9 I was admitted to The Ohio State University in 2006 as an international student. I lived in Columbus, Ohio, since then and had gone through similar accommodation and assimilations processes. I moved to the town where the college was located in 2009, and I was also making adjustments in food, living arrangements, transportation means, etc. Therefore I could relate to the participants’ struggles in coping with the new environment. We were on the same boat. 47

logic-of-inquiry approach seeks a connection between the theoretical framing and

methodology employed in a study. Logic-of-inquiry is what Birdwhistell (1977) called a

“logic-in-use”:

This logic-of-inquiry influences the ways in which learning can be studied in social settings, the questions that can be asked, the research decisions and procedures used, and the ways of reporting and representing findings” (as cited in Gee & Green, 1998, p. 120).

As the aim of the study was to provide a rich corpus of out-of-class interactions among

the participants, so as to explore the learning opportunities being proposed, negotiated,

and acknowledged, it required an inquiry approach which allowed and facilitated

prolonged engagement in the social setting and a considerable amount of time spent on

participant observations.

In other words, a qualitative research plan connected well with the study’s

theoretical framework, Gumperz’s (1982) interactional sociolinguistics, which underscored the natural occurrences of social interactions among participants and the contextual analysis of such. Qualitative inquiry allowed me to work within the theoretical framework, because the epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying that framework were in-sync. This point will be discussed further in the following paragraphs.

According to Van Maanen (1982), one definition of qualitative research is as

follows:

participant observation, content analysis, formal and informal interviewing, videotaping, the discovery and use of unobtrusive measures, life history construction, archival data surveys, historical analysis, and various formal sociologies such as dramaturgic analysis, frame analysis, ethnomethodology, and conversational analysis are but a few examples of some very different substantive and procedural approaches falling under the qualitative research label (p.15)

Van Maanen’s (1982) definition was useful because it gave me concrete ideas

about possible methods for data collection and analysis. Also helpful was Creswell’s

(2003) view of qualitative research:

the inquirer often makes knowledge claims based primarily on constructivist perspectives (i.e., the multiple meanings of individual experiences, meanings socially and historically constructed, with an intent of developing a theory or pattern) or advocacy/participatory perspectives or both. It also uses strategies of inquiry such as narratives, phenomenologies, ethnographies, grounded theory studies, or case studies. The researcher collects open-ended, emerging data with the primary intent of developing themes from the data (p. 19).

Both Van Maanen (1982) and Creswell (2003) agreed that qualitative research aims at

investigating naturalistic occurrences by various means (e.g., participant observation,

content analysis, formal and informal interviewing, videotaping, etc.), so as to gain an

emic perspective of the group of people being studied. The patterns of occurrences

among the participants are viewed as multiple truths which have to be interpreted and represented by the qualitative researchers.

In this study, qualitative inquiry was operationalized in accordance with Van

Maanen (1982) and Creswell (2005) in order to gain an emic perspective of how the

participants interacted in various social settings.

Regarding my positioning in the various research paradigms, Bernstein (1976)

and Carr & Kemmis (1983) explain that epistemological assumptions and conceptions of

theory vary in accordance with changes in research paradigms. For instance, for

positivism, “truth” is verifiable and objective per se. In that vein, the major goal of

conducting a study is to identify the law-like regularities which are “out there” for the

researchers to look for. Unlike positivism, interpretivists define truth as situated in historical, social, and cultural contexts, and the goal is to interpret the patterns of meaning-making processes constructed by a group of people. For critical researchers, the truth is often distorted by social ideologies, and the aim is to emancipate people through denaturalizing the social practices they engage in.

I situated this study in the interpretive stance, as I believe meanings are socially constructed among the participants in a particular social setting, and the findings are to be interpreted through my lens as a researcher. My goal was to represent the observations through my own lens as an informed observer instead of locating the objective “truth” or denaturalizing the hidden “truths.” Such positioning in the epistemological stance resonates with Gumperz’s interactional sociolinguistics, a central component of my theoretical framework, because Gumperz (1982) stressed that the interpretations made by the researcher are pertinent to a multiple layer of contexts. Thus, the researcher’s mission is to interpret how people act and react to each other based on contextualization cues.

That was the role I envisioned for myself during the study.

Research Design

The research design was based on the “hourglass” design of an ethnographic study (cf., Spradley 1979, 1980) (see the illustration below),which comprises a three step approach. Regarding the three steps of the design, first, the ethnographer begins with a

“grand tour “ to form an overall idea of the researched. Second, he or she selects

“domains”10 for an in-depth analysis. Third, he or she identifies “cultural themes”

emerging in the study by identifying the relationships between the results from detailed

analysis and the overall picture. The hourglass design has been well received in

educational research design, especially in grounded theorizing studies (e.g., Bruce, 2007;

Creswell, 2003, 2005; Denzin & Lincoln, 2003).

The reasons why I chose this research design were two-fold. First, Spradley’s hourglass design served as a systematic tool for me to organize a vast amount of data.

The grand tour helped me record and present preliminary findings about what was going on at the research site. The in-depth analysis allowed me to select cases which were of interest for further investigation. The last step regarding cultural themes enabled me to identify the patterns that emerged from the data. Second, the design was ethnographic per se, and therefore it foregrounded the naturalistic occurrences which resulted from the literacy events and practices of a particular group of people. My study was grounded in interactional sociolinguistics, and therefore the focus was on how the participants interacted on a daily basis. Therefore, I found Spradley’s research design useful for my study.

10 According to Spradley (1979), a domain is “any symbolic category that includes other categories”, e.g., “the category friend (kabagayan) includes eight other categories for different types of friends: ritual friend, close friend, causal friend…” (p. 100) In this study, an example of a domain is religious practice, which includes chapel service, bible study, and musical performance with a religious purpose. 51

1. Discovering cultural themes

2. In-depth Analysis

3. Grand Tour

Figure 2: Spradley’s Hourglass Design (Spradley, 1979, p. 135)

Next I discuss the three stages of the study: the grand tour, in-depth analysis, and identification of cultural themes.

With reference to Spradley (1979), a grand tour is a necessary step at the beginning stage of an ethnographic study to allow the researcher to explore the research site. Spradley’s notion of grand tour is relevant to my first research question: What kinds of out-of-class learning opportunities did the first year ESL students in the research setting have? With reference to Spradley (1979), an ethnographer asks grand tour questions by inviting the participants to describe a typical event, the most recent series of events, or to give an actual tour at the site. In this case the questions included: By asking grand tour questions such as:

i. What do you usually do with your roommate/dorm mate/conversation partner outside of class time? ii. What kind of speaking activities do you engage in outside of class time?

iii. What kind of reading and writing activities do you engage in outside of class time? (c.f. the first three questions in the core-participant interview)

By asking these grand tour questions, I was able to develop a general idea about where, what, how, and who were involved in the typical and recurrent events outside of class time. In order to determine the changes in the out-of-class events, each core participant took part in an interview twice, once at the beginning and once towards the end of the data collection period.

In addition, by spending time with the participants before starting the data collection, e.g., taking an actual tour of the places where their extra-curricular activities occurred, I was able to generate ideas about each participant’s out-of-class life, which then facilitated the participant observation process. Unlike classroom research, out-of-class research schedules could not be neatly planned. Many of the out-of-class activities were unplanned and spontaneous, and thus I relied upon the participants’ notification of incidental activities. The core participants would call me and notify me if they had a social gathering or a school function to attend.

The second step, i.e., in-depth analysis, begins with the selection of domains based on the findings from the grand tour. At the grand tour stage, I observed the five core participants for a semester before starting the data collection. I identified their patterns of social behaviors and made records about the duration, nature, and frequency of their social behaviors. I also compiled a list of events which each core participant took part in. From there, I selected domains which were relevant to learning opportunities for each core participant. An example of a domain is dancing, which included dancing events organized 53 on different levels: school or dormitory or between peers. The domain could be identified from participant observation, fieldnotes, journals written by the participants, and artifacts.

The domains identified for each core participant helped me narrow down the segments for detailed analysis.

After conducting domain analysis, I applied microethnographic analysis to the

interactional segments which involved learning of the English language, cultural values,

or the American way of life. Then I grouped the themes which emerged and compared

them to the grand tour and the research questions for the writing up of the study.

Research Timeline

The one-semester data collection period, shown in Table 6, began in January,

2010. I started participant observation, journaling, audio and video taping of out-of-class events, and artifact collection after the IRB application had been approved (IRB approved on Jan 19, 2010).

December 2009 Commence IRB applications January 2010 Begin data collection: participant observation, journaling, audio and video taping, collect diaries and artifacts May 2010 Last day of semester: May 6, 2010 June 2010 Finish data collection September 2010 Begin data analysis January 2011 Commence writing up of findings May 2012 Finish writing up the report

Table 6: Research Timeline

Discussion of Data Collection Methods

In the following section, I explain why I chose the six kinds of data collection

methods employed. Then I describe the frequency, duration, and content of the data

corpus collected in the form of tables.

i) Fieldnotes (written by the researcher)

I kept writing fieldnotes throughout the study to reflect upon my teaching and

research practices. The fieldnotes were written in a retrospective manner on a daily

basis (excluding weekends and holidays with no special out-of-class events recorded).

Fieldnotes were crucial for keeping track of the participants’ out-of-class literacy practices, especially if audio or video recordings were not considered suitable in a certain situation.

ii) Diaries (written by core participants)

The core participants were asked to write diaries in relation to their out-of-class learning when I invited them to join the study in January 2010. I negotiated with them about the frequency of writing and agreed that they would let me have at least two diary entries (800 to 1000 words per entry), one in January, and one in April, regarding their out-of-class learning of English as a second language. They were encouraged to quote the dialogues they had with the non-core participants to help illustrate their ideas.

In order to gain an emic perspective towards their language development, the participants’ self-assessments of their experiences were a direct and reliable source of reference in this study. I chose this kind of data collection method because it was

55 effective in understanding what the core participants felt was useful in learning English apart from class time.

iii) Collection of artifacts from the core participants

I collected course syllabi, reading and writing samples, and other relevant artifacts

(e.g., sticky notes and photographs) from the core participants. Every time I socialized with the core participants or when I had a chance to video or audio record their out-of- class events, I would collect relevant artifacts, such as brochures, sticky notes, photographs, and study cards. There was no fixed collection time and frequency for artifact collection. The artifacts were important sources of evidence in this study as corroborative evidence and thus played a critical role in the triangulation of data sources.

iv) One-on-one structured interviews with the core participants (about one-

hour each)

Interviews were recognized as a crucial tool in this study because of their effectiveness in gaining direct responses from the participants. In this study, one-on-one structured interviews were conducted to help me gain an emic perspective towards the participants’ lived experiences. The interviews were either audio or video taped, depending on the participants’ preferences. I chose one-on-one interviews (as opposed to group interviews) because I needed a chance to talk to each of them individually and ask them questions which were directly relevant to the study. I conducted the interviews twice with each core participant, one at the beginning and one at the end of the data collection period. The reason for arranging two interviews with each participant was to

56 better understand the changes that the participants experienced during the study. The interview questions appear in the appendices.

v) One-on-one structured interviews with noncore participants (about one-

hour each)

Six conversational partners of the ESL students were invited to participate in one-on-one interviews. These six were either ESL tutors or were particularly enthusiastic in helping the ESL students to learn. After observing the core participants’ social interactions for a semester, I had identified the local native speakers who spent quality time with the ESL students, and thus I identified the six noncore participants to be interviewed. The goal was to find out how they felt towards the ESL students’ learning throughout the semester. The structured interviews were either audio or video recorded, depending on the participants’ preferences. I conducted one structured interview with each of the six non-core participants. The interview questions appear in the appendices.

vi) Participant observation

One of the major data gathering methods employed in this study was participant observation. Because of the research questions and the theoretical framework built on

Gumperz’s interactional sociolinguistics, it was necessary to show how the interlocutors acted and reacted to each other. In order to review the nonverbal cues, I needed to video record the participants’ interactions for further analysis. Therefore, videotaping was used as the major means of data gathering.

In this study, the focus was on out-of-class social interactions, so I videotaped such events as the participants’ dinner gatherings, dancing parties in the dormitories, school functions such as a fun fair, and conversations whenever I had permission to video record. As aforementioned, out-of-class social interactions were discursive, unpredictable, and multidimensional. Besides the normal tutorial hours, for which I avoided the academic portion and videotaped the casual interactions, other video recordings were based on the short notice of an event from the participants and their preferences.

Though videotaping was preferred over audio recording in this study, audio recording was generally considered less intimidating and preferred by the participants.

For situations where videotaping was not preferred, audio recording took place as a substitution. These situations included conversations and some one-on-one interviews.

The following tables show the duration and frequency of the data collection methods, as well as the types of data collected for each participant.

Data Corpus Collected from Data Collection Duration and Frequency Method Journaling Teacher researcher Written by me on a daily Fifty pieces of journals written on a basis (excludes weekends daily basis from January to April and holidays with no special 2010 (excludes weekends and out-of-class events holidays with no special out-of-class recorded) events recorded) Diary Five core participants Diaries about speaking Two pieces of diaries from each core development written by the participant (800 to 1000 words per core participants (one piece) about their out-of-class written in January and the learning opportunities other one in April) Artifacts Five core participants Reading and writing Two to five pieces of samples, course syllabi, reading/writing samples from each other related literacy core participant. All course syllabi, resources photographs taken about their our- of-class social interactions (76 photos)

Audio taping Five core and 22 non-core Interviews (audio recorded) Interviews with core participants: Participants Two formal structured interviews for each of them (2 hours/person, one in February/March and one in April) Interviews with non-core participants: One formal structured interviews with six non-core participants (1 hour/person, end of April) Video taping Five core and 22 non-core Out-of-class interactions i) School events (53 clips; 60 Participants (field trips, dorm life, hours about their extracurricular cafeteria, gym) activities e.g., choir, break-dancing, painting, new year celebration, drama performance, ethnic fair) ii) Small talks (8 clips; 5 hours about their small talks with friends at the dormitory, cafeteria, and other public areas) iii) Social gatherings (42 clips; 40 hours about dinner gatherings, birthday parties, ice- cream social, casual talks, and parties) iv) Tutorials (30 clips; 60 hours when the core and non-core participants have out-of-class tutorial events, e.g., learning about American culture and other casual talks) v) Employment (10 clips; 5 hours about how the core participants carry out their job duties at various positions)

Table 7: Descriptions of Data Collection Methods 59

Core Participants Data Collected A (pseudonym: Joe) Diary: 2 pieces of diaries written about his out-of-class learning opportunities Interview: One hour interviews, one in mid March and another one in end of April Video Recordings: i) School events (13 clips; 12 hours about his extracurricular activities e.g., break-dancing, painting, new year celebration, drama performance, ethnic fair) ii) Small talks (3 clips; 1 hour about his small talks with friends at the dormitory, cafeteria, and other public areas) iii) Social gatherings (12 clips; 8 hours about dinner gatherings, birthday parties, ice-cream social, casual talks, and parties) iv) Tutorials (6 clips; 12 hours when the core and non-core participants have out-of-class tutorial events, e.g., learning about American culture and other casual talks) v) Employment (2 clips; 2 hours about his job at the cafeteria) B (Pseudonym: Diary: 2 pieces of diaries written about her out-of-class learning Lily) opportunities Interview: One hour interview in mid March and in end of April Video Recordings: i) School events (10 clips; 12 hours about her extracurricular activities e.g., new year celebration, ethnic fair) ii) Small talks (2 clips; 1 hour about her small talks with friends at the dormitory, cafeteria, and other public areas) iii) Social gatherings (10 clips; 8 hours about dinner gatherings, casual talks, and parties) iv) Tutorials (6 clips; 12 hours when the core and non-core participants have out-of-class tutorial events, e.g., learning about American culture and other casual talks) v) Employment (2 clips; 1 hour about her job at the cafeteria) C (Pseudonym: Diary: 2 pieces of diaries written about her out-of-class learning Mary) opportunities Interview: One hour interview in mid March and in end of April Video Recordings: i) School events (10 clips; 12 hours about her extracurricular activities e.g., new year celebration, ethnic fair) ii) Small talks (1 clip; 1 hour about her small talks with friends at the dormitory, cafeteria, and other public areas) iii) Social gatherings (10 clips; 8 hours about dinner gatherings, casual talks, and parties) iv) Tutorials (6 clips; 12 hours when the core and non-core participants have out-of-class tutorial events, e.g., learning about American culture and other casual talks) v) Employment (3 clips; 1 hour about her job at the Spanish department)

Table 8: Descriptions of Data Collected from Core Participants (Continued) 60

Table 8: Continued D (Pseudonym: Diary: 2 pieces of diaries written about her out-of-class learning Edith) opportunities Interview: One hour interview in mid March and in end of April Video Recordings: Recordings: i) School events (10 clips; 12 hours about her extracurricular activities e.g., choir, orchestra, new year celebration, ethnic fair) ii) Small talks (1 clip; 1 hour about her small talks with friends at the dormitory, cafeteria, and other public areas) iii) Social gatherings (5 clips; 8 hours about dinner gatherings, casual talks, and parties) iv) Tutorials (6 clips; 12 hours when the core and non-core participants have out-of-class tutorial events, e.g., learning about American culture and other casual talks) v) Employment (0 clip; she has no job duties) E (Pseudonym: Diary: 2 pieces of diaries written about her out-of-class learning Yuki) opportunities Interview: One hour interview in mid March and in end of April Video Recordings: i) School events (10 clips; 12 hours about her extracurricular activities e.g., new year celebration, ethnic fair) ii) Small talks (1 clip; 1 hour about her small talks with friends at the dormitory, cafeteria, and other public areas) iii) Social gatherings (5 clips; 8 hours about dinner gatherings, casual talks, and parties) iv) Tutorials (6 clips; 12 hours when the core and non-core participants have out-of-class tutorial events, e.g., learning about American culture and other casual talks) v) Employment (3 clips; 1 hour about her job at the library)

To further explain why these methods were chosen, next I discuss how the data corpus and analysis relate to the research questions raised in Chapter 1.

Research Questions Data Corpus Data Analysis 1) What kinds of out-of-class Fieldnotes, audio and Look at the themes and learning opportunities did the video recordings, patterns emerged from the first year ESL students in the diaries from various data sources. Identify research setting have? participants, artifacts the type cases, telling cases, collected and critical cases from various data sources for further analysis. Ensure triangulation of data sources. 2) How were such learning Fieldnotes, audio and Conduct microethnographic opportunities initiated, video recordings, analysis of social interactions negotiated, and taken up by diaries from (verbal and non-verbal) based the ESL students? participants, artifacts on the mapping of message collected units. Also look at the diaries collected from the participants and the interviews. Ensure triangulation of data sources. 3) What were the conditions Fieldnotes, audio and Select participant which enabled learning video recordings, observations which occurred opportunities to occur? diaries from at the beginning and towards participants, artifacts the end of the data collection collected period for further analysis. Look at the diaries collected from the participants and the interviews. Ensure triangulation of data sources.

Table 9: Correspondence between the Research Questions, Data Corpus, and Data

Analysis11

As the major aim of the study was to investigate the social constructions of learning opportunities, the participant observation dataset formed the most important part of the data corpus. Therefore, it was essential to use a tool to analyze the moment-by- moment interactions among the participants effectively. Among the various conversational analysis and discourse analysis methods available, I chose to adopt

11 Further discussion is presented in Chapter Four. 62

Bloome et al’s (2005) approach. This decision was based on how Bloome et al (2005)

relates to the theoretical framework of the study. The microethnographic discourse

analysis described in Bloome et al (2005) is grounded in Gumperz’s interactional

sociolinguistics, and most importantly, it provided a timely approach in analyzing the

transcripts from participant observation.

I analyzed the transcriptions from participant observations using

microethnographic discourse analysis. Findings from other data sources were used to

corroborate the claims made from the microethnographic discourse analysis. A

qualitative study relies on its credibility and trustworthiness, and the triangulation of data

sources achieved in this study helped establish the overall trustworthiness of the study.

Data Analysis

In order to better explain how I analyzed the data corpus, I give an overview of the data collected and a sample analysis for two types of data I collected, i.e., participant observation and interview.

Joe Lily Mary Edith Yuki

Student - Have - Have - Have - Have - Have Activity tutorials tutorials tutorials tutorials tutoria Center with tutor with with tutor with tutor ls - Hang out tutor - Hang out - Have with with dorm - Hang with dorm meetings tutor mates out with mates with - Play pool dorm other ex- and mates co basketball members of the Internatio nal Club Table 10: Overview of the Video Taping of Out-of-Class Learning Opportunities12 (Continued)

12 The further breakdown of these activities (including duration) is provided in Chapter Four of the Dissertation. 63

Table 10: Continued Cafeterias - Lunch and - Lunch - Lunch and - Lunch and - Lunch (Buffet and dinner and dinner with dinner and dinner Coffee Shop) gatherings dinner dorm mates (mostly with dorm with dorm (mostly alone) mates mates alone) - Work at the - Work at dish room the dining area

Dormitory - Hang out - Watch - Hang out - Seldom - Hang Rooms and with dorm movies with dorm stay in out Lounges mates and mates dorm with - Play video play - Watch room dorm games and online movies because mates watch games with of movies alone roommate roommat with friends - Interact e issues - Have dance with parties dorm mates (seldom ) Library - Study before - Seldom - Seldom use - Study - Work at exam use the the library before exam the library library Chapel - Attend service - Attend - Attend - Attend - Attend three times a service service three service three service week three times times a week times a week three a week times a - Take part in week musical performance in the Chapel Restaurants - Often have - Often have - Sometimes - Seldom dine - Often (Pizzeria, dinner dinner have lunch out with dine out Chinese gatherings gatherings gatherings with friends with restaurants, with friends with friends friends at a friends Dessert Stores) at a Chinese at a Chinese Chinese restaurant restaurant restaurant - Sometimes have social gatherings at two dessert stores

(Continued) 64

Table 10: Continued Municipal - Often interact - Seldom go - Seldom go to - Seldom go - Seldom Parks with friends at a outside of the parks to the parks go to the park the dorm parks Downtown - Often interact - - Seldom go to - Seldom go - Stores with friends at Sometimes the stores to the stores Sometime the stores interact s interact with friends with at the stores friends at the stores Grocery Stores - Go there with - Go there - Go there - Go there - Go there friends at least with friends with friends alone often alone three times a three times very often often week a week Entertainment - Actively - Seldom - Often hang - Seldom - Facilities (Ice- attend social attend out with attend social Sometime skating functions with social friends at their functions s hang out facility, Movie dorm mates functions homes rather with Theater) than at friends at entertainment the facilities entertainm ent facilities Others (Art - Attend art - Seldom - Work at the - Attend - Often go Building, exhibitions with attend Spanish choir and to see Performance friends social Department as orchestra musicals Hall) events an assistant to practices at at the a professor the Music Performan Hall ce Hall

The above table demonstrates the variations in the learning opportunities

constructed by the core participants. Each of them had his or her preferences in out-of- class activities, which affected how and what they learned. For instance, Joe can be described as outgoing, and he actively sought companionship with others, e.g., he often participated in social events organized by the dormitories and the college. Except for when he studied, he seldom acted on his own. His range of out-of-class activities included: hanging out with friends, working at the cafeteria, attending dancing parties, 65 drawing in the art room with friends, playing pool and basketball with friends, etc.

Similarly, each other core participant had his or her own preferences in terms of how leisure time was spent. Therefore, the learning opportunities constructed by them were very different in nature.

With the help of the above table, I further grouped the locales into four types according to the purposes of the interactions:: tutorial-related events, school events, work-related events, and hanging out with friends. As the aim of the study was to explore learning opportunities, I selected the events which occurred at the beginning and towards the end of the study to identify the differences in interaction patterns which occurred.

Here is an illustration of my data analysis according to the four major types of out-of- class events:

Joe Lily Mary Edith Yuki Tutorial- 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in related Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Events 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in March/April March/April March/April March/April March/April School 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in Events Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Jan/Feb 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in March/April March/April March/April March/April March/April Work- 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in related Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Events 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in March/April March/April March/April March/April March/April Hanging 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in out with Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Jan/Feb Friends 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in 1 event in March/April March/April March/April March/April March/April

Table 11: Four Types of Out-of-class Interactive Events

Using a Microethnographic Approach to Analyze the Video Recordings from

Participant Observations

Schwandt (2001) defined microethnography as “specifically concerned with

exhaustive, fine-grained examination of a very small unit within an organization, group,

or culture” (p. 164). Unlike traditional ethnographic studies, microethnography usually

involves a small segment of everyday life for the understanding of the specificities and

particularities of a social event. Many researchers utilize microethnographic studies for

the fine-grained analyses of a small unit, which is part of a large-scale ethnographic

project. The typical research process includes audiovisual taping of naturally occurring activity, development of detailed transcriptions (with verbal and nonverbal data), map construction, and analysis of maps (Green & Weade, 1987, p. 13-15).

Bloome et al.’s (2005) approach to microethnographic discourse analysis is built upon the ethnography of communication (e.g., Gumperz, 1986; Gumperz & Hymes,

1972; Hymes, 1974), linguistic anthropology, anthropological studies of narrative, and the New Literacy Studies (e.g., Bloome, 1993; Gee, 1996, 2000; Heath, 1983; Street,

1995), ethnomethodology (e.g., Mehan, 1979), Bakhtinian theories, and various social interactional scholars. Unlike traditional turn-by-turn analysis, the basic unit of this approach is a message unit (the smallest meaningful unit), and besides videotaping, the researchers carefully represent the classroom interactions with various mapping techniques. For instance, the researchers break down the conversations into message units and analyze the social identities of the participants by mapping the intertextual and

67 intercontextual links in a discourse event. Bloome et al (2005) also makes a distinction between literacy event and social event. In this study, the latter was used to describe a series of bounded actions and reactions regarding the social construction of learning opportunities.

I adopted Bloome et al’s (2005) approach in the analysis of transcripts from the participant observations. Hence, I include a discussion of the major features of their approach. A summary of the features of this approach articulated in Bloome et al. (2005) is as follows.

Two key issues which distinguish the approach:

i) Implied personhood “shared assumptions about the characteristics and attributes that are assumed to be inherent in a person” (p. 3).

ii) Foregrounding of “a bounded series of actions and reactions that people make in social events response to each other at the level of face-to-face interaction.” (p. 6)

Table 12: Microethnographic Discourse Analysis

The most important step in the methodology is to select events to represent the findings of the study. According to Bloome et al (2005), events are bounded sets of interactions among a group of people which focus on how people act and react to each other. When looking at the data corpus, I first reviewed the video data relevant to each core participant, and I identified social events which were either the typical cases (regular events which occur all the time) or critical cases (one single case which represents the climax of a series of events) throughout the semester.

It was not easy to establish a clear boundary between what counted as typical and what counted as critical cases. Here is an example: an ESL student used to have conversations with a tutor passively, i.e., the tutor was always the person who initiated a conversation topic. The typical cases would be the events when the tutor took the lead and the ESL student followed. However, one day the ESL student initiated a topic because the tutor repeatedly encouraged her to do so; as such, the case would count as a critical case.

After identifying the typical and critical cases, I transcribed the video and audio data. Any transcription process is not mechanical but rather theoretically driven. For the transcription in this study, I created my own set of keys for tagging the verbal and nonverbal cues (instead of applying any of the well-established transcription conventions, since the theoretical assumptions in my analysis differed from those other transcription systems).

For each typical or critical case which had been transcribed, I looked carefully at the message units (the smallest meaningful unit) and mapped the message units together in accordance with Bloome et al (2005). The mapping process is essential for establishing intertextual links between the message units. The maps are the representations of the findings, and they function as the preliminary findings of the study. The maps are also representations of the typical or critical cases identified from the data corpus. After identifying the typical and critical cases, I examined the intertextual and intercontextual links within each case to explore whether a pattern could be identified. If a pattern could be observed, I then looked for confirming and disconfirming evidence from other data

sources, e.g., the participants’ diaries, my fieldnotes, interview data, etc. If a pattern was

identified with three confirming cases, I then viewed a claim as valid. In brief, the aim of

the data analysis was to look for evolving, valid patterns from the corpus of data.

After confirming the emerged patterns from the data corpus, I then compared the

findings with the biases and presumptions that I wrote down before commencing the

study. This step was necessary to ensure that the finding were not self-fulfilling and

driven by my biases.

Other Means of Data Analysis

The sequence of analysis was as follows: 1) my fieldnotes, 2) artifacts (texts and photographs), 3) transcriptions of video and audio recordings from participant observations (using microethnographic discourse analysis), 4) diaries written by participants, and 5) transcriptions from interviews. My data analysis regarding the fieldnotes, artifacts, diaries, and transcriptions from interviews was based on Lincoln &

Guba’s (1985) open-coding approach. Based on my reading and interpretation of the data corpus, I invented keywords to mark on the data sources. For instance, I used the word

“Americanization” to mark on Jeanie’s evaluation of Joe’s behavior as “Americanized.”

Then I grouped the relevant traces of Americanization on the transcriptions together for further analysis. After generating a collection of keywords identified from the data sources, I referred to Strauss & Corbin’s (1998) axial coding process to determine how the keywords were connected to each other. Axial coding allowed me to form an overview of chunks of themes which emerged from the data corpus. It also allowed me to see how these chunks were related to each other.

I engaged in triangulation of data analysis to ensure the credibility of my findings.

Microethnographic discourse analysis provided me with a set of systematic tools for

identifying the emerged themes and patterns which were situated within dialogues. The

data analysis using Lincoln & Guba’s (1985) open-coding and Strauss & Corbin’s (1998) axial coding on other data sources provided me with chunks of themes and patterns for comparing with those which emerged in the microethnographic discourse analysis.

Together they formed the preliminary findings, so that I knew where to locate the relevant data when using a label developed before.

Next, I discuss how the preliminary findings developed into the findings discussed in Chapter Four. In Chapter Four, I first present the grand tour and domain analysis by referring to the preliminary findings. I selected relevant chunks of data from various data sources, based on the labels identified in the preliminary findings. Then I used the label [learning opportunity A, B, C…] to tag the moments of learning opportunities identified in the data sources discussed under the grand tour and domain analysis. Then I grouped the learning opportunities together; these formed the major themes which emerged from the data corpus. Under the in-depth analysis section, I selected three representational cases from participant observation to further describe how each kind of learning opportunity occurred. Then, in the discovery of cultural theme section, I further identified the steps and sequences which emerged from the nine cases portrayed under the in-depth analysis section. Following the presentation of the findings is a section regarding the inter-rater reliability of the study. Triangulation of data

71 collection and analytical means, and inter-rater reliability were engaged to ensure the overall trustworthiness of the study.

Chapter Four: Findings

In this chapter, I present my overall approach in representing the data, with the incorporation of microethnographic discourse analysis.

I organize the findings following Spradley’s (1979) representation of findings for ethnographic studies, i.e., i) the grand tour, ii) domain analysis, iii) in-depth analysis, and iv) emerged pattern. When representing the findings in these sub-sections, I have the three research questions in mind. Having the three research questions in mind helps me arrange the presentation of my findings and to connect to the next chapter, where I discuss the findings in response to the research questions raised in Chapter Two.

In the grand tour section, I give a narrative account of the typical events that occurred at the site. Then I give a domain analysis, which is based on how the core participants categorize their out-of-class events. I look for evidence from the diaries written by the participants, the transcriptions from one-on-one interviews, and the transcriptions from the participant observation when identifying the domains. In the in- depth analysis section, I select excerpts from the events within each domain for further analysis. I also give rationale as per why I select a certain excerpt by referring to my research goal and questions set forth in Chapter One. In the discovering cultural themes section, I present the cultural themes that emerged from the data corpus.

Grand Tour

During the period of participant observation, I followed the core participants

when they attended out-of-class social events. These events included tutorial sessions,

on-campus employments, lunch and dinner gatherings, dance parties, musical

performances, and other social events organized by the dormitories and Chapel. As

mentioned in the previous chapter, the core participants have different cultural

backgrounds, academic endeavors, personalities, and hobbies, therefore the choices they

made about out-of-class social events were different. I first summarize their out-of-class social events in a table (appended at the end of this section) and then describe each group of events in detail.

Joe Lily Mary Edith Yuki Tutorial 2 to 3 times 1 to 2 times a 1 to 3 times a 1 to 3 times a 1 to 3 times Sessions a week, 1 to week, 1 to 2 week, 1 to 2 week, 1 to 2 a week, 1 2 hours per hours per hours per hours per to 2 hours session, 3 to session, 1 to 3 session, 3 to session, 1 to 3 per session, 5 hours in hours in total 5 hours in hours in total 3 to 5 total per per week total per per week hours in week week total per week On-campus Joe worked Lily worked Mary worked Edith was not Yuki Employments five hours a one to three five hours a taking up paid worked at week on a hours a week week. positions the library regular at the within the for five basis. Cafeteria. College, but hours a she was an week. executive committee member at the international student club. The club met once per week. Table 13: Frequency and Duration of Out-of-class Social Events of the Core Participants (Continued) 74

Table 13: Continued Lunch and Joe usually She had her Mary had Edith had three Yuki Dinner had his three three meals at four close meals at the usually Gatherings meals at the the cafeteria. friends at her cafeteria with dined with cafeteria. Each meal dorm. She her Japanese her dorm The time lasts for 30 would friend. Her mates three spent for minutes to an usually sit meal lasts for meals a each meal hour. with them 30 minutes to day. Her would be during the an hour. meal lasts between 15 three meals. for 30 minutes and minutes to an hour. an hour. Social After dinner Time between Time After dinner After Gatherings at and during classes, after between and during the dinner and the the dinner, and classes, after weekend. during the Dormitories weekend. during the dinner, and Duration: 1 weekend. Duration: 15 weekend. during the hour to 4 hours. Duration: 1 minutes to 2 Duration: 1 to weekend. hour to 4 hours. 4 hours. Duration: 15 hours. minutes to 3 hours. Social Events Six to ten Two events in One event in Three events in Two events Organized by events in a a semester. a semester. It a semester. in a the semester. Each event last for 5 Each last for 3 semester. Dormitories, Each event last for 3 to 5 hours. to 5 hours. Each last International last for 2 to hours. for 3 to 5 Office, and 5 hours. hours. College

With reference to the above table, each core participant made different decisions about the out-of-class social events that they participated in. The reasons are manifold and will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Participation in Tutorial Sessions

Joe Lily Mary Edith Yuki Frequency and 2 to 3 times 1 to 2 times 1 to 3 times 1 to 3 times 1 to 3 times a Duration of a week, 1 to a week, 1 to a week, 1 to a week, 1 to week, 1 to 2 Tutorial 2 hours per 2 hours per 2 hours per 2 hours per hours per session, Sessions session, 3 to session, 1 to session, 3 to session, 1 to 3 to 5 hours in 5 hours in 3 hours in 5 hours in 3 hours in total per week total per total per total per total per week week week week A Typical A typical A typical A typical A typical A typical tutorial Tutorial tutorial for tutorial tutorial tutorial session would be Session Joe would be session session between a one-hour a one-hour between between Edith and session at the session Lily and Mary and Lina would library. Yuki divided into Mandy Ada would be a one- would talk to two parts. would be a be a one- hour session Dana about her During the two-hour hour with a focus recent study first half, he session in session. on problems and would ask the During correcting Dana would the tutor to afternoon which, grammatical understand better check his on a Mary and mistakes of about what to do assignments weekday. Ada would Edith’s to help Yuki. or help him Lily would practice writing. prepare for a first ask reading test or exam. Mandy to aloud the During the proofread textbooks second half, her and her he would homework papers look for an during the because opportunity first hour. many to learn Then they English colloquial would have words look English by oral like Spanish doing thing conversatio words but together, ns about should be e.g., water daily life. pronounced painting, differently. playing pool, visiting a local store etc. Table 14: Tutorial Sessions (Continued)

Table 14: Continued Remarks on Joe learned The The Therefore, Yuki was Learning many new learning learning Edith’s concerned with Opportunities vocabulary opportunitie opportunitie learning study skills and items which s that were s provided opportunitie therefore she had did not exist provided to Mary s were more in textbooks, and taken were more about opportunities to and also he up were related to writing and discuss with her learned how more reading the tutor about how to negotiate related to aloud and grammar to study and the for things he reading and pronunciati related to various solutions needed with writing, on of new writing. to the problems a native particularly vocabulary she encountered speaker. By related to items. as an the end of special international the semester, topics such freshmen. he had as literature established a and movies. trusting relationship with his tutor.

Each core participant was assigned with a tutor who was at sophomore status or above by the International Office. The tutor would provide five hours of service to the tutee on a weekly basis. Each week the tutor and tutee would negotiate on how to make good use of the five hours, and they could have different foci each week or each time they met, depending on the tutee’s needs. By observing how the tutees expressed their needs to their tutors, I had a general understanding about each core participant’s preferences.

Joe was an active young man who liked learning by interacting with other people.

Joe was the most concerned with learning oral English among the five participants because he was an active participant in school. No matter whether it was playing 77 basketball or dancing, Joe needed to have good social relationships with others to fulfill his needs. Therefore he normally made tutorial requests such as playing pool, going out to dinner, and learning colloquial expressions for various social functions.

A typical tutorial for Joe would be a one-hour session divided into two parts.

During the first half, he would ask the tutor to check his assignments or help him prepare for a test or exam. During the second half, he would look for an opportunity to learn colloquial English by doing thing together, e.g., water painting, playing pool, visiting a local store etc. Since his own “learning theory” is that he could only remember things by practicing it in social situations, he often requested doing things such as playing basketball and pool with his tutor, who was a female freshman in psychology (Joe’s tutor was not a sophomore or above because his original tutor graduated in December, 2009, and there was a difficult time finding a replacement). His tutor, Jeanie, was an 18 year- old female student who liked painting and hanging out with friends. Jeanie had no tutoring experience but she was interested in Chinese culture. I observed that Jeanie would explicitly correct Joe’s pronunciations of certain vocabulary items, and she would teach him new terms for that particular activity, e.g., slam dunk (basketball), solids or stripes (pool), shoot the moon (card game, Hearts). Joe learned many new vocabulary items which did not exist in textbooks, and also he learned how to negotiate for things he needed with a native speaker. By the end of the semester, he had established a trusting relationship with his tutor. When compared to other core participants, Joe took agency to ask for what he needed explicitly, and he was the one who benefited the most from the tutorials by having a clear learning goal and clearly expressing his needs. From his case, I

concluded that though there were many different types of learning opportunities provided

to the ESL learners, it was critical how the participants took agency to utilize those

opportunities for their benefits.

Lily was an 18 year-old female student from Beijing, China. She was less

outgoing and she liked reading novels and seeing movies. She preferred staying in her dormitory room most of the time. She was a young writer and had published novels in

China before coming to the United States. During her free time, she would stay in her room and write her new novel with her laptop. Lily’s tutor was Mandy, who was a senior who liked playing pool and hanging out with friends. Lily only used two hours of the tutorial service because she was confident in her English use. A typical tutorial session between Lily and Mandy would be a two-hour session in the afternoon on a weekday.

Lily would first ask Mandy to proofread her homework during the first hour. Then they would have oral conversations about daily life. Lily was interested in literature, musicals, and movies, and she would talk with Mary about Gone with the Wind, Mary Poppins, and some popular movies. Unlike Joe who would initiate discussion topics easily, Lily needed more help from Mandy. Mandy would have to ask Lily questions such as “What movies have you seen recently?” to strike up a conversation. The learning opportunities that were provided and taken up were more related to reading and writing, particularly related to special topics such as literature and movies.

Mary was a 19 year-old Spanish-speaking female student from Honduras. She was active in pursuing social relationships within her dormitory and had two good friends from the same dormitory. Mary liked watching DVDs in her room and chatting with her

friends. She used three hours of tutorial service per week. Her tutor was Ada, who was a

senior in Education. Ada had a minor in Spanish and she went to the same Spanish-

speaking church with Mary. Because of her language proficiency in Spanish, knowledge

about education theories, and friendship with Mary, she had helped Mary learn English

during the tutorial and also during daily interactions. A typical tutorial session between

Mary and Ada would be a one-hour session. During which, Mary and Ada would practice reading aloud the textbooks and her papers because many English words look like

Spanish words but should be pronounced differently. Sometimes Ada would speak in

Spanish to help Mary understand her explanations better. As an education major, Ada exhibited better training in explaining things to Mary. The interaction between Mary and

Ada was very different from other tutor tutee duo. Because Ada had better understanding of Mary’s first language interference, her outgoing character, and learning style, Ada would take the initiative to correct Mary’s mistakes in pronunciation or writing during the tutorials. As such, the tutorial sessions were time effective because of the deeper level of mutual understanding. The learning opportunities provided to Mary were more related to reading aloud and pronunciation of new vocabulary items.

Edith was a 19 year-old female student from Japan. Due to her father’s business in various countries, Edith had attended international schools in Russia and India. She was talented in musical performance and was trained in violin and piano. Edith was the only one among the five participants who took up an active role in the international student club which organized social events for international students at the College.

Edith’s tutor was Lina, who was working for the writing center of the College. Because

of Edith’s outstanding performance in oral English, which could be explained by her long years spent in English speaking international schools, she only needed a tutor to check her writing. She used about one to three hours of service on a weekly basis. Because of her active role played at the international student club and her involvement in the choir and orchestra, she was not available for more hours of writing tutorial. A typical tutorial between Edith and Lina would be a one-hour session with a focus on correcting grammatical mistakes of Edith’s writing. Therefore, Edith’s learning opportunities were about writing and the grammar related to writing.

Yuki was a 26 year-old female student from Japan. She had worked as an office lady before coming to the United States. Yuki was very interested in literature and library science. She liked reading in her spare time. Yuki’s tutor was Dana, who was a senior in nursing. Dana played the violin and was a member in the choir. Yuki mostly used three hours of tutorial service per week. A typical tutorial session would be a one-hour session at the library. Yuki would talk to Dana about her recent study problems and Dana would understand better about what to do to help Yuki. Yuki was concerned with study skills and therefore she had more opportunities to discuss with her tutor about how to study and the various solutions to the problems she encountered as an international freshmen.

On-campus Employments

All the core participants secured on-campus employments with the College except

Edith (Edith did not choose to have a job because of her participation in the choir, orchestra, and international student club). Joe and Lily worked at the Cafeteria as janitors.

Mary worked at the Spanish Department as a teaching assistant to the Department Head.

Yuki worked at the library as a front-desk assistant. The different jobs provided them with various ESL learning opportunities.

Joe Lily Mary Edith Yuki Frequency and Joe worked Lily worked Mary Edith was Yuki worked Duration five hours a one to three worked not taking at the library week on a hours a week five hours up paid for five hours regular basis. at the a week. positions a week. Cafeteria. within the Because she College, was not as but she strong as Joe was an and was executive having health committee issues, she member at was not the working internation regularly at al student the Cafeteria. club. The Sometimes club met she would once per call off the week. work because of her health concerns. Typical Work Joe worked Lily worked Mary’s job During the Yuki was Day more often at more at was to find meeting, responsible the dish room, cleaning the Edith for helping where he had to tables than in teaching would the patrons to collect the the dish room. materials discuss the check out and dishes and Her job duties that her organizati return the silverware were to bring supervisor on of books. returned by the a bucket of requested future fellow students. water and a and make events for Then he would piece of cloth. photocopie internation clear the Then she s for the al remaining food would mop students. In students. on the dishes the tables addition, All of the and put the when the she needed committee dishes into the fellow to mark the members dishwasher. students were essays were done with written by internation lunch or the Spanish al dinner. majors. students.

Table 15: On-campus Employment (Continued) 82

Table 15: Continued Learning In the dish Lily’s job Mary’s With Because she Opportunities room, there provided less career goal reference needed to would usually learning was to to Edith, work with the have more than opportunity become a the club computer three workers for her Spanish meetings systems for at the same because of the professor. provided her job, she time. The lack of Therefore, her with received on- workers would interactions her job was learning the-job chat and with others. more opportuniti training from because However, relevant for es about her international because her preparing interperso supervisor. students were dorm mates her to teach nal skills As such, she the minority in would visit Spanish as and team learned new the College, the Cafeteria a second spirit. Her vocabulary most of the regularly, she language in career goal items about time they had the future. was to library would work opportunities Mary’s job become a science as with native to greet her provided businessw well as speaking local friends and her an oman. customer students. Joe had small opportunity Therefore, service. said that he talks with to be the Yuki’s career learned them. professiona meetings aspiration conversational lly were was to skills while prepared indeed become a working in the for her helpful for librarian. dish room. The career. her Therefore, learning profession her campus opportunities al job helped provided to Joe endeavor. prepare her to were related to work as a daily professional conversation librarian in and dining the future. related vocabulary items.

Joe and Lily had the same job as student assistants at the Cafeteria. The Cafeteria was the main dining facility at the College. It was a buffet style restaurant serving three meals a day. Joe worked five hours a week on a regular basis. He worked more often at

83 the dish room, where he had to collect the dishes and silverware returned by the fellow students. Then he would clear the remaining food on the dishes and put the dishes into the dishwasher. In the dish room, there would usually have more than three workers at the same time. The workers would chat and because international students were the minority in the College, most of the time they would work with native speaking local students. Joe said that he learned conversational skills while working in the dish room.

The learning opportunities provided to Joe were related to daily conversation and dining related vocabulary items.

Lily worked one to three hours a week at the Cafeteria. Because she was not as strong as Joe and was having health issues, she was not working regularly at the

Cafeteria. Sometimes she would call off the work because of her health concerns. She worked more at cleaning tables than in the dish room. Her job duties were to bring a bucket of water and a piece of cloth. Then she would mop the tables when the fellow students were done with lunch or dinner. Lily’s job provided less learning opportunity for her because of the lack of interactions with others. However, because her dorm mates would visit the Cafeteria regularly, she had opportunities to greet her friends and had small talks with them.

Besides interacting with fellow students, Joe and Lily learned how to interact with other regular full-time employees at the Cafeteria. Their colleagues include the Manager,

Cashiers, Janitors, and the fellow students dining at the Cafeteria. The manager was the one responsible for instructing them what to do with their jobs. The interactional style between the manager and Joe or Mary was more of a “give order” and “take order” kind.

Joe and Mary learned how to interact with their supervisor at the Cafeteria. They also

learned the vocabulary items which were pertinent to their jobs at the Cafeteria.

As a native Spanish speaking teaching assistant, Mary used the language in

speaking and writing with her supervisor and other faculty members at the Department.

The Spanish Department was located at a small cottage and all the faculty members

spoke Spanish within the facility. Mary worked five hours a week. Her job was to find

the teaching materials that her supervisor requested and make photocopies for the

students. In addition, she needed to mark the essays written by the Spanish majors.

Mary’s career goal was to become a Spanish professor. Therefore, her job was more

relevant for preparing her to teach Spanish as a second language in the future. Mary’s job

provided her an opportunity to be professionally prepared for her career.

Edith was not taking up paid positions within the College, but she was an

executive committee member at the international student club. The club met once per

week. During the meeting, she would discuss the organization of future events for

international students. All of the committee members were international students. With

reference to Edith, the club meetings provided her with learning opportunities about

interpersonal skills and team spirit. Her career goal was to become a businesswoman.

Therefore, the meetings were indeed helpful for her professional endeavor.

Yuki worked at the library for five hours a week. She was responsible for helping

the patrons to check out and return the books. Because she needed to work with the

computer systems for her job, she received on-the-job training from her supervisor. As such, she learned new vocabulary items about library science as well as customer service.

Yuki’s career aspiration was to become a librarian. Therefore, her campus job helped prepare her to work as a professional librarian in the future.

Lunch and Dinner Gatherings

Joe Lily Mary Edith Yuki Frequency Joe usually Lily had her Mary had Edith had Yuki and had his three meals at four close three meals usually Duration three meals the cafeteria. friends at her at the dined with at the Each meal dorm. She cafeteria her dorm cafeteria. lasts for 30 would with her mates three The time minutes to an usually sit Japanese meals a day. spent for hour. with them friend. Her Her meal each meal during the meal lasts lasts for 30 would be three meals. for 30 minutes to between 15 minutes to an hour. minutes and an hour. an hour. A Typical During For the times A typical Edith would According Gathering lunch and when Lily sat lunch or always sit to Yuki, her dinner, they with her dorm dinner with her dorm mates would talk mates of her gathering friend from talked about about the old dorm, they was when the the same news and classes they talked about four people country. funny had or any the classes met and they They spoke things events they were talked and in Japanese during the organized taking, and laughed when they lunch and by the young men together. were dinner dorm. they were From my together. gatherings. seeing, and the observations, social events they usually they were discussed planning to about the attend. dating couples at the College. They were mostly interested in talking about romantic relationships and college life. Table 16: Lunch and Dinner Gatherings (Continued) 86

Table 16: Continued Learning With During which, The learning From my Yuki was Opportuniti reference to Lily was opportunity observation, provided es Joe, the provided the offered to Edith had the chance lunch and opportunity to Mary was reached to practice dinner practice daily dependent on near native listening gatherings conversations the friendship proficiency and small offered him with native she had with in oral talks, but opportunity speaking her dorm English, she was not to listen to students. In mates. because of skilful in the fast addition, she her interjecting paced learned what education or asking conversatio were the received in questions ns among concerns of English for the young most college speaking clarifying men of his young ladies. internationa things she dorm. Joe l schools in did not learned the India and understand. rhythm and Russia. She So the the tonal was not in learning patterns of need of opportunity his fellow listening was more dorm mates. and about He also speaking listening learned the practice like and popular usual topics other core discussion that would participants topics be did. among discussed Therefore young during the the effect of ladies. lunch or dinning in dinner time. the cafeteria was less significant for Edith.

Because of the secluded location of the College (one hour from a city with shopping malls and entertainment facilities), the students mostly dine on campus. Besides the cafeteria, there were two Chinese restaurants, two pizzerias, and some bakeries in the same town. Among them, the buffet style cafeteria was the major dining place for most college students because of the relatively lower price when compared to others. In the

cafeteria, there were long dining tables and each could accommodate twelve people.

During lunch time, i.e., noon till 2 p.m., and dinner time, i.e., 6 p.m. till 8 p.m., the

students who were from the same dormitory would sit together. Within the dining hall,

though no seats were reserved particularly for any dormitory, because of the usual seating

habits, when the students walked into the hall, they knew where they belonged and would

sit with their dorm mates at the right table. From my observations, the lunch and dinner

gatherings were not merely for dining, they were also for the students within the same

dormitory to reinforce their social identities within the same group. Within the same

dormitory, there would also be sub-groupings, e.g., students who lived on the same wing

or on the same floor. The students were expected to talk with the fellow dorm mates

while dining.

Joe would always sit at the table at a corner where his dorm mates would be

found. He usually had his three meals at the cafeteria. During lunch or dinner time, he

would firstly greet his fellow dorm mates with a special hand gestures. Then he would sit

next to the people he was most familiar with. During lunch and dinner, they would talk

about the classes they had or any events organized by the dorm. With reference to Joe, the lunch and dinner gatherings offered him opportunity to listen to the fast paced conversations among the young men of his dorm. Joe learned the rhythm and the tonal patterns of his fellow dorm mates. He also learned the usual topics that would be discussed during the lunch or dinner time.

Lily moved to another girls’ dorm in the middle of the semester due to her dysfunctional relationship with her roommate. She started to live alone since then and

88 was more of a loner. The move created hardship for her because she was less outgoing.

The few friends she made at the old dorm were not meeting her any more after her moved. After Lily moved to a new dorm, she would try to avoid sitting with her new dorm mates by finding an empty table and sit alone. From my observations, Lily’s dorm mates were trying to reach out to her by greeting her at the entrance of the cafeteria and by striking up a conversation when seeing her. However, Lily did not establish close relationships with any of her new dorm mates. For the times when Lily sat with her dorm mates of her old dorm, they talked about the classes they were taking, and young men they were seeing, and the social events they were planning to attend. During which, Lily was provided the opportunity to practice daily conversations with native speaking students. In addition, she learned what were the concerns of most college young ladies.

Mary had four close friends at her dorm. She would usually sit with them during the three meals. The group included her tutor, Ada, an international student from Africa, and another international student from Europe. A typical lunch or dinner gathering was when the four people met and they talked and laughed together. From my observations, they usually discussed about the dating couples at the College. They were mostly interested in talking about romantic relationships and college life. The learning opportunity offered to Mary was dependent on the friendship she had with her dorm mates.

Edith led a busy college life. Besides regular class schedule, she had to attend orchestra and choir practice, and committee meeting of the international student club.

Similar to Lily, Edith did not have a good relationship with her roommate. She was

89 facing interpersonal issues with the other committee members of the international student club. Therefore she would seldom sit with her dorm mates at the cafeteria. Instead, she had a close friend who was a sophomore from Japan and lived at another dorm. Edith would always sit with her friend from the same country. They spoke in Japanese when they were together. From my observation, Edith had reached near native proficiency in oral English, because of her education received in English speaking international schools in India and Russia. She was not in need of listening and speaking practice like other core participants did. Therefore the effect of dinning in the cafeteria was less significant for

Edith.

Yuki usually dined with her dorm mates. She did not have a close relationship with her roommate, but they were also not having conflicts. Yuki made good friends with other girls who lived on the same floor of her dorm. She did not choose to hang out only with Japanese girls, but she had a good relationship with some native speaking young ladies. Yuki would normally sit at the table that was occupied by her dorm mates.

According to Yuki, her dorm mates talked about news and funny things during the lunch and dinner gatherings. Because of the references they made to pop stars and comedians in the United States, Yuki often felt left behind because she could not make sense of what they were talking about. Because of the speed of conversations and that most of her dorm mates were native speakers, Yuki was provided the chance to practice listening and small talks, but she was not skilful in interjecting or asking questions for clarifying things she did not understand. So the learning opportunity was more about listening and popular discussion topics among young ladies.

Social Gatherings at the Dormitories

Joe Lily Mary Edith Yuki Frequency and After dinner Time Time After dinner After dinner Duration and during between between and during and during the the weekend. classes, classes, after the weekend. Duration: 15 after dinner, dinner, and weekend. Duration: 1 minutes to 2 and during during the Duration: 1 hour to 4 hours. the weekend. hour to 4 hours. weekend. Duration: 15 hours. Duration: 1 minutes to 3 to 4 hours. hours. Typical Events Joe had many Lily was not When they Edith’s Because of her chances to actively were social career goal, talk to his participatin together, they gathering Edith would fellow dorm g at the talked about mainly study at the mates dorm level. the dating happened at library because of The main couples at the her best whenever the dorm reason was College, the friend’s possible. culture. They because she young men dorm room. talked about moved to from other sport games, another dorms, and dance parties, dorm at the relationship and middle of problems. sometimes the they would semester. walk to the TV room and watch a game together. Learning The chance Lily did not According to Because She enjoyed Opportunities to casually make use of Mary, the they spoke the tranquil hang out at the learning girls’ time Japanese environment in the dorm opportunitie enabled her when they the library. provided s provided to learn new were opportunities by her new words from together, the for Joe to dorm. She Ada, and she chance for learn about was less also learned Edith to new outgoing how to learn vocabulary and liked embrace the English was items, dorm reading and different not there. culture, and writing cultures of how young more than her friends men interact social from Europe with each gatherings. and Africa. other at the dorm. Table 17: Social Gatherings at the Dormitories 91

The core participants were new to the College and their frequency of social

gatherings depended upon their personalities and hobbies. Every core participant had a

unique pattern of social gatherings. Joe made many friends at the dorm he resided in.

Besides attending classes, studying on his own, attending tutorial sessions, and working

at the cafeteria, he spent all of his spare time at the dorm. Joe had a roommate who was

from Minnesota. His roommate was interested in Chinese culture but had never lived

with someone from a different country. His roommate had an X-box console in the room

and they would play video games together in their spare time. The dorm culture required

them to keep their door open, so that other dorm mates could walk in and hang out

whenever they had time. I observed that Joe had many chances to talk to his fellow dorm

mates because of the dorm culture. They talked about sport games, dance parties, and

sometimes they would walk to the TV room and watch a game together. The chance to

casually hang out at the dorm provided opportunities for Joe to learn about new

vocabulary items, dorm culture, and how young men interact with each other at the dorm.

On the contrary, Lily was not actively participating at the dorm level. The main

reason was because she moved to another dorm at the middle of the semester. Lily made

friends with two American students at her previous dorm. They used to have dinner

gatherings before Lily moved. Lily could not get along with her roommate at her

previous dorm. So she moved to a new dorm, where there was a single room available.

Because of her move, she had to re-adjust to the new dorm and made new friends.

However, Lily chose to be alone after moving to the new dorm. She no longer had dinner

92 gatherings with her friends, and she would stay at her room to write her novel, read a book, or watch a movie. Lily’s dorm provided opportunities for her to integrate into the dorm culture. It had many biblical quotes on the wall and pigeonholes at the shower room for them to communicate with each other. Unfortunately, Lily did not open up her dorm room to others. She kept her room shut, refused to participate in any social gatherings, and did not use the pigeonholes to communicate with each other. There was a white board on her door where other dorm mates would leave a message for her. Occasionally

Lily would say thank you to them on the board. Besides, Lily had a facebook account which was the main platform for her to communicate with her friends. All in all, Lily did not make use of the learning opportunities provided by her new dorm. The reason is two fold: i) She was less outgoing and liked reading and writing more than social gatherings, and ii) She was having health issues which prevented her from going out with friends.

Mary was an active female student who enjoyed girls’ time with her closest friends at the dorm. Unlike Joe who had a connection to most of his dorm mates, Mary stayed closely connected to a few girls whom she could trust. Her circle was a bit smaller than Joe but larger than Lily. Besides her school work and job at the Spanish Department,

Mary would hang out with her closest friends in the dorm. As mentioned before, she was close to three other girls in the dorm, i.e., her roommate from Europe, an African student, and her tutor, Ada. When they were together, they talked about the dating couples at the

College, the young men from other dorms, and relationship problems. According to Mary, the girls’ time enabled her to learn new words from Ada, and she also learned how to embrace the different cultures of her friends from Europe and Africa.

Edith was a musically talented female student who had a busy college life.

Besides studying and attending committee meeting of the international student club, she had to practice singing and violin, so that she did not have much time left for social gatherings. Edith’s roommate was an American girl who was also having a busy life.

They did not develop a close friendship and did not spend much spare time together.

Instead, Edith had a close friend from Japan, who lived at another dorm. Edith would sometimes sleep over at her best friend’s dorm room. So Edith’s social gathering mainly happened at her best friend’s dorm room. Because they spoke Japanese when they were together, the chance for Edith to learn English was not there. The major reason was because Edith had relatively good ESL training in the international schools where she attended overseas. She did not have an urgent need to polish up her spoken English.

Yuki was a relatively mature female student when compare to the rest of the core participants. She worked as an office lady in Japan for three years before coming to the

United States and therefore she had a clear objective about being a librarian in the future.

Yuki admitted that her conversational English was her weakness. In addition, she did not know how to interject when other people were talking at the same time. Like Edith, Yuki did not have a close relationship with her roommate. Because of her career goal, Edith would study at the library whenever possible. She enjoyed the tranquil environment in the library. Because of this, she did not make use of the dorm for practicing oral English.

Instead, her learning happened mainly at the library.

Social Events Organized by the Dormitories, International Office, and College

Joe Lily Mary Edith Yuki Frequency Six to ten Two events in One event in a Three events Two events in a and Duration events in a a semester. semester. It in a semester. semester. Each semester. Each event last last for 5 Each last for last for 3 to 5 Each event for 3 to 5 hours. 3 to 5 hours. hours. last for 2 to hours. 5 hours. Typical The kinds Lily did not Mary did not Edith Yuki took part Events of dorm- participate in participate in actively took in the Talent organized any dorm- any of the part in the Quest and events that organized dorm- choir and Ethnic Fair Joe events. She organized orchestra organized by participated volunteered to events, but she performances the International in were: participate in volunteered to organized by Office. She graphic the singing work for the the College at performed design, contest Ethnic Fair. the Chapel. cheerleading comedian organized by There were dance with show, dance the College three major another parties, and the Ethnic performances Japanese girl basketball Fair organized throughout from the same games, by the the academic dorm at the barbeques, International year: Fall, Talent Quest. and Office. Winter, and And she helped cardboard Spring. Edith prepare for fighting. performed in Japanese food at The events the Winter the Ethnic Fair. organized and Spring by the events. internationa l office that Joe participated in were: Chinese New Year Celebration Party, Talent Quest, and Ethnic Fair.

Table 18: Social Events Organized by the Dormitories, International Office, and College (Continued)

Table 18: Continued Learning These With reference The learning According to With reference Opportunities events to Lily, her opportunity her, the to Yuki, the provided active provided to performances school events opportunitie participation in her was taken and the provided s for Joe to the singing up as a way to practice channels for her learn about contest and show her helped her to to express her American Ethnic Fair appreciation of integrate into cultural identity college life, provided her a other people’s the as a Japanese fraternity, in chance to cultures. mainstream woman in front particular. express her culture, of American They identity because she students. The offered an through had to events were eye opportunity singing to the communicate opening to her for Joe to American with the American show his students. conductor friends because talents to and other they found that the performers. there were American They also students from students, so reinforced all over the that they her religious world at the could have identity as a College. a deeper Christian. understandi ng of his cultural background.

Among the core participants, Joe was the most active and outgoing. He was the promotion officer of the student union in his high school before coming to the United

States. As a 20 year-old young man, Joe was a regular basketball player, a graphic designer, and a break-dancer. He designed a graphic logo for his dorm and the logo was used for making T-shirts and souvenirs. He took part in the dance parties organized by his dorm. He also played basketball regularly with his fellow dorm mates. These social events prepared him to become a legitimate participant at the dorm. The kinds of dorm- organized events that Joe participated in were: graphic design, comedian show, dance 96

parties, basketball games, barbeques, and cardboard fighting. These events provided

opportunities for Joe to learn about American college life, fraternity, in particular. The

events organized by the international office that Joe participated in were: Chinese New

Year Celebration Party, Talent Quest, and Ethnic Fair. These events were organized to

help international students integrate into the mainstream American culture. They offered

an opportunity for Joe to show his talents to the American students, so that they could

have a deeper understanding of his cultural background.

Lily did not participate in any dorm-organized events. Her new dorm mates

invited her by all means, e.g., knocking on her door, writing on her notice board at the

door, and inviting her through facebook, but she refused all of them. However, she was

talented in singing and she learned how to sing pop songs in China before coming to the

United States. She volunteered to participate in the singing contest organized by the

College and the Ethnic Fair organized by the International Office. The singing contest

was based on the popular TV show, American Idol, during which, the audience cast votes

to the performers to decide who would stay in the contest. Lily chose an English song,

Just One Last Dance, which was released in 2004 by a German singer-songwriter Sarah

Connor (Information retrieved from Wikipedia on February 5, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_One_Last_Dance). Why Lily chose this song was because she wanted to sing an English song so that the audience could understand.

Though she was more familiar with Chinese pop songs, she chose an English song to appeal to the taste of the audience. Lily’s performance on stage was impeccable but she did not win in the first round. According to Lily, it was because the audience could not

appreciate her personal style of singing. During the Ethnic Fair, which was organized by

the International Office in April, 2010, Lily volunteered to sing a Chinese pop song, 我们

的爱 (translated title, “Our Love”). Because it was an event to appreciate the cultures of

students from all over the world, Lily felt relieved that she could sing a song that she was

used to. With reference to Lily, her active participation in the singing contest and Ethnic

Fair provided her a chance to express her identity through singing to the American

students.

Mary did not participate in any of the dorm-organized events, but she volunteered

to work for the Ethnic Fair. Her friendship with international students in her dorm

provided her a chance to learn to appreciate other cultures. She fully embraced the

cultures of others by helping the Chinese students to cook a traditional Chinese dish for

the Fair. She also dressed up in a Congo costume, which was from her friend’s home

country, at the Fair. The learning opportunity provided to her was taken up as a way to

show her appreciation of other people’s cultures. The major difference between Mary and

Lily was that Mary’s culture as a Spanish speaking female student, was more readily

accepted in the mainstream. There were many Spanish majors at the College. The town

had some immigrants from Latino regions and had a Spanish speaking church. Therefore,

she did have the urge to express her own cultural identity at the College.

Edith actively took part in the choir and orchestra performances organized by the

College at the Chapel. There were three major performances throughout the academic year: Fall, Winter, and Spring. Edith performed in the Winter and Spring events. The performance last for 3 hours. Edith first sang in the choir and then she played the violin

98 after singing in the choir. The songs selected were mostly Christian songs in Italian language. Therefore, Edith learned some Italian language during the practice. All the performers dressed in black and Edith wore a black dress for the performance. According to her, the performances and the practice helped her to integrate into the mainstream culture, because she had to communicate with the conductor and other performers. They also reinforced her religious identity as a Christian. Edith also participated as a receptionist at the Ethnic Fair. She wore a traditional Korean costume because she was half Korean.

Yuki took part in the Talent Quest and Ethnic Fair organized by the International

Office. She performed cheerleading dance with another Japanese girl from the same dorm at the Talent Quest. And she helped prepare for Japanese food at the Ethnic Fair. With reference to Yuki, the school events provided channels for her to express her cultural identity as a Japanese woman in front of American students. The events were eye opening to her American friends because they found that there were students from all over the world at the College.

Domain Analysis

Following Spradley (1979, 1980), an ethnographer begins with a grand tour to have an overall idea of the researched, and then identifies the relevant domains for further analysis. According to Spradley (1979), a domain is “any symbolic category that includes other categories”, e.g., “the category friend (kabagayan) includes eight other categories for different types of friends: ritual friend, close friend, causal friend…” (p. 100) The identification of domains should be based on the participants’ points of view instead of the researcher’s classifications.

In this study, the domains identified for each core participant could be similar or different. Because the goal of this study is to find out the shared cultural themes, I will present the findings extant across the participants. I will first discuss the domains which were found among all the core participants, and then discuss those which were specific to each individual participant.

The conduct of a domain analysis is a further step to understand the complexities

involved in out-of-class learning opportunities. A graphic representation of the domains

is shown in Diagram 4-1. Actors

Social Situation

Place Activities

Figure 3: Spradley’s (1980) Representation of Domains

100

(Adapted from Spradley, 1980, p. 40)

With reference to Spradley (1980), “Every social situation can be identified by

three primary elements: a place, actors, and activities.” (p. 39) Social situations, actors,

places, and activities are conceptually connected and are separated here only for heuristic

purposes. How I categorized the following discussions as domains of actors, places, or

activities depended on whether it was the actors, places or activities, which contributed

the most to the out-of-class learning among ESL students. For example, if the “actors”

was the most prominent factor which was conducive to out-of-class learning, then the event would be put under the domain of actors; if it was because of the products at a grocery store that a learning opportunity was co-constructed, and then such event would be discussed under the domain of places, so on and so forth. Since social situations, actors, places, and activities are connected, in some cases the discussion of one domain necessarily involves the discussion of another domain. For example, in the discussion of actors below it is inevitable to discuss the domain of place and activity.

At the end of this section, I provide a summary that characterizes the nature of the various learning opportunities described. In order to make that summary easier to read, I label each learning opportunity described as “Learning Opportunity A1”, “Learning

Opportunity A2” etc.

101

Domain of Actors

Actors within the College Town

Academically Related Dormitory Related Town Community Related

Dorm-mates Professors Classmates Restaurant Townspeople Workers Wing Mates Tutors

Roommates

Figure 4: Domain of Actors

Within the domain of actors, there were various sub-domains, such as academically related actors (professors, classmates, and tutors), dormitory related actors

(dorm-mates, wing mates, and roommates), and town community related actors

(restaurant workers and townspeople).

From the review of various data sources, the ESL students spent the most time within the dorms. They mentioned that their dorm-mates provided the most help to them, and therefore the dorm-related actors were the most important actors in their out-of-class learning.

All five core participants mentioned that their dorm-mates, which was a cover term for wing-mates, roommates, and friends (sometimes the core participants used the term “friends” to refer to their dorm-mates) contributed the most towards their out-of- class learning.

[Learning Opportunity A1] 102

For instance, with reference to Joe’s diary dated January 29, 2010, he wrote,

“After class, I needed to communicate with my friends, but I did not know how to do that because I was lazy when I was in China… Because I live on campus, I have plenty of chances to communicate with my dorm-mates. So my plan was to push myself and go to my dorm-mates’ rooms, and I would sit there and listen to my friends’ communication.”

Then he went on to describe his conversations with dorm-mates by giving more examples about their daily conversations. His diaries demonstrated that “dorm-mates” was an important domain in his case for learning English out-of-class.

When Joe first arrived in the United States in August, 2009, he was not able to utter a word in English. His English proficiency was the lowest among other international students. His listening skill was the weakest because he could not make sense of any of the classes he was required to take. The school administrators admitted him on a contingency basis, i.e., he had to demonstrate significant improvement after the first semester in order to continue his studies at the College.

Joe might have limited English proficiency, but he was outgoing, which helped him make friends at the College. He used to be the promotional officer of the student union in high school in China. He was also affiliated with the dance team in high school

(not an official dance team member). Joe’s excellent social skills had positive influence on his dorm life at W Hall. Whenever he was not having a class or working, he would have a chance to talk to someone in his dorm.

After one year, Joe made many friends within the dorm. He had several best friends with whom he could share his ups and downs. Joe’s conversational English improved from zero to advanced level along with his development of friendship with others. [Learning Opportunity A2] He could tell jokes whenever he wanted. He could

103

give an account of his life experience in English with no difficulty. He could also strike

up a conversation in English with his friends or with any stranger. He still maintained his

accent and sometimes he made grammatical mistakes in his speech, however, he had no

problem dealing with everyday conversations. It could be hard to find out whether his

improvement in speaking was due to the Oral English classes that he took or the friends

he made at W Hall. However, the Oral and Advanced Oral English courses I taught were

geared towards academic preparedness, i.e., giving presentations and participating in

actor discussions. They did not have any component about teaching the slang terms which could only be understood by the residents within the same dorm, and they did not include any colloquial expressions such as “You don’t know Jack”. Therefore I am convinced that Joe’s conversational skills were developed mostly out-of-class.

In addition, his social skills improved after a year, along with his conversational skills. [Learning Opportunity A3] When he first arrived in the United States, he did not know about the “hugging culture” within the dorm. He did not know how to greet his dorm-mates. He did not even know how to respond when being prompted with “What’s up?” or “How’s it going?”. After a year, Joe acquired all of the nonverbal skills together with his development of friendship with his dorm-mates. For instance, he would greet each person differently depending on his depth of relationship with that person. Joe explained that how hard he squeezed the person reflected how strong their relationship was. He would squeeze his best friend until they felt breathless because that was the nonverbal way to express love and friendship between them. He also learned the “finger language” and “eye language” which were nonverbal but important for developing friendship at the dorm.

104

Joe’s friends contributed significantly towards his English learning. This finding

is also corroborated by his tutor, Jeanie, who said that,

“He definitely progressed a lot just this semester. He can have entire conversation in English. He could do it but he would struggle a lot more… He’s very popular. He has become much more physical. He’s much more Americanized. And he thinks he understands social interactions in America much better. When we went to Walmart, he was much more like. He was just like he has his arm around my shoulder, we were just like friends. I would think he had been here for way more than a year. He’s very very open and he’s very willing to learn especially in that kind of way.” (Interview on May 18, 2010)

All in all, how Joe’s friendship contributed to his out-of-class learning was evident in various data sources. The “how” and “why” in terms of the correlation between his friendship and out-of-class learning are complex and multifaceted. His outgoing character, excellent social skills, the fraternity culture within the dorm, and his dorm-mates who reached out to help him were all contributing factors in his case.

Similar to Joe, Mary made many good friends at her dorm. The cover term Mary used was “friends”, which included dorm-mates, wing mates, and her tutor who lived in the same dorm. She mentioned that,

[Learning Opportunity A4]

“When I am speaking like with Ada and Katy at the dorm I learn the most. Sometimes during the weekend we go to a party and it’s all American people so we speak English. The best chance to learn English is when I speak with my friends.” (Interview on March 17, 2010).

Mary believed that her friends contributed the most to her out-of-class learning.

Like Joe, Mary was outgoing and good at social skills. Because of her prior high school experience in California and Iowa, she was familiar with American culture. Mary was a popular female student in her dorm, F Hall. Similar to W Hall, F Hall values sorority. The

105

residents were encouraged to leave their doors open, and they had to put a shoe at the

door if a male student was present in the room. F Hall had more foreign students than W

Hall, e.g., there was an African student, a student from Eastern Europe, and two students

from Japan.

When Mary first arrived in August 2009 at the College, she was assigned with a

local female student as her roommate (by the international office). She then requested to

live with her best friend, Katy, who was from Lithuania. They started to live as

roommates in Spring 2010. Since Mary and Katy did not speak each other’s mother

tongues, they had to communicate in English. Mary and Katy were friends with Ada, who

was an American student. The friendship between Mary, Katy and Ada strengthened over

the course of a year. They became best friends after a year of living at the same dorm.

Mary’s prior studies at high schools in California and Iowa provided her with a

chance to learn the social skills as a teenager. In her diary dated February 19, 2010, she

wrote,[Learning Opportunity A5]

“Two of the culture shocks that I had when I first came were the language and the food. Everything was so different. I thought I was going to die. But thanks to God everything got better, so much better that I can say that I love living in the United States. Since I came here I have made a lot of friends; friends from high school, work, church and now friends from the College.”

Mary made many friends and they helped her learn English out-of-class. Mary had a lot of “girls’ time” with her friends. They held hands in public and talked about male students, they watched DVDs at the dorm together and cried together over sad movies, and they went shopping together. Their friendship grew over the course of one year. Her friendship with Ada particularly helped her learn English out-of-class. Ada

106

could explain some difficult concepts in Spanish to Mary. Their friendship was

particularly significant because Mary spoke Spanish when working at the Spanish

Department and she listened to Spanish on Sunday at church, so she did not have much

chance to use the English language. The opportunities for Mary to use English were

limited to conversations with Ada and Katy.

Unlike Joe who started from scratch in terms of English proficiency, Mary had

good command in the language because of her prior high school experience in California

and Iowa. She said that she did not speak English in California because every one spoke

Spanish. On the contrary, the one year high school in Iowa helped Mary learned English

intensively because she was put in a “sink or swim” situation where no one spoke

Spanish to her. Therefore Mary did not struggle as much as Joe in terms of language

learning.

From my observation, Mary improved in the way she embraced foreign culture

because of her friendship with people from all over the world. Besides Katy who was from Lithuania, Mary had another female friend, Greta, who was from Congo and lived at the same dorm. [Learning Opportunity A6] When there were social events which valued foreign cultures, Mary would always attend to support her friends. For instance, she helped the Chinese students make their ethnic dish for the Ethnic Fair. She wore the traditional costume from Congo to support her friend at the Fair. All other students were eager to cook their ethnic dishes or dress in their traditional costumes to represent their own cultures, but Mary showed that she embraced the cultures of others. Mary said that,

107

“There are people here who speak Spanish. Many American students want to

learn Spanish and so they talk to me and stuff. So I don’t have to do anything for my

culture. I think it is more important to help others.” (Interview on May 18, 2010)

Mary developed empathy towards other foreign students whose languages and

cultures were the minority at the College. The change from mainly hanging out with

Spanish speaking friends to friends from Lithuania and Congo helped Mary improve her

cross-cultural awareness.

Similarly, Lily, Edith, and Yuki also mentioned that their English skills improved

because they made friends at their dorms. [Learning Opportunity A7] However, when

compared to Joe and Mary, who were outgoing, Lily, Edith, and Yuki did not establish

close relationships with their dorm-mates. Lily moved from S Hall to F Hall in Spring

2010 and so she lost her connection with her friends in S Hall. Lily did not have a good relationship with her roommate at S Hall and she requested to live alone in F Hall in

Spring 2010. She had a couple of friends who would say hi to her at the cafeteria, but because she closed her door all the time, she did not make new friends in Spring 2010.

[Learning Opportunity A8] Her only chance to have conversations with other than saying hi was with her tutor. I observed that when Lily was talking with her tutor casually, she sat far away from her tutor, constantly looked away other than looking into her tutor’s eyes, and always waited for her tutor to initiate a discussion topic. Her conversational skills did not improve as much as Joe and Mary because of a lack of bonding with other people at the College. Similarly, Edith and Yuki, were less outgoing and independent.

They both did not have a close relationship with their roommates. Edith was busy because of her participation in extracurricular activities. Yuki was always staying at the

108

library or her room. She studied alone most of the time during the year. Though Lily,

Edith, and Yuki also agreed that friends played the most important role in their out-of- class learning, the way they took up the learning opportunities provided was very different from Joe and Mary.

To conclude, the learning opportunities provided to the core participants were complicated and multifaceted. The dorms where they lived played an important role in providing them with sources of friendship. The degrees of help provided by the dorm- mates could be different depending on the dorm culture and the help they would offer to the ESL students. How the learning opportunities were taken up depended on the ESL students’ personalities and motivation to learn. All in all, it was the co-construction of friendship between the ESL students and their dorm-mates which was critical in terms of out-of-class learning. From the findings, the two core participants who improved the most linguistically and culturally were Joe and Mary, because they developed solid friendship with their friends.

Before ending the discussion of the domain of actors, I want to review each of the learning opportunities above and characterize the nature of each of them.

109

Domain of Places

School Non-school

Student Dormitories Municipal Restaurants EntertainmentF Activity Hall Parks acilities (Includes Gym) Grocery Cafeteria Chapel Stores/Shops Dormitory Room Lounge

TV/Computer Room

Figure 5: Domain of Places

The domain of places that the core participants were involved in could be

categorized by either school-based or non-school based.

Besides six to eight hours of sleep and three to four hours of class time, the core

participants spent twelve to fifteen hours at the student activity hall, cafeteria, lounge of

their dorms, and other non-school related areas such as the municipal parks, restaurants,

grocery stores, and other entertainment facilities such as pubs and ice rink.

Based on the data corpus, all core participants revealed that the places that were most conducive to learning ESL were settings within the dorm. It could be the corridor where they casually conversed with a dorm mate or the dorm rooms where they had parties.

110

Joe was assigned a dormitory (by the international office), W Hall, which was

located on the west side of the campus. W Hall was a men’s dorm with only one male

student from Taiwan. All of the fellow residents were from the Midwest. Joe’s roommate

was from Minnesota. He had no prior experience making friends with foreigners but he had an open mind about foreign cultures. Joe started to make friends with his roommate and other dorm-mates immediately after moving in. [Learning Opportunity B1] Within the dorm, there were certain rules which were not stated but important for Joe to conform to, e.g., all residents must leave their doors open 24/7, they had to put a hanger on the doorknob if a female student was in the room, if they cooked in the kitchen they had to share their food, etc. These rules were orally passed along but were very important for

Joe if he wanted to become a socially competent resident within the dorm.

For instance, in the first interview with Joe dated January 22, 2010, he gave the following response when being asked to describe his out-of-class social interactions.

[Learning Opportunity B2]

“I feel W Hall is a big family. A lot of people are kind of brothers. If you cook something you’ll share your food. If you have problem they will help you. Sometimes they hang out with you and just sit there and talk with you.

[Learning Opportunity B3] Therefore the kitchen at the dorm was also a place where learning occurred. Joe said that he learned the term “Ramen noodles” and various names of cooking utensils from his dorm-mates. Besides the kitchen, Joe said that the conversations that happened at his own dorm room and other people’s dorm rooms were the most important learning opportunities provided to him. At first he was not comfortable with the idea of leaving his door open. After a while he accepted it and found that his friendship with other dorm-mates mainly built upon conversations that

111

occurred within the dorm rooms. Joe’s room was a 10’x15’ square-shaped room with a bunker bed and two study desks. It was filled with shoes and clothes on the floor, posters on the wall, and empty video game boxes. However, the small room and the messiness did not prevent other people from entering his room. According to Joe, it was guaranteed that there would be dorm-mates walking into his room on a daily basis. His room was the main place where learning of English occurred.

Similar to Joe, Mary mentioned that her out-of-class learning of ESL occurred the most frequently at her dorm room. Her roommate, Katy, and their best friend, Ada, were always having girls’ talk [Learning Opportunity B4] in Mary and Katy’s room. Mary’s room was 10’x15’ with a bunker bed and two study desks. Mary had a DVD player and many classic movies such as the Titanic, and her favorite moment was to have girls’ talk with her best friends.

Joe and Mary would also have casual talks with their dorm-mates at the corridors, lounges, and activity rooms of their dorms. These places provided many learning opportunities to them, and they both took up these opportunities by actively participating in the conversations, and following the rules attached to these places. Such rules included i) leaving their dorm rooms open, ii) putting a hanger or a shoe at the door if a person of opposite sex was present, iii) welcoming visitors to their rooms and actively participated in the conversations with them, and iv) maintaining a good relationship with their roommates.

Unlike Joe and Mary, Lily, Edith, and Yuki did not benefit from dorm-related conversations as much. Though they also pointed out in the interview that dorms were the places where learning occurred, they had various reasons for not taking up the same

112

learning opportunities as Joe and Mary. One of the major reasons was that they did not

have good relationship with their roommates. Lily moved to another dorm and lived

alone because she did not have a good relationship with her roommate. She always shut

her door in the new dorm. Edith’s best friend was a Japanese girl who lived at another

dorm, where they spent most of their spare time speaking Japanese. Yuki did not have

conflicts with her roommate, but her roommate was extremely busy and did not stay at

their room most of the time. Yuki ended up studying at her room or at the library alone

most of her spare time.

Another interesting finding about the dorms was about the stereotypes which existed within the College community. There were five residence dorms: two for men, C and W Halls, and three for women, F, H, and S Halls. [Learning Opportunity B5] Each hall had its own history and traditions that the ESL students had to know about. Also,

there were stereotypes about each dorm. Here is an excerpt of a discussion on dorm

stereotypes between Lily and her tutor, Mandy.

Lily: S girls always close their doors but not in F Hall. And somebody told me that S girls are girls that you… you date. F girls are girls that you marry. H girls are girls… they are your friends. Thanks goodness I’m not in H Hall. Mandy: Stereotypes. The types of girls that live in a dorm. Mandy: I don’t think it’s true for everyone but I’m sure it changes you a little. Lily: I’m always a caring person. Mandy: Like every one that lives in S Hall not always care about their hair and makeup but like when you are around people that care about it a lot, you just want to do it more. I don’t think it changes you as a person but it changes you a little. (Transcription from participant observation on February 8, 2010)

As such, the ESL students had to know what identities they carried based on the

dorms they lived at. They might have to change a bit towards a certain direction, e.g.,

girls at S Hall wore makeup and took care of how they looked more than others. The

113

most prominent example was Lily’s change in the way she looked. I observed that Lily

learned to wear makeup when she lived in S Hall in Fall 2009. She was obviously not

very skilful because she didn’t know what colors would work for her. But after moving to

F Hall in Spring 2010, she stopped wearing makeup and dressing up, because F Hall did

not have the same culture. Similarly, other core participants were also influenced by the

dorm cultures. Some of them chose to embrace the cultures, e.g., Joe, Mary, Lily, and

Yuki. Edith mentioned that she did not like H Hall, because H girls were perceived as

“goofy”. She requested a transfer to F Hall, where the girls were “marriage materials” according to the stereotypes.

The cafeteria of the College provided buffet style breakfast, lunch, and dinner to the students. Besides the learning of how food was purchased with the smart card, the

ESL students had to learn certain rules governing the seating at the cafeteria. [Learning

Opportunity B6] The various dorms would have a particular table marked as their dining

spot. There would not be any written labels at the cafeteria. So the ESL students must learn the rules by listening to their friends when they first dined at the cafeteria. For instance, if a resident of W Hall sat at the spot which was supposed to be taken by residents of C Hall (another men’s dorm), he would be regarded as a complete stranger or newcomer to the community or someone who was insane. The unwritten rules were very important for the ESL students to follow if they were to become competent participants at the College community.

Similarly, there were rules governing attendance at the Chapel. For instance, the students, no matter Christians or non-Christians, must stand up during the worship service. The attendance at the service was mandatory and the ESL students had to abide

114

by rules. They could not talk or read during the service because such behavior was

regarded as not respectful to the religion of the College. [Learning Opportunity B7] At

first the ESL students were reluctant in attending the Chapel services. Some of them did

not stand up when asked to. Some of them did their own reading during the service.

However, after a while, they accepted the fact that they had to conform to the rules set

forth, in order to adapt to the local culture.

None of the core participants mentioned that non-school places were conducive to

their out-of-class learning in their diaries or during the interviews. However, from the

participant observations, I observed that certain places, such as the shops located at the

downtown mall, provided learning opportunities to them incidentally. For example, the

following dialogues which happened on February 22, 2010 at a meat store in downtown

showed how the place provided learning opportunities to Yuki. [Learning Opportunity B8]

Yuki: So American people eat liver too? (looked at D in the eye) D: Um… Not a lot of people. Some people like to put it in their hamburgers and a lot of farmers take the livers and the heart and take them to their dogs. It’s edible and not a lot of like… our generation or our fathers… they don’t eat it but our grandpas back in the day they used to. They might use them but otherwise they just go to the dogs. We throw it away. D: How about Japanese. Do you guys eat livers? Yuki: Yes sometimes we eat rod livers. D: Raw? Yuki: Raw. Yeah (nodded a couple of times). Haha.

The above dialogues showed how the place of a meat store provided the environment for a cultural exchange about eating internal organs. Yuki assumed that

Americans did not eat internal organs. However, at the meat store, D showed Yuki the

internal organs on a chop board, which facilitated the dialogues between Yuki and D

about the eating habits across cultures. If the conversation did not happen at the meat

115

store, the above dialogues would be unlikely to occur. Therefore the place of the meat store provided an opportunity between Yuki and D to talk about anything related to meat and eating habit. [Learning Opportunity B9]

Another example happened on April 22, 2010 at a local handcrafts store.

Herewith the dialogues:

Mary: Yeah I have never been here before. What are these? Jeanie: Tummy warmers. You know the word tummy? Mary: No. Jeanie: (pointed to her belly) Mary: Oh I need this.

The above dialogues showed that the store located downtown provided learning opportunities to the core participants. During the shopping, the core participants raised many questions about the names of certain products, and the non-core participants provided them with an answer or an explanation, which demonstrated that learning occurred. Though the place was conducive to learning because the shop provided many products which the core participants did not know how to name them, it is worth mentioning that the domain of actors and activities also came into play in these situations.

The learning opportunities were co-constructed by the core and non-core participants when they shopped together at those stores.

In the two examples which occurred at the meat store and the handcrafts store, the

ESL students raised questions to the native speaking friends, and then the questions were taken up by the native speaking friends and answered. Then the ESL students acknowledged that they learned something new. The three steps, i) initiation of a question about a language related question, ii) the taking up of the question and the provision of a

116

reply by the native speaking friend, and iii) the acknowledgement by the ESL student that learning occurred, demonstrated that there was an intricate relationship between the place, and participants at the place, and how they co-construct the learning opportunity by doing things together.

When the ESL students first arrived in the USA (except Mary who received two years of high school education in California and Iowa and Yuki who attended a summer institute in Iowa), they were clueless about the cultural practices expected of them. For instance, the first time when Joe, Lily, and Edith went to a grocery store, not only were they not familiar with the names of the products, they did not know the usual procedure for buying things in a grocery store. [Learning Opportunity B10] When the three of them went to a local grocery store, they did not know that the fresh produce should be put into a transparent plastic bag provided in the store. They also did not know what to say when being prompted with “Plastic or paper?” when checking out at the cashier. Similarly, when they went to a clothing store, they were clueless when being asked, “Receipt with you or in the bag?”. Some of them realized the meaning by paying attention to the body language of the cashier. Some of them asked their tutors and me about how to respond to those questions. After a year of getting familiar with the cultural practice, they all learned the culturally appropriate way to respond to such questions, e.g., “plastic, please.” Or “in the bag, please”. It is interesting to see the change among them from knowing nothing to becoming socially and culturally competent participants in the shopping process.

Similarly, when the ESL students first visited a restaurant in the college town, they were unsure about the cultural practices such as paying tips and going

117

Dutch.[Learning Opportunity B11] They learned about such cultural rules after discussing with their friends.

Domain of Activities

There were various domains of activities which provided learning opportunities to the ESL students and they were either long-term regular ones, such as tutorials, dance parties and on-campus work; or incidental ones such as singing contest, art exhibition, choir/orchestra performance, card-board fight, and ethnic fair.

I will first discuss the regular activities, beginning with the tutorials.

A typical tutorial was usually split into half. During the first half, the tutors and tutees would work on the schoolwork, e.g., proofreading the written works or reading aloud together. During the second half, they would spend time having casual talk. The duration of the first and second half depends on the preference of the tutees.

From my observation, the relationship between the tutors and tutees evolved during the process. Most of the ESL students were intimidated by their tutors because their tutors were native speakers of English who did not speak other languages and they were higher form students at the College. Joe said that at the first interview on January

22, 2010,

“The first time I saw Jeanie I thought, Oh my God she looked serious. You know, she sat there and didn’t smile. I was scared. I hate people who do not relax. So the first two tutorials I didn’t enjoy them… But after the time we drew together, and how she laughed at my jokes, and the time we ate dinner together, I said to myself, ok. She’s a great person.”

Similarly, the first time when Lily met with her tutor, Mandy, on February 8,

2010, I wrote in the fieldnotes,

118

“It was a round table with four chairs in a quiet room. Lily and Mandy sat across the table. Lily always looked away when talking to Mandy. She also had many different postures which told that she was nervous, for example she used her right hand to support her chin, and then used the same hand to play with her shoes.”

Edith and Yuki also showed a certain level of anxiety when first met with their tutors. They waited for their tutors to initiate a discussion topic and did not talk about anything other than schoolwork. As time went by, the relationship between the tutors and tutees evolved. Joe and Jeanie became good friends and they ate dinner together all the time. When Yuki and Dana first met Yuki was nervous and did not talk much about herself. But in the third tutorial, she made good friends with Dana and they went out to have a snow fight during the tutorial.

The more time the tutors and tutees spent out-of-class, the better their relationship became. The nature of tutorial sessions also changed along with their growth in friendship. For example, towards the end of the semester, except the revisions for exams, the tutors and tutees would play pools and have small talks even the official tutorial time had passed. Their small talk topics would be more personal, always relating to dating and interpersonal relationships within the College. [Learning Opportunity C1] The ESL students’ conversational skills also improved significantly along with the relationship growth. For example, here is an excerpt from Yuki at the beginning of her first tutorial on

February 8, 2010,

Yuki: When women… got… get pregnant… they will go to… hospital… not hospital… hospital for pregnant women. Dana: like a clinic? Yuki: Yeah. They teach pregnant women… yoga… exercise… some clinic look like hospital… before… you give birth… some people stay in hospital… and then they go… to the hospital. Some people do. Some people wait until… they… they are hurt…

119

Dana: Have contractions? Like pain around the muscles around the belly.

During that time, it was obvious that Yuki hesitated many times when putting forth a complete sentence. However, by the end of the semester, she was already fine with uttering a complete sentence. Here is an excerpt from an interview with Yuki on

April 22, 2010.

“Maybe like my situation, before I came here, American students… were… like… I scared of American students. I don’t have courage to talk to them in the first month. But… we… I understand we have same feeling so I understand what they think of me. I don’t know. During the conversation, now my wall was broken. So I am not shy with talking with American students.

From the above excerpt, it is evident that Yuki’s social relationship with her friends encouraged her to be confident in conversations. Because of that, she improved on fluency and would not hesitate so much when she talked by the end of the semester.

There were two dance parties organized by W Hall and both were open to the public. W Hall had a tradition in organizing dance parties, which were thus recognized as regular events at the dorm level. The first party was held at one of the dining halls of the

College on the night of January 23, 2010. The party was professionally held, with high- end amplifiers, disco balls, and professional disc jockeys. All faculty, staff, and students were invited. Among the core participants, only Joe and Mary went to the dance party.

Mary only stayed for ten minutes and then she left with her friends.

Joe’s behavior at the dance party was worth analyzing. During the first hour of the party, he merely danced with anyone. All he did was to greet and talk to the people he saw at the party. During the second hour, he danced with people he knew well in a circle.

I observed that only close friends could stay in a dance circle. Some circles were small,

120

with only two to three people in a group. Some dance circles were large, with four to six people in a group. Joe stayed in a group with four other American students. It was a break-dance group. Within the group, every one took turn to get to the centre of the circle so as to perform a special move. They could not communicate in words because the music was too loud but there was no misunderstanding about the turn-taking and what to do next. Joe gained a spot in the group as a competent break-dancer. His signature move was to twist his body and spin endlessly with his butt on the floor. [Learning Opportunity

C2] His signature move symbolized his group identity within the dance group and it definitely helped him earn the currency to stay in the group.

At the second dance party organized by W Hall on February 9, 2010, Joe performed his break-dance with his friends again. But this time, I observed something new. [Learning Opportunity C3] When Joe met one of his break-dance friends, i.e., the same group which formed a circle on January 23, 2010, he had a special dance move to greet that person. The special dance move was a mutually recognized nonverbal means of communication between Joe and his friend. This showed that his friendship with that person strengthened because of his participation in the dance parties.

Joe’s participation in dance parties contributed to his building of social relationship at his dorm, and helped him gain the identity as a socially competent participant at the dorm, and that in turn helped him gain the leverage for learning opportunities, e.g., more resources for conversations and tutorial assistance.

All of the core participants’ on campus employments directly or indirectly contributed to their out-of-class learning opportunities. [Learning Opportunity C4] Joe and Lily’s jobs at the cafeteria trained them to work as a janitor at the cafeteria. They

121

learned about the shift system, the names of various kitchen utensils, and what it was like

to work with native speaking co-workers. Mary learned how to mark the papers written

by American students studying Spanish. She also learned the routine being a teaching

assistant. Her employment was different from the rest of the group because she used

Spanish all the time when performing at her job. Yuki worked at the circulation desk and

helped the patrons check out and return their books at the library. Her job provided her a

chance to learn the vocabulary required for the job. In addition, she learned how to deal

with the library patrons. Here is an excerpt when Yuki had a small talk when a student

was checking out some reference books at the library.

Carmen: Oh, that is a really old one so maybe that won’t be so good for research. Yuki: Yeah, you should borrow some update, some new information to write the paper with. Carmen: Oh, yeah, yeah. Yuki: Yeah. It looks like nobody borrow this book. Carmen: Yeah, I don’t know. Yuki: It looks like it is about the history. Carmen: True, true true. Yuki: It’s okay to borrow. (Transcript from participant observation on April 15, 2010)

The chance to interact with the library patrons provided a learning opportunity for

Yuki to use the language out-of-class. Also, Yuki was better prepared to become a librarian because of her on-campus employment at the library. Mary, who wanted to become a Spanish professor, also had a directly related on-campus job as a teaching assistant. Both of them mentioned that the on-campus jobs were critical to let them know whether the chosen fields were suitable for them.

122

In the following paragraphs, I will describe the incidental activities that the

participants engaged in, such as singing contest, art exhibition, choir/orchestra

performance, card-board fight, and ethnic fair.

The only activity that all core participants took part in was ethnic fair, which was

held at the Student Activity Center on March 27, 2010. This activity was organized by

the international office and carried out by the executive members of the international

club. The aim of the activity was to raise the cross-cultural awareness within the college

community. All townspeople, faculty, staff, and students were invited to take part in the

activity. The international students were asked to wear their traditional costumes and

were invited to perform on stage.

At the beginning of the activity, the thirty-seven international students took turn to introduce their cultures on stage. Then the guests would have a chance to taste the pre- cooked ethnic foods prepared by the international students. Each guest paid an admission fee to the activity. While the guests were eating, the international students took turn to sing a song or dance on stage. Joe took part in the group dance with other international students. He also sang a Chinese song with two other Chinese students. Lily sang a

Chinese song solo. Joe and Lily prepared a famous Chinese dish called kungpao chicken for the activity. Mary did not perform on stage but she wore the costume of her friend from Congo, and helped the Chinese and Japanese students prepare their foods. Edith was an executive member of the international club and therefore was responsible for the organization of the activity. She helped with the decorations at the venue, the preparation of musical equipment for the performers, and various errands required by the chairman of

123

the club. Edith also performed on stage by playing violin. Yuki performed a cheerleading

dance with her Japanese friend, Yvonne.

[Learning Opportunity C5] The ethnic fair provided many chances for the core

participants to share their cultures, e.g., making ethnic foods, interacting with other

townspeople, and performing on stage. It also gave a chance to the local townspeople to

express how well the foreign cultures were received, e.g., each townspeople could go on

stage and tell the story of how he or she met an international student and how their

friendship evolved over the course of the year. As such, the international students felt that

their cultures were validated and received by the townspeople. The ethnic fair was a huge

event at the town where the College was located. Because many of the townspeople were

monolingual and had never traveled to other countries, the event provided a great

opportunity for them to understand more about different cultures. From the international students’ perspective, they had always been the minority within the town community, and so the ethnic fair gave them a chance to publicly announce their cultural identities and show off their talents to the local residents.

“This is such a great opportunity for the international students to subvert the power relationship between the “Americans” and “foreigners” at the town community. The international students finally had a chance to declare their “differentness” on stage.” (Fieldnotes written at the venue, March 27, 2010)

Similar to the ethnic fair, Lily volunteered to perform a song at a joint school singing contest in early spring. She carefully chose an English song called “Just One Last

Dance” because she wanted her song to be received well by the American students, who cast vote to decide who the winner was. Unfortunately, though Lily performed well on stage with impeccable singing skills (She learned how to sing pop songs at a music

124

school in Beijing for a while), she lost in the competition. Here is a transcription from participant observation which was audiotaped on February 16, 2010.

Carmen: Hey honey, how are you? Lily: Not so good… not so good. Carmen: What’s wrong? Lily: You know, I’m just sad. Nobody voted for me. They didn’t vote for me because I’m Chinese. Carmen: You know, with American students, they don’t usually vote for the best. They vote for their friends. Most people don’t know you. You did a really good job, and you’re loved. Don’t feel bad. Lily: No, Carmen, I know you’re just trying to make me feel better. I mean, you’re different. You get us. Most people just don’t. They don’t like me. I wish more people were like you. But I just feel so bad, I can’t make them like me. I just… Carmen: It just takes time, honey. Most people just walk on by and don’t go the extra mile to get to know you. You have to try to get to know them too. I do because… well that’s just what I do. I’ve learned to do that because I know what it’s like to be in your shoes. And I’d rather be around you guys than around a lot of other people, so I try hard. But most people are waiting for people to come and be their friends. Sometimes you have to do that. And not everyone is going to like you, even if you try. That’s just the way it is… Lily: You know, it’s okay, it’s okay. You can go Carmen. I’m just so sad. You can’t help. Carmen: I’m sorry honey…

From this excerpt, it is obvious that Lily took the plunge to participate in the singing contest, with the hope that her singing skills and cultural identity would be validated by the audience. She actively sought the opportunity to express herself, which showed her risk-taking character. Other core participants, i.e., first year international students who hadn’t established a reliable social network within the College dared not participate in the event. The assessment means, i.e., vote casting, was intimidating to newcomers who did not have solid supporters at the College. [Learning Opportunity C6]

However, Lily took the risk to perform on stage because she believed in her singing skills and she eagerly hoped to be liked by the other students at the College. This excerpt

125

showed that deep down the international students really longed for acceptance within the

community. It was very important to them that their identities could be validated and

accepted. They wanted to become legitimate participant within the community.

Like Lily, Joe was also eager to show his cultural identity and talents. Not only

talented in breakdancing, Joe was also an artist who particularly liked graphic design.

Four pieces of his art works were selected for an art exhibition organized by the Art

Department. The exhibition was held on April 16, 2010. His friends, Arthur and Carmen,

were invited to the event. During the event, they got into a long discussion about the cross-cultural perception of artwork. Here is an excerpt of their discussion.

Joe: Ok, Carmen, you know when um… what’s the difference between Chinese guy and American guy when they see the. (used his right hand to point at the drawing) Ok. The first thing I’m gonna say. In Chinese (rolled a piece of white paper and hold it with right hand) I mean in China when people saw the stuff, they will think what kind of detail, what kinda you do and they will appreciate that (used right hand to point at the drawing). American guys (rising tone)? When they see this they already saw Mona Lisa, so they don’t want to… I mean… see it again.

Carmen: True.

Joe: They will move to another one.

Carmen: It’s… I don’t know… I think it’s the value of our economy. Like we value individualism and so like we like the idea we can create new things and control things rather than relying on the past. This is like relying on the past (used her left hand to point at the drawing).

Joe: Yeah.

Carmen: Like controlling and making new things.

Joe: But, you know… in China they want to (looked at the ceiling)… pay attention more to the conditions. How you do that. What kind of line you use (used left hand to signify drawing a curvy line). Just your skill.

126

Carmen: The Americans really value creativity that’s why when we were painting with Jeanie it’s not about her painting skills. It’s all about creativity that’s all it is about. And that’s why like you guys criticizing like the little things like that’s not very American. (transcription participant observation videotaped on April 16, 2010)

[Learning Opportunity C7] The art exhibition provided an opportunity for Joe to discuss the cultural differences with his friends. Joe initiated the discussion topic because he had his own assumptions about how Chinese and Americans differ in art appreciation, and he seriously wanted to talk about that with Carmen.

[Learning Opportunity C8] Joe also talked about his identity as a “wing man” during the exhibition. He was carefree when talking about his various nicknames within the College, e.g., Prince of China and Wing Man. He did not mind being labeled by his fellow dorm mates. Here is an excerpt from the art exhibition when he talked about his identity.

Joe: Actually this guy is a dancer. (Moved to the black and white print of a dancer) It’s uh break dance or something. Something dancer. A dancer. (Focused on the print) He broke something and he come to the dark or into the dark or something. It’s the… you know. The idea is from my friend. One friend. You know in break dance they always put the um the hat.

Arthur: The hood? (rising tone) (looked at J)

Joe: The hood (falling tone). And this kind… be very cool and just kind of is the dance but why I put the wing. You know. Actually I have no idea so they call me wing man. I don’t know. Everything I want to do have wings. (stared at the camera)

Arthur: (put on a grin)

Then Joe went on to explain why he loved to have “wings” in his paintings. It was because he wanted to have freedom, i.e., to be free from his family’s calling to become a biologist (just like his uncle). Joe wanted to become an architect or a graphic designer but

127

his family gave him pressure and wanted him to be a biology major. As a result, Joe struggled during his first semester by declaring himself to be a biology major. His paintings revealed his desire to be free from family control. He wanted to be free.

Another activity which was important for Joe to build fraternity within W Hall was the cardboard fight which occurred on April 13, 2010. The cardboard fight was an annual event organized by W Hall. During which, the different floors of the Hall teamed up against each other. Each team chose a particular color to represent itself. They used cardboard to make armors, including helmets, body armors, swords, and shields. During the event, they fight against each other. If a person were hit at the vitals (head or chest) by three times, then he would be out of the game. [Learning Opportunity C9] There was no umpire or judge at the venue. They had to be conscientious about the number of vitals hit and be self-disciplined. Joe took part in the event with his fellow dorm-mates on the first floor. The event helped him mingle with dorm-mates from other floors, and it provided him a chance to build the fraternity with his dorm-mates.

Edith led a busy life because she took part in the international club, choir, and orchestra at the College. I observed that her practice with other choir and orchestra members was very self-contained. Edith was very cooperative and easy-going. She would seldom voice out her opinion. During an interview on April 30, 2010, she said that the music professor chose a Japanese song for one of their regular performances at the

Chapel because of Edith.

She said, “Actually in the choir Dr. M actually planned for a Japanese song. It was interesting like how they ask me how to do it. There are times that I have to explain the meaning. I just started laughing because the meaning was so funny. It was about the fireflies. It was like “Oh my butt is shining” and a lot of things that are funny. It helps me to get closer to them.”

128

[Learning Opportunity C10] The learning opportunity provided to Edith was co- created by the musical professor, who deliberately chose a Japanese song for the choir performance. Edith took up the opportunity by explaining the pronunciations and meanings of the words in the lyrics. Her voicing out helped her feel closer to her choir mates because her cultural identity and mother tongue were validated by other choir members.

In order to systematically represent the above labeled learning opportunities, I attach a table with the description of these learning opportunities.

Learning The Nature of the Learning Opportunity Opportunity A1 The ESL students listened to the conversations of their native counterparts at the dorm, the cafeteria, and took up such opportunities to learn ESL out-of-class. A2 The ESL students practiced daily conversations with their native counterparts and improved their oral skills. A3 The ESL students learned the non-verbal communications such as body gesture, hugging culture, finger language, and eye language, by building friendship with their dorm mates. A4 The female ESL students had girls’ talk which facilitated their learning of ESL out-of-class. A5 The ESL students encountered cultural shocks, and their friends who knew the local cultures helped them with the acculturation process. A6 The ESL students made friends with other international students and learned to accept other cultures. They were constantly facing the dissonance of finding the “sameness” and “differentness” among themselves when being placed at a culturally diverse environment. A7 The ESL students’ personalities played an important role in their out-of- class learning. The outgoing participants benefited more from the resources provided by other people around them. A8 The ESL students’ tutors assisted their out-of-class learning significantly. Table 19: The Nature of Labeled Learning Opportunities (Continued)

129

Table 19: Continued B1 The learning of dorm rules which were not stated but passed along orally. B2 The learning of “fraternity” or “sorority” within a dorm. B3 The learning of dorm-specific vocabulary by having conversations with dorm mates. B4 The learning of the English language by having “girls’ talk”. B5 The learning of how each dorm was perceived and labeled by others. B6 The learning of the “seating rules” at the cafeteria, which were not stated but passed along orally. B7 The learning of the appropriate etiquette at the Chapel. B8 The learning of cross-cultural eating habit at the meat store. B9 The learning of new vocabulary by shopping with friends at the downtown mall. B10 The learning of culturally appropriate behavior at grocery stores. B11 The learning of culturally appropriate behavior at the local restaurants. C1 The learning of producing complete sentences instead of choppy chunks by practicing with friends. C2 The learning of building one’s identity within a group by creating his or her “signature move” and joining the group dance. C3 The learning of giving spontaneous response to each individual. C4 The learning of culturally relevant behavior as an on-campus worker. The learning of the various career endeavors chosen by them through relevant on-campus employment. C5 The learning of variations across cultures. C6 The learning of the importance of gaining acceptance within the community. C7 The learning of the cultural differences between the ESL students and their friends. C8 The learning of accepting how one’s identity was perceived by others. C9 The learning of team-spirit and self-discipline when participating in school events.

By analyzing the commonalities among the various learning opportunities, I further group them into three categories based on their nature and learning objective in the following table. 130

The Nature Language Vocabulary - B3, B9 of the learning (Spelling, Learning moments Meaning, and Opportunities Usage of Words) Usage A1, A2, A4 A8, B4 (Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing) Mechanics of - C1 Speech (Rhythm, Fluency, Intonation Patterns) Idiomatic - A2 Expressions Non-verbal - A3 Communicati on Recontextu Knowing A7, B1, B2, B7, A5, B8, C4 alization of about the B10, B11 cultural local cultures knowledge Expression of A6 C5, C7, C9 one’s cultural backgrounds/ Cross- cultural Exchanges Negotiation Learner - A8 of social Identity identity Dorm B6 B5, C2, C3, C8 Identity Foreigner - C6, C10 Identity

Table 20: Grouping of the Labeled Learning Opportunities

131

In-depth Analysis

In the previous section, the typical cases have been analyzed. In this section, I describe the microethnographic discourse analysis (cf., Bloome et al., 2005) to the representational cases, which show how each kind of learning opportunity was co- created, negotiated, and received (cf. selection of representational case, Mitchell, 1984).

As such, this section is also a reply to my second research question, i.e., how do the participants negotiate and take up learning opportunities in out-of-class situations.

The criteria for selecting these representational cases were as follows: (i) the excerpt was about a bounded event when many opportunities were created and taken up in a short period of time, which could be parsed and represented by interactional units

(cf., Green & Wallat, 1981) and (ii) the excerpt reflects and refracts (cf., Voloshinov,

1986) the social construction of language and/or culture and/or identity related opportunities among the participants.

There could be some omitted conversations between the interactional units represented in each representational case, and my intention was to effectively represent and foreground the moments when learning opportunities occurred. The definition of interactional unit was based on Green & Wallet (1981) that it is “a series of conversationally tied message units. Which message units tie to form an interaction unit depends on consideration of verbal aspects of the message and cues to contextualization”

(p. 200). The selection of interactional units was based on whether there was a learning opportunity initiated, negotiated, and taken up or not within that unit.

For heuristic purpose, I present the analyses in accordance with the three major categories, moments of language learning, recontextualization of cultural knowledge, and

132

negotiation of social identity set forth in the previous section. The transcription codes are appended at the end of this section. I have embedded my interpretation in the last column of the mapping, so that the readers can easily associate my interpretation with the message units, instead of flipping the pages to connect my interpretation with the message units.

Moments of Language Learning

As shown in the table appended at the end of last section, vocabulary, usage, mechanics of speech, idiomatic expressions, and non-verbal communication, fall within the category of moments of language learning. In order to effectively show how these opportunities were socially constructed, three excerpts were selected as representational cases for further discussion.

Excerpt A

Excerpt A is derived from the second half of a tutorial session when Joe and

Jeanie were having casual talk. Joe complained about using the book “Practical English

Grammar” because he could not apply anything in the book for communicating with his friends in social situations. Jeanie asked Joe how he learned English with his friends. Joe then talked about how he asked his dorm mates the spelling of various words he heard from others. In order to help readers understand the transcript, I included a short conversation which went before the first IU. Here is the transcription of how Joe initiated the discussion topic.

“I just talk about some words that I know how to pronounce and I know how to use that but not how to spell them. I always ask my friends how to spell it. And my roommate he always say come on you know how to spell it. You can do it by yourself. You can do it. He doesn’t tell me how to spell that word. Just “you can

133

do that”. But I can’t.” (Transcription from participant observation on February 4, 2010)

IU MU Message Contextualization Cues Theme: Interpretation 13 No. Unit (MU)14 Spelling

I 1 Jeanie: How Jeanie looked at Joe in ↓ Jeanie initiated a Within this IU, it do you spell the eye when talking to spelling opportunity. was Jeanie who computer? him. She assumed the role initiated a spelling of a tutor when opportunity. But if initiating the the previous opportunity in the conversation was form of a question, taken into which functioned as consideration, it was a command. both Joe and Jeanie who co-initiated a learning opportunity, because Joe started the topic on spelling and Jeanie asked Joe the spelling of a commonly used word.

2 (inaudible) Jeanie said something - Jeanie demanded a inaudible in a low voice. response from Joe She leaned forward, regarding the which signaled an question she raised. encouraging attitude.

3 Joe: C-o-u-m- Joe looked away when ↑ Joe responded to Joe gave a response p-t-u-e-r, spelling out the word. Jeanie’s question. to Jeanie’s question.

4 right? Joe looked at Jeanie to ↕ Joe looked for He asked for an look for confirmation. evaluation/confirmat evaluation when he ion. finished.

Table 21: Excerpt A of Moments of Language Learning (Continued)

13 Interactional unit is defined as “a series of conversationally tied message units. Which message units tie to form an interaction unit depends on consideration of verbal aspects of the message and cues to contextualization (Green & Wallet, 1981, p. 200). 14 A message unit is the “smallest unit of conversational meaning.” (Bloome et al, 2005, p. 19)

134

Table 21: Continued 5 Jeanie: Close. Jeanie said in a low ↕ Jeanie indicated Jeanie responded to voice. that a second attempt Joe’s spelling by a was needed. She non-judgmental subtly initiated feedback. She did another chance for not say “No, you’re Joe to spell the target wrong” because she word. was encouraging and she cared about Joe’s feelings. She hinted that his first attempt was wrong. Jeanie encouraged Joe to try again. 6 Joe: U-t-e-r. Joe was moving his ↑ Joe tried to spell Joe responded to hands quickly when the second part of Jeanie’s request for a figuring out the correct the target word second attempt. spelling, which again. indicated nervousness. 7 Jeanie: So Jeanie looked at Joe in ↕ Jeanie requested The conjunction spell it again. the eye and asked him to Joe to spell the “So” indicated spell the word again. whole word on his correct spelling in She said this in a low own again. MU 6. Jeanie voice but was sterner encouraged Joe to than before. correct his own mistake. 8 Joe: C-o-m-p- Joe did not move his ↑ Joe responded to Joe made a third u-t-e-r. hands when giving the Jeanie’s request and attempt in spelling correct spelling. He was he re-spelled the the word. Based on sure about his spelling. target word. Jeanie’s response in MU 7, he was confident that this time his spelling was correct.

IU MU Message Contextualization Cues Theme: Interpretation No. Unit (MU) Spelling/Pronunciat ion

II 1 But you Joe looked away from ↕ Joe used a gap Joe signaled an end know Jeanie, which signaled a filler to indicate a to the previous topic pondering moment on change of topic. by using “But”. his part.

2 I don’t know Joe spoke in a faster ↓ Joe initiated a Joe initiated a how to spell speed. chance to introduce chance to share with words that he Jeanie his weakness couldn’t spell. in spelling.

(Continued)

135

Table 21: Continued 3 I mean Joe frowned when ↑ Joe followed up Joe’s smile could be “horrible”. saying the word his point made in interpreted as a “horrible”. Then he MU 2. cover up for smiled and touched his embarrassment. It hat with left hand. was unclear whether he had difficulty with the word “horrible”, or he used the word to describe his emotion. 4 I don’t know Joe looked back into ↑ Joe used another Joe wanted to further how to spell Jeanie’s eyes when he example to illustrate explain to Jeanie his Holy Cripe. said “Cripe” to see if his point made in difficulty in spelling. Jeanie understood his MU 2. frustration. 5 Cripe. Joe repeated the word ↕ Joe mispronounced Joe initiated a “Cripe”, which the target word. learning opportunity suggested that he was by taking risk in the not sure about the pronunciation of a pronunciation of this word that he was not particular word. sure about. 6 Jeanie: Jeanie raised the tone at ↕ Jeanie responded By giving the correct CRAP? the end of her utterance. to Joe’s pronunciation, mispronunciation by Jeanie signaled giving the correct multiple meanings: pronunciation. i) Joe’s pronunciation in MU 5 was wrong, ii) Jeanie skipped the evaluation process, iii) Jeanie raised the tone at the end, which softened her tone, also, it indicated that she was being encouraging. 7 Joe: Holy Joe repeated the correct ↑ Joe responded to Joe demonstrated crap. pronunciation to show Jeanie’s correction that he learned the that he got it after in MU 6. correct Jeanie’s correction. pronunciation from Jeanie. 8 Yeah. Joe nodded and said in a ↑ Joe nodded to Joe demonstrated his low voice. signal his acceptance uptake of the of Jeanie’s learning opportunity. correction. 9 I know how Joe stressed on the word ↕ Joe tried to explain Building on IU II, to USE that. “use,” which signaled his difficulty to Joe tried to further that the word is a key Jeanie. elaborate his point term in his claim. about his learning plight. (Continued) 136

Table 21: Continued 10 I don’t know Joe stressed on the word ↑ Joe further Joe explicitly shared how to “spell,” which signaled explained his point with Jeanie about his SPELL that. that the word is another in MU 9. learning plight. This key term in his overall signaled a certain claim. level of trust built between them. 11 It’s Joe stressed on the word ↑ Joe commented on This comment HORRIBLE. “horrible”. He also his feeling of being referred back to IU frowned when saying an incompetent II MU 3, when Joe the word, which showed speller of English first used the word, how frustrated he felt. words. horrible. The meaning of IU II MU 3 could be interpreted as his overall claim in the conversation. IU MU Message Contextualization Cues Theme: Interpretation No. Unit (MU) Learner’s explanation of his learning difficulty

III 1 Sometimes I Joe wanted to further ↕ Joe built on his By engaging in two can- explain his frustration. claim made in IU II IUs in a row, Joe and tried to give expressed eagerness examples to in telling Jeanie his elaborate his point. learning plight. It could also be interpreted as his need to be understood and accepted by Jeanie. 2 I can… Joe looked away to ↕ Building on MU 1, Joe tried to think of think of an example. Joe was trying to more examples to buy time to think of corroborate his claim an example. made in the previous IU. 3 Jeanie: Coz Jeanie laughed a bit ↑ Jeanie responded Jeanie connected to you are not before saying this MU. to Joe’s concern Joe’s concern by supposed to about his spelling providing a possible write that problem. reason to it. She word down. noticed that those were colloquial words, which were not normally used in written work. 4 Joe: But Joe stressed the word ↑ Joe signaled a Joe gave an example sometimes I “say”. disjunctive transition which could be both know how to with the word “but” colloquial and SAY at the beginning of written to counter pronunciation the MU. Jeanie’s claim in MU 3.

(Continued)

137

Table 21: Continued 5 but I don’t Joe stressed the word ↑ Joe used “but” to Joe emphasized on know how to “spell”. intensify his the word “spell”, SPELL it. frustration about not which was a being able to spell a repetition of his word. claim made on IU II MU 10. 6 I don’t know. Joe said this in a low ↑ Joe said this Joe said “I don’t voice with a dropping without a rising tone know” to soften his tone at the last word. at the end, which tone. He had a claim signaled an end to made very clearly in his claim. the previous IU, so he did not mean that he did not know something literally. It was an MU to end his discussion topic. 7 Hehheh Joe laughed at the end of ↑ Joe provided a Joe used laughter to this utterance. follow-up to his soften the tone and previous MU, which to signify an end to further warranted his his topic of interest. intention to end his This laughter could discussion topic. also be interpreted as a cover up of embarrassment. IU MU Message Contextualization Cues Theme: Interpretation No. Unit (MU) Learner’s sharing of his learning style

IV 1 Joe: I think I Joe sat up a bit and ↓ Joe changed to a Joe initiated an learn about shook a pen in his hand deeper discussion opportunity for English while he talked. topic about learning Jeanie to know more English in general. about his personal belief in learning English. 2 It’s important Joe stressed on the last ↑ Joe elaborated in Joe believed that thing is about word and he said this MU 1 and gave a communication was communicati MU in a serious tone. key term of his key in English on claim. learning. 3 I can learn a Joe said in a serious ↑ Joe tried to further Joe tried to build in lot- tone. explain his learning MU 2 to further style. explain his learning style. Joe negotiated for a chance to start a discussion topic. 4 Jeanie: Jeanie tried to reiterate ↑ Jeanie interjected Jeanie repeated what [communicati what Joe said. and repeated Joe’s Joe said to signal her on is] MU 2. understanding and participation in the discussion.

(Continued) 138

Table 21: Continued 5 Joe: [I can Joe emphasized on ↕ Joe overlapped Joe and Jeanie’s learn a lot “lot”, signaling the with Jeanie’s MU 4 overlapping about (0.2)] intensity of his and he continued utterance and Joe’s argument. without being decision to continue disturbed. his claim suggested a power relationship between them. At this point, my interpretation was that by ignoring Jeanie’s MU 4, Joe exerted more control in the turn-taking of the conversation. 6 communicati Joe dropped the end ↑ Joe referred to the Joe reinstated his on tone. previous MU and claim about what he finished his sentence believed to be the about what he most important in wanted to learn. English learning. 7 Maybe the Joe frowned. ↑ Joe was trying to Joe’s frown and his information further elaborate his unfinished sentence about that claim. demonstrated that he was figuring out what to say next. 8 You know Joe said quickly. ↓ Joe used this as a Joe was trying to gap filler. buy time to figure out his next point. 9 I very Joe said slowly. ↕ Joe tried to Joe tried to elaborate remember the establish an his point by referring things I learn intercontextual link to a previous event. about to an event which happened in the past. 10 “I haven’t Joe dropped the tone on ↑ Joe referred to an Joe initiated an talked with the last word. expression that he intercontextual link you a long learned from L. to a previous time ago” learning event. Joe made two mistakes in this MU (“I haven’t talked with you for a long time”) but Jeanie did not correct him, which may be interpreted as her intention to not disturb his flow of speech.

(Continued)

139

Table 21: Continued 11 This is L Joe stressed “L”. ↑ Joe continued to Joe gave credit to his taught me contextualize the previous tutor15, intertextual link by which may be an telling who taught indication of how he him the expression. hoped Jeanie would help him later. 12 Because I Joe paused after this ↑ Joe tried to explain Joe tried to explain used to say MU. how he was like how L changed the before being taught way he greet the expression in somebody, by MU 10. providing information about what he was like before being taught by L.

13 “I didn’t Joe raised the volume ↑ Joe referred to the Joe tried to think of TALK to when saying “talk”. previous MU and his mistake in order you” was trying to to show Jeanie that reproduce his he learned mistake. something from L.

14 No- Joe cut off his own ↕ Joe realized that he Joe corrected his utterance. wrongly reproduced own mistake and his mistake in the indicated that he previous MU. would come up with the correct version by cutting it off abruptly. 15 I am trying to Joe cut off his own ↕ Joe referred to MU Joe used this phrase remember- utterance at the end of 13 and 14 and he as a gap filler to buy this unit. was still figuring out time to think of the what his mistake right thing to say. was. 16 “I’ve been Joe kept silent for a ↑ Joe referred to MU Joe initiated another long time no while, figuring out what 12, 13, 14, and 15 intercontextual link talk with to say next. and he finally came to the previous event you” up with the correct when he made a phrase to say. mistake in his greeting message. By attempting to reproduce this phrase twice, Joe showed Jeanie how serious he was about correcting his own mistake.

(Continued)

15 L was Joe’s ESL tutor in Autumn, 2009. She graduated in December, 2009. Jeanie took up her position as Joe’s tutor from January to May, 2010. 140

Table 21: Continued 17 Before I say Joe raised the tone on ↕ Joe referred to the Joe tried to end his that you the last word. previous MU using point. know the referent, that. 18 Jeanie: Yeah Jeanie said in an ↑ Jeanie responded Jeanie tried to agreeable tone. to Joe’s illustration convey the message of how he changed that she understood after being taught by Joe’s message. L.

19 But now you Joe interjected before ↑ Jeanie referred to Jeanie used “but” at know that- Jeanie finished the MU 10 when Joe the beginning to sentence. recount the signal a change of expression that he focus on “before” to learned from L. “now”. She wanted to stress what Joe was capable to do instead of what he couldn’t do. 20 Joe: L said Joe interjected and ↓ Joe ignored Joe did not want to that you need initiated an Jeanie’s shift of follow up on to say that intercontextual link to attention from the Jeanie’s point about his previous past to the present focusing on the conversation with L. and went back to present. He wanted talk about the past. to finish making his claim about what L taught him in the past. 21 I haven’t Joe established an ↑ Joe referred to Mu By repeating the done intertextual link to 10 and used another same message in something in something learned in the way to express the MU 10 and 21 in a long time. past. same idea. This time different ways, Joe he did not make any showed how much grammatical he cared about the mistake. piece of information he learned from L.

141

In this excerpt, four moments of language learning, as represented by four

interactional units, were co-constructed by Joe and Jeanie. It happened when Joe and

Jeanie were done with homework checking and were ready for a casual talk. Though the

session was casually constructed without a clear agenda, the shared goal between Joe and

Jeanie was to learn something16 about English. Therefore, the nature of this second half tutorial session was somewhat class-like, and thus it is a representational case to show the fuzziness of out-of-class activities which are class-like (cf., fuzziness of out-of-school activities mentioned in Shultz & Hull, 2002).

In this second half of a tutorial session, Jeanie took up the role as a tutor, who was supposed to help Joe learn English during the session. Initiation-Response-Followup

(IRF) patterns are observed. However, unlike classroom scenario in which the teacher usually initiates the discussion, Joe initiated the four learning opportunities17, which

showed that the social relationship between Joe and Jeanie was different from a

traditional teacher-student relationship.

Indeed the relationship between Joe and Jeanie was complex. In terms of

academic standing, both of them were freshmen at the College and Jeanie was two years

younger than Joe. However, because of Joe’s limited English proficiency, he was the

tutee whereas Jeanie was the tutor. During the tutorial session, Joe was at the lower end

of “academic standing” because of his limited English proficiency. In the next paragraph,

I discuss the power relationship between Jeanie and Joe.

16 Before the session, Joe and Jeanie did not talk about what to do during the session. Therefore the second half of the tutorial is a spontaneous 17 The first IU appears to be initiated by Jeanie. However, it was Joe who started the topic about his difficulty in pronunciation and spelling. Jeanie’s question in MU 1 was interpreted as a response to Joe’s initiation of discussion topic. 142

Because Jeanie was hired by the international office, Jeanie’s continuation of

employment was determined by the international office. Joe did not have control over

Jeanie’s employment. However, his feedback would indirectly affect Jeanie’s job as an

ESL tutor because the international office valued Joe’s evaluation of Jeanie’s

performance. Therefore it was interesting to see how power18 was negotiated between them. During this tutorial session, Joe initiated a learning opportunity by telling Jeanie about his frustration in spelling. He took the chance to initiate a discussion point and exerted control as a tutee (IU IV MU 5). The reason that he took control could be two fold, i) he perceived himself as the “client” in the tutorial session and therefore had the right to ask for the kind of service he wanted, and/or ii) he was older than Jeanie, which gave him room for negotiation. These possibilities showed how power was discursive and

dialogic between Joe and Jeanie. If any of the aforementioned conditions had been

different, the negotiation of power would have been different. The specific power

relationship between Joe and Jeanie provided the context for Joe to learn ESL during the

tutorial session.

Also, from the excerpt, it was clear that Joe and Jeanie built a friendship which

facilitated the learning process, so that Joe was at a relaxed and encouraging environment

while learning ESL. For instance, Joe was willing to share his learning difficulty with

Jeanie, and he was not afraid of making mistakes. He made mistakes on IU I MU 3, IU

IV MU 2, 9, & 10, and Jeanie was not judgmental when giving him feedback. Her

responses on IU I MU5, IU II MU 6, IU III MU 3, and IU IV MU 18 reflected her

18 Power is defined in accordance with Bloome et al (2005) that “power is a process rather than a static commodity” (paraphrased, p. 162). Therefore power is a fluid construct which is negotiated between interlocutors at a certain event. 143

intention to encourage Joe to learn and not to disturb his flow of thought and speech.

From this excerpt, it showed that Jeanie’s friendship and understanding really helped Joe

build confidence in spelling. More importantly, it helped Joe open up to talk about his

learning difficulties.

Joe initiated the discussion topic by referring to his out-of-class learning at his dorm. This shows how he established an intercontextual link to something that happened before in order to illustrate his point. He used the word “always” twice and thus he was referring to more than one social event which occurred at his dorm. He showed that he was frustrated at spelling words that he knew the meaning. He believed that knowing how to use the words was more important than knowing how to spell the words (IU IV

MU 2). Joe was an active learner who was reflecting on his English proficiency on a

metalinguistic level. He knew that using English in social settings was different from

knowing the “form”, i.e., the spelling. He reinforced his claim with IU II in which he

emphasized the importance of “communication” in his use of English. He believed that

being able to communicate was more important than knowing the form. Also, his

argument was that he learned ESL by interacting with people around him, not by doing

reading alone.

From analyzing these messages (IU II MU2 & 10, and IU III MU 5), I see the

“unsaid” message hidden behind Joe’s intention to learn the spelling of words. The

unsaid message was that Joe was concerned about the mismatch between what was

expected of him academically and his personal learning style. The academic learning in-

class required of him many hours of reading and studying on his own, which did not

match his personal learning style. He was a young man who learned by interacting and

144

communicating with other people (IU II MU 2). So he was trying to make use of his out-

of-class learning opportunities to supplement his weakness in spelling, which was generally assumed to be an individual and isolated activity. These examples show one

way that ESL students could be using social interactions to strengthen their academic

learning in out-of-class scenarios, and more importantly, they could take agency to make

use of these opportunities according to their personal learning style.

In the area of second language learning, often the influence of out-of-class social

interactions may be underestimated because of established theories which drew an line

between academic and social usage. For instance, Cummins (1979, 1984) separated the

concept of academic learning from social learning by referring to the terms, Basic

Interpersonal Communicative skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language

Proficiency (CALP). Cummins (1979, 1984) believed that academic learning was more

cognitively demanding while social interaction merely involved surface level learning

which could be accomplished between half-a-year to two years’ time. However, from my findings it is evident that the relationship between academic and out-of-class learning was discursive and that out-of-class social interactions did not merely involve BICS.

The boundaries between formal instruction and out-of-class learning were fuzzy and the two could be mutually reinforcing. When Joe was practicing spelling voluntarily in the second half of the tutorial session, he was initiating a bridge between in-class and out-of-class learning, which turned out to be beneficial to him for reading and writing purposes as well. Therefore out-of-class learning opportunities could be contributing significantly towards ESL learner’s overall proficiency, including academic proficiency.

145

In addition, when Joe initiated learning opportunities about colloquial words such

as “Holy crap” (IU II MU 4), it reflects and refracts how important these words mean to

him as an ESL learner. In the area of TESOL, the stress on academic competence has a

dominating factor in ESL education, so much so that words of daily communication are

placed at an insignificant position. Based on Joe’s response, particularly for first year

ESL students who are learning to become competent social participant with other peers,

learning words which are colloquial and of high frequency in daily usage are important.

As such a failure of knowing those words and their usage puts ESL learners at a

vulnerable situation in social interactions. Therefore, this excerpt shows that a different

set of vocabulary is of value in out-of-class situations and the learners are concerned about their ability to know and use those words.

Excerpt B

The second excerpt was a transcription from participant observation which happened at a downtown handcrafts store on April 22, 2010. Joe, Jeanie, Carmen, and

Mary were shopping together at the store. Joe and Mary are ESL learners whereas

Carmen and Jeanie are their native speaking peers.

146

IU MU Message Contextualiz Theme: Word Interpretation No. Unit ation Cues Meaning I 1 Joe: The Joe read ↓ Joe drew the Joe tried to initiate a Peters aloud a label attention around him discussion topic by Projection on the wall. to the label on the referring to the map. This Map19. wall. intertextual link helped create a connection between an artifact located in the store and the interlocutors. 2 What’s the Joe looked at ↕ Joe asked a Joe raised a question to Peters Jeanie when question to Jeanie. Jeanie regarding what he Projection he asked the saw in the store. Map? question. 3 Peter. Joe repeated a ↑ Joe showed that he Joe wanted to guess the word from was interested in the meaning of “Peters”. the label. word, Peter. 4 Simon Joe asked in a ↕ Joe reiterated MU 3 Joe made a biblical Peter? curious tone. with a stress on the reference to Simon Peter. name, Peter. This intertextual link reflects his religious connection to Christianity. 5 Jeanie: I’m Jeanie said ↕ Jeanie tried to Jeanie did not agree with assuming slowly and answer Joe’s question Joe’s guess. She softened she paused a in MU 4. the tone by showing that bit at the end. she was also guessing the meaning. 6 it’s just a Jeanie ↑ Jeanie directly Jeanie told Joe her guess, brand. quickly answered Joe’s that it was a brand name. finished her question in MU 4. MU. 7 Joe: Why Joe rolled his ↕ Joe did not let the Joe asked a question, they call it eyes at Jeanie conversation stop. He showing that he had a Peter? and asked still had doubt about problem understanding it another the word, Peter. as a brand. question. 8 Jeanie: I Jeanie said ↕ Jeanie tried to Jeanie used the word, guess slowly. reiterate MU 5. guess, to show that she was not sure about her answer.

Table 22: Excerpt B of Moments of Language Learning (Continued)

19The Peters Projection Map (1974) is an alternative representation of the world, which is different from the standard Mercator map (1569), “distorts and dramatically enlarges the size of Eurasian and North American countries.” (http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa030201a.htm) 147

Table 22: Continued 9 the Jeanie said in ↑ Jeanie reiterated Joe did not nod or company is a speculative her answer in MU 6 respond to Jeanie’s called tone. in another words. explanation. Peters. IU MU Message Contextualiz Theme: Word Interpretation No. Unit ation Cues Meaning II 1 Joe: Joe looked at ↓ By reading aloud a Joe changed the topic to What’s a label on the label on the wall, Joe another word he spotted organic? wall and invited answers from on the wall. He asked Jeanie and Carmen established an curiously. about the meaning of intertextual link with the target word. something written on the wall. By doing so, he initiated a learning opportunity. 2 Jeanie: It’s Jeanie replied ↑ Jeanie used an Jeanie assumed that Joe something in a low adjective, natural, to knew the word “natural”. natural. voice. explain the nature of the target word. 3 It doesn’t Jeanie ↑ Jeanie referred to Jeanie further clarified have stressed the something not the meaning of organic. chemicals word organic to explain the in it. “chemicals”. target word. 4 Nicole: Nicole said ↑ Nicole tried to help In this event, Jeanie tried Youji. the Chinese Joe with the Chinese to use a synonym and equivalent, translation of the antonym to explain the Youji, which target word. target word. Nicole added meant the Chinese translation on organic. top of that. Joe was presented with three ways to understand the meaning of a word. 5 Joe: Youji. Joe repeated ↑ Joe’s repetition Joe acknowledged the what Nicole signifies an learning opportunity by said. agreement with repeating what Nicole Nicole’s explanation. said. IU MU Message Contextualiz Theme: Word Interpretation No. Unit ation Cues Meaning III 1 What’s Joe read from ↓ Joe used a direct Joe initiated another wisdom? another label question to solicit a learning opportunity by and asked the response from Jeanie establishing an question. and Carmen. intertextual link with a word on the wall.

(Continued) 148

Table 22: Continued 2 Jeanie: Jeanie said ↑ Jeanie used a Similar to IU II MU 2, knowledge quickly. synonym to explain Jeanie referred to the . the meaning of synonymous word when wisdom. trying to explain the target word. 3 Carmen: Carmen ↕ Carmen tried to Carmen could have It’s like interjected think of other ways to realized that Jeanie was and started to explain the target only using synonyms explain it word. which were insufficient. further. She tried to provide extra learning opportunity to Joe. 4 when you Carmen said ↕ Carmen continued Carmen further explained learn all very quickly. to explain the her interpretation of the the big meaning of the target word “wisdom”. things word. about life and stuff. 5 Like all the Carmen cut ↕ Carmen continued Carmen tried to think of a things- off at the end her explanation. She better alternative to of her might have paused to explain the target word. sentence and buy time to think. paused a bit. 6 like when Carmen ↕ Carmen furthered Carmen referred to an you study stressed the MU 5 with an ideological figure which Confucius word example. was relevant to Joe to or like. “Confucius”. explain the target word. 7 They are Carmen ↑ Carmen used the Carmen used the WISE. stressed the adjectival form of the adjectival form of the word “wise”. target word to target word to teach Joe describe how to used it as an “Confucius”. adjective in a sentence. 8 All the Carmen ↑ Carmen repeated Carmen used the target WISDOM stressed the the target word form word in a sentence to that passed word mentioned in MU 1 conclude her explanation. down. “wisdom” to conclude her and quickly explanation. finished her thought. 9 Joe: Yeah Joe nodded ↑ Joe acknowledged Joe showed that he and looked at Carmen’s understood Carmen’s Carmen to explanation. explanation. show agreement. 10 it’s Joe said ↑ Joe used the target Joke applied the newly wisdom jokingly. word to show that he learned word to an idiom went understood the “went bananas” which he bananas. meaning of it. learned in class. 149

Three interactional units are identified in this excerpt and they are all moments of language learning. Mary, Joe, Jeanie, Carmen, and I were present at the store on that day.

Besides the five of us, there was a female storekeeper and a middle-aged man at the store.

Once we walked into the store, we scattered at various corners looking for gifts that we wanted to buy. I made a choice to follow the core participants and therefore I did not videotape the incidences when only Carmen and Jeanie were talking with each other.

The three learning opportunities demonstrated incidental vocabulary acquisition at the store. The environmental context of a shop provided many items and labels for the

ESL students to interact with. The shopping event provided them a chance to be exposed to the vocabulary items. Most importantly, their native speaking friends provided the necessary information to the learners so that the input was comprehensible. For instance,

Jeanie used synonyms to help Joe understand new vocabulary items such as the word

“organic”, whereas Carmen referred to Confucius when explaining the meaning of wisdom to Joe. It is a question as to how long Joe would retain the newly learned information. However, the excerpt showed what was required of in the learning process and how an ESL learner makes use of the immediate learning environment in the process.

In this excerpt, there were two intertextual links created when Joe made references to something he learned in class. When he saw a label which said “Peters

Projection Map”, the first thing he thought about was Simon Peter. Though his interpretation was not exactly what the Map meant, this incident carries important

150

information as to how an ESL learner uses references to reinforce the learned information

in class.

Before coming to the USA, Joe grew up in a village in Southwest China where

religious freedom was not allowed. He did not have any knowledge about the Bible or

any thing about Christianity before taking the ESL Bible class. Joe was taking an ESL

Bible class taught by me in Spring 2010 and he worked on a paper about Simon Peter’s

repentance of denying Jesus. He chose to write the paper in first person voice because he

said that would help him understand Simon Peter better. He said that the Bible class was

the first time he read about the biblical stories and he was impressed by how he could

personally relate to the humanity of Jesus and his disciples.

I was surprised when Joe thought about Simon Peter as he saw the label. Joe once

said that it was important for him to use a word that he learned in out-of-class settings, so as to remember its meaning and usage. When he encountered the word “Peters” he responded with something he learned in class. Though there was actually no linkage between “Peters Projection Map” and Simon Peter. The words provided by the social environment provided resources to the ESL learners to refresh their memories about something learned in class. Therefore, when Jeanie dismissed the connection between

Peters Projection Map and Simon Peter, Joe did not give any reply. Because the research site was a Christian college, knowledge about Christianity helped the first year international students to become more socially competent, and therefore it was critical for them to know the biblical figures and references. In this excerpt, Joe showed an attempt to connect a label he saw with a biblical figure that he learned in class. The excerpt does not tell whether Joe remember any more information about Simon Peter, however, it

151

shows how he was trying to make an intertextual link to the biblical reference, which is an evidence of how ESL students utilize prompts from the social environment to learn knowledge which might help them gain cultural capitol in the research site.

Another incident when Joe made a reference to something he learned in class was that he combined the word “wisdom” with “went bananas”, which was an idiom he studied in an ESL Oral class. Joe was an ESL learner who used idioms in social situations very often. His tutor, Jeanie commented that Joe used way more idioms than any native speaker in out-of-class settings. Joe’s references to something learned in class showed that out-of-class learning opportunities were not unrelated and random events which do not constitute any learning. When we take a closer look at how ESL students interact with their native speaking counterparts, it is evident that they constantly make references to knowledge learned in class. The relationship between information taught in classroom instruction and out-of-class learning is more intricate than we assume them to be.

In the area of bilingualism, it is postulated that a bilingual speaker has one conceptual system shared between the L1 and L2 lexical databases (c.f. De Bot, 1992).

However, this excerpt shows how a bilingual speaker utilizes social resources to learn something new in the target language. When Joe initiated a chance to learn about the target word, organic, he utilized at least two social resources, (i) the product at the store which is organic and has the label on it, and (ii) the availability of two native speakers,

Carmen and Jeanie. As such, through socially interacting with the social environment and the people around him, Joe had a chance to learn about the meaning of the target word.

The same is true for the case of learning the word meaning of “wisdom”. Also, Carmen formed a bridge between the target word and a piece of already known information,

152

making it more “comprehensible” to Joe. From the acculturation point of view, Carmen’s reference to a Chinese ideology helped Joe lower his affective filter (Krashen, 1987,

1988). From Joe’s perspective, his own culture was valued by Carmen because Carmen was able to use a reference which was more familiar and culturally relevant. However, this learning opportunity was constructed because Carmen understood Chinese culture and was willing to make adjustments to become a cultural broker (Palmer, 2000). It depended on many factors, i) resources provided by the store, ii) friendship between

Carmen and Joe, iii) Carmen’s willingness to teach new concepts to Joe, and iv)

Carmen’s background knowledge about Chinese culture.

This excerpt showed that the provision of learning resources, the availability of

“language and culture brokers”, and how the brokers build bridges for the ESL learners to learn new words and concepts are contributing factors in the social construction of learning opportunities among the participants. This notion of culture brokers also relies upon the social relationship established between the brokers and the ESL learners.

Excerpt C

This excerpt was from a transcription of participant observation video recorded on

February 3, 2010. Lily, Joe, Carmen, and Jeanie were hanging out at about 6 pm at the student activity center. They were planning to play Apples to Apples. Before they started the game, Joe and Jeanie had small talk. Carmen initiated a teaching point by using the cue cards of Apples to Apples. She chose several cards and described the words on the cards one by one. Then Lily had to guess the words on the cards. Then Carmen revealed the cards to let Lily see the words.

153

IU MU Message Contextualiz Theme: Word Interpretation No. Unit ation Cues Meaning I 1 Carmen: Carmen ↓ Carmen gave a hint Carmen initiated the first This was looked into to Lily for guessing learning opportunity by made by a Lily’s eyes. the target word. starting to describe the river- composition of the target word. 2 over a Carmen ↕ Carmen gave more Carmen continued to long time stressed the information about the describe the target word. word “long” formation time of to emphasize MU 1. the time period involved. 3 and it Carmen ↕ Carmen started to Carmen used nonverbal started to moved her give more cues to help Lily like (0.2) right hand information about the understand what she was from high to target word. referring to. low several times. 4 form a Carmen ↕ Carmen further Carmen stressed the deep hole stressed the described the adjective, deep, to word “deep” formation of the highlight the feature of the to emphasize target word. hole. the feature of the hole. 5 and you Carmen held ↕ Carmen continued At this point, Carmen can go the cards to elaborate her assumed that Lily would stand over closer to description of the be close to guessing the this big herself so that target word. target word. So she hid the hole Lily could not cards carefully. see them. 6 and it’s in Carmen gave ↑ Carmen finalized Carmen gave the last hint the U.S. more hints to her description by to Lily. Lily. referring to the geographical location of the target word. 7 What is Carmen ↕ Carmen raised a Carmen used a question to that? raised the question to Lily. signal that she was done tone at the with giving hints, and it end of the was time for Lily to do the question. guessing. 8 Lily: Lily said the ↑ Lily tried to guess Lily came up with the Daxiaguba name in the target word in Chinese word and she gave ! Chinese Chinese. the answer to Carmen right loudly. away.

Table 23: Excerpt C of Moments of Language Learning (Continued)

154

Table 23: Continued 9 I don’t Lily admitted ↑ Lily did not know Lily tried to explain that know how that she did the English she knew the Chinese to say that. not know the equivalent of MU 8. name but not the English English name one. of the target word. 10 Carmen: Carmen ↑ Carmen thought Carmen revealed the card revealed the that Lily would not and therefore directed card and it know the target form Lily’s attention to the card. read “Grand in English any way. She established an Canyon”. So she showed the intertextual link to the answer. card. 11 Lily: Lily frowned ↑ Lily responded to Lily insisted that she got Actually I a bit to show MU 10 and she the meaning in Chinese. know that her showed that she was one. frustration. a bit upset about not knowing the English form. 12 Just in Lily stared at ↑ Lily continued her Lily did not verbally Chinese. the card. point made in MU 11 acknowledge uptake of the that she knew the learning opportunity. meaning of the target However, her stare at the word in Chinese. card showed that she was shown the spelling of the target word. IU No. Message Contextualiz Theme: Word Interpretation Unit ation Cues Meaning II 1 Carmen: Carmen said ↓ Carmen wanted to Carmen started to slowly Scottish this slowly. make sure that Lily construct another learning people heard her clearly and opportunity for Lily. wear this so she slowly gave the first hint. 2 and it Carmen ↑ Carmen stressed Carmen continued to looks like looked into the word, dress, to describe the target word. a dress. Lily’s eyes give Lily more hint. when saying this. She stressed on the word, dress. 3 Lily: It Lily repeated ↕ Lily responded to Lily repeated what Carmen looks like after Carmen. MU 2 and her said to signal her uptake of a dress? She raised the repeating after what Carmen just said. She tone at the Carmen showed that also used it to buy time for end of the she knew MU 2 was thinking about it. sentence. an important hint. (Continued) 155

Table 23: Continued 4 Carmen: It Carmen ↑ Carmen reiterated Carmen did not give any looks like sternly MU 2. extra information. She only a dress repeated what repeated the first hint. she said in MU 14. 5 But it’s Carmen said ↓ Carmen gave a Carmen further explained not. slowly to give piece of contrastive that the target word was Lily more information about the not “dress” per se. Her time. target word. explanation might provoke confusion. 6 Lily: I Lily replied ↑ Lily showed that Lily gave up the chance to don’t in a low she was confused. guess the target word. know. voice. 7 Carmen: Carmen ↑ Carmen first Carmen pronounced the Kilt. pronounced presented the target word to Lily. the word pronunciation of the clearly. word. 8 They call Carmen ↑ Carmen put MU 7 Carmen repeated the target it kilt. repeated the in a sentence. word. By revealing the target word card, Carmen initiated an and revealed intertextual link to the the card. card. The intertextual link helped Lily get the spelling of the target form. 9 Lily: Oh. Lily said in ↑ Lily acknowledged Lily replied softly in an an agreeable that she understood agreeable tone, showing tone. the target word. that she got the answer. IU No. Message Contextualiz Theme: Word Interpretation Unit ation Cues Meaning III 1 Carmen: Carmen said ↓ Carmen instructed Carmen initiated a learning Think of in a tone of Lily to identify the opportunity by checking all the command. synonyms of the the number of words Lily words you target word. knew about “puking”. know for puking. 2 Lily: Ha? Lily raised ↑ Lily used an Lily did not know the word the tone of interjection to “puking” and so she the express that she did wanted Carmen to repeat interjection. not understand. the word. 3 Puking? Lily repeated ↑ Lily showed her Lily repeated the sound the word and confusion about the that she did not raised the prompt word, puking. understand. tone by turning it into a question.

(Continued)

156

Table 23: Continued 4 Carmen: Carmen ↑ Carmen replied to Carmen acknowledged Yeah. confirmed her MU 3. Lily’s question. pronunciation of the prompt word. 5 Lily: What Lily ↕ Lily repeated MU Lily wanted Carmen to is puking? expanded 3. know that she had trouble MU 24 into a understanding the prompt question. word “puking.” 6 Carmen: Carmen acted ↑ Carmen responded Carmen used nonverbal like she was to Lily’s question by cue to explain the meaning puking. acting like she was to Lily. puking. 7 Lily: Lily laughed ↑ Lily’s laugh Lily nodded to show that Haha. and nodded. signaled her she got the meaning of the understanding of word “puking”. Carmen’s nonverbal cue. 8 I got it. Lily said in a ↑ Lily confirmed that Lily acknowledged uptake low voice. she learned the of the target word. meaning of the target word.

Three moments of language learning were identified in this excerpt, as

represented by three interactional units. This event was unplanned and did not occur

because Carmen or Lily wanted to have an extra tutorial session. There was a trend of

playing Apples to Apples20 in the girls’ dorms in Spring 2010. As an ESL learner, Lily did not have the necessary knowledge of all the words, but she was so involved in the

game that she carried around the board game with her after class. The reason for that was

because Lily wanted to become a competent participant (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in the

20 A board game designed by Mathew Kirby and Mark Alan Osterhaus, published by Beverly Enterprises, Inc. in 1999. The number of players could be four to ten. “Apples to Apples consists only of two decks of cards: Things and Descriptions. Each turn, the current referee selects a Description and players try to pick, from the cards in their hands, the Things that best match that Description. The referee then chooses the Thing that appeals most and awards the card to the player who played it. The unusual combinations of Things and Descriptions are humorous to the extreme, and will quickly have the entire room in an uproar. Once a player has won a pre-determined number of cards, that player wins.” (Adapted from boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/74/apples-to-apples) 157

game within her dorm. So she carried the game with her so that she could practice with

someone any time.

On February 3, 2010, Carmen, Jeanie, Joe, and Lily met at the lounge of the

student activity center, where most of the students hanged out with their friends from

other dorms. Lily carried Apples to Apples with her and suggested playing the game with

Carmen, Jeanie, and Joe. They all agreed but Jeanie and Joe needed to talk for a while, so

Carmen suggested playing the game with Lily. Because the minimum number of players

should be four, Carmen and Lily had to change the rules of the game. So they ended up

using the cards in a creative way. For any native speaker of English, this out-of-class game event involved merely guessing the correct terms printed on the cards. But for an

ESL learner, it involved finding out what Carmen was describing and figuring out the relevant English words.

From this excerpt, it is evident that the participants turned an out-of-class game event into a teaching and learning session. Unlike classroom teaching session, the rules of teaching and learning were not strict. Lily could stand up and leave the game any time she wanted. Carmen and Lily were not dorm mates. They were only friends in out-of- class situations. This game event showed how Lily was exposed to new knowledge in an out-of-class situation. The three target forms, The Grand Canyon, kilt, and puke, were new vocabulary items for Lily. Because of the rules of the game, the meaning negotiation did not last long. But because of the game, Lily was exposed to new vocabulary items.

However, the duration of my data collection did not allow me to further investigate whether the ESL students could use the newly learned vocabulary items in social situations. This is one of the limitations of the study. However, the data, such as this

158

excerpt, show how vocabulary learning opportunities were made available socially to the

ESL students.

Recontextualization of Cultural Knowledge

Culture is operationalized here as “learned and shared patterns of human

behavior” (Warms, 1998, p. 2) in this study. Borrowing van Leeuwen’s (2008) concept of

recontextualization, I posit that cultural knowledge is recontextualized when a second

language learner enters a new culture.

Within the College community, there were various cultures and sub-cultures

which were new to the ESL students. Some examples of the cultures include American

culture, Midwest culture, Iowan culture, College culture, Christian culture, Dorm culture

(Fraternity and sorority), Campus-job culture, Dining culture, and Shopping culture etc.

To add another layer of complexity to this discussion, the ESL learners and their native

speaking peers each bring in a different set of cultures and subcultures to the research

site. It is intriguing to see how learning opportunities are negotiated when so many cross-

cultural dimensions are involved.

Based on the domain analysis, many excerpts were marked as useful for analyzing

the recontextualization of cultural knowledge. In order to effectively demonstrate how

such opportunities were socially constructed, three representational cases were selected

for further analysis.

Excerpt A

The following is an excerpt from an art exhibition, which occurred in the art building on April 16, 2010. In this exhibition, an art professor selected some outstanding works from his students. Four of Joe’s art works were selected in the event. Joe invited

159

his friends, Arthur and Carmen, to the exhibition and they had discussions about three of his art works, Mona Lisa, The Statue, and Breakthrough.

The Statue Mona Lisa Breakthrough Figure 6: Joe’s artworks

160

IU No. Message Unit Contextualization Theme: Cultural Interpretation21 Cues Differences in Art Appreciation I 1 Joe: What’s the Joe used his right ↓ Joe established an Joe raised a difference hand to point at his intertextual link to his question to between Chinese drawing of Mona drawing by using a initiate a cross- guy and Lisa. non-verbal cue. cultural American guy discussion. when they see the- 2 Ok. Joe quietly said ok. ↓ Joe used this to cut Joe’s cutting off off his own question his own question in MU 1. signifies his eagerness to say something. 3 The first thing Joe wanted to ↓ Joe started to Joe did not give a I’m gonna say. explain why he explain his own point chance to his raised the question. of view. friends to answer his question. The question seems more like a rhetorical one. 4 In Chinese Joe started to refer ↕ Joe made a Joe did not want to his own ethnic reference to his home a genuine answer group. country. from his friends. 5 I mean in China Joe performed self- ↕ Joe corrected his He wanted his initiated error choice of word in voice heard. correction. MU 4. 6 when people saw Joe used right hand ↕ Joe established an Joe used an the stuff, to point at the intertextual link to his intertextual link drawing to refer to drawing to explain to connect his his drawing. Joe his point. opinion to his stressed on the last own drawing. word, stuff. 7 they will think Joe stressed on the ↕ Joe tried to explain Joe wanted to what kind of last word, detail, his point further. qualify his detail, which signifies the viewpointas a importance of this Chinese artist. word. 8 what kinda you Joe stressed on the ↕ Joe reiterated his Joe continued to do last word, do. MU 7. elaborate his viewpoint.

Table 24: Excerpt A of Recontextualization of Cultural Knowledge (Continued)

21 In this excerpt, the learning opportunities are not as explicit as those in the language learning ones. Therefore the last column is more related to my interpretation of what actually happened between the interlocutors. Discussion of learning opportunities is given in the narration that follows. 161

Table 24: Continued 9 and they will Joe looked at his ↑ Joe finished his Joe tried to appreciate that. drawing of Mona point about what was discuss what was Lisa again. valued among being valued by Chinese artists. Chinese artists. My interpretation is that his attempt refracts his attempt to defend his drawing of Mona Lisa. 10 But American Joe raised the tone ↓ Joe initiated a Joe wanted to guys? at the end of the contrastive discussion talk about his question. about art appreciation assumption about by Americans. American art appreciation. 11 When they see Joe frowned when ↕ Joe meant to talk Joe wanted to this conveying this about what happened talk about how message to his when Americans saw Americans friends. He stressed his Mona Lisa. responded to his the word, this. Mona Lisa. 12 they already saw Joe continued to ↕ Joe continued to Joe established Mona Lisa frown. build his point. an intertextual link with is drawing of Mona Lisa to illustrate his point. 13 so they don’t Joe hesitated when ↕ Joe continued his Joe continued to want to… thinking of the right point. discuss his word to use. viewpoint. 14 I mean- Joe cut off his own ↓ Joe started to talk Joe started to talk message. about his point. about his point about how Americans valued his Mona Lisa. 15 see it again. Joe finished his ↑ Joe completed his Joe finished his sentence. MU 14. point about how his Mona Lisa was being perceived. 16 Carmen: True. Carmen looked at ↑ Carmen responded Carmen agreed Joe and nodded to to Joe’s viewpoint. with Joe’s point. show agreement.

(Continued) 162

Table 24: Continued 17 Joe: They will Joe continued his ↑ Joe further Joe affirmed his move to another presumption that elaborated MU 15. observation that one. Americans will not Americans did pay attention to his not spend much drawing. time on his Mona Lisa. 18 Carmen: It’s… Carmen was trying ↓ Carmen wanted to Carmen wanted to think of an address Joe’s to give more appropriate concern. response to Joe. response to Joe’s question. 19 I don’t know- Carmen said in a ↕ Carmen started Carmen tried to low voice. with a hedging style establish a to soften her tone. common ground by lowering her assertiveness. 20 I think it’s the Carmen stressed on ↓ Carmen started to Carmen moved value of our the word, value. explain her point of the localized economy. view. discussion on Joe’s drawing to something broader. She raised the level of discussion to the ideological/societ al level. 21 Like we value Carmen referred to ↕ Carmen further Carmen brought individualism the well received explained MU 20. up a broad ideology in ideology to America. illustrate her point. 22 and so like Carmen paused a bit ↕ Carmen tried to Carmen to think of a better establish a example. continued to example. elaborate her point. 23 we like the idea Carmen thought of ↕ Carmen continued Carmen used a we can create an example to to further elaborate simple sentence new things illustrate MU 21. MU 21. to explain what individualism means. 24 and control Carmen continued ↑ Carmen continued Carmen referred things her MU 23. to further to “control” to contextualize MU 21 further her and 23. explanation of individualism.

(Continued) 163

Table 24: Continued 25 rather than Carmen used a ↕ Carmen used a Carmen tried to relying on the contrastive example contrastive example give the past. to illustrate her to illustrate her point. affirmative and point. contradictory examples to explain the meaning of individualism. 26 This is relying on Carmen used her ↑ Carmen established Carmen referred the past left hand to point at an intertextual link to to Joe’s Mona the drawing and Joe’s Mona Lisa. Lisa and said that posited that Joe’s was relying on drawing was relying the past. on the past. 27 Joe: Yeah. Joe replied in a low ↑ Joe did not agree Joe’s “yeah” can voice. He did not with Carmen’s point also be agree with Carmen. of view. interpreted as a signal for claiming back his turn of talk. 28 Carmen: Like Carmen continued ↓ Carmen continued Carmen did not controlling to establish her her MU 24. let Joe have the claim about the turn of talk. cultural practice of Americans. 29 and making new Carmen stressed on ↕ Carmen continued Carmen reiterated things. the conjunction, MU 23. her claim made and. from MU 23-24. 30 Joe: But, Joe tried to interject ↕ Joe tried to claim Joe wanted to and shift the his turn of talk. contribute to the conversation back to discussion topic. China. 31 you know… Joe paused a bit to ↕ Joe tried to further Joe tried to build think of examples to explain his point. solidarity by use. using the gap filler, you know. 32 in China they Joe looked at the ↓ Joe found a way to Joe tried to want to ceiling. get his turn of talk explain the back. Chinese way of drawing and painting. He tried to get Carmen’s attention back to the Chinese value.

(Continued) 164

Table 24: Continued 33 pay attention Joe said quickly. ↑ Joe reiterated his Joe tried to more to the claim made from MU reiterate his conditions. 7-9. point. My interpretation is that Joe was attempting to defend his Mona Lisa. 34 How you do that. Joe put a stress on ↑ Joe restated his MU Joe insisted on “do”, “use”, and 7. his claim about “skill” by raising the Chinese value the tones and saying of drawing. these words louder. 35 What kind of Joe used left hand to ↑ Joe reiterated his Joe established lines you USE signify drawing a MU 8. an intertextual curvy line. link with a nonverbal cue to explain his point. 36 Just your SKILL. Joe loudly said the ↑ Joe reiterated his Joe underscored word, skill. MU 7, 8, 24. the importance of “skill”. 37 Carmen: The Carmen used the ↑ Carmen insisted on Carmen Americans really word, really, to her MU 23. reinstated her value creativity draw the attention point about back to her point American values. about creativity. 38 that’s why when Carmen made a ↕ Carmen established Carmen knew we were painting reference to a social an intercontextual that Jeanie was with Jeanie event that happened link to an event upset because she before. It was a time happened before. was judged as not when Joe, Jeanie, skillful enough in and Carmen worked her paintings. on water color Carmen wanted paintings together. Joe to learn about not criticizing Jeanie for her skills. 39 it’s not about her Carmen continued ↕ Carmen continued Carmen explicitly painting skills. MU 38. to discuss the event stated her happened before. concern about Joe’s criticisms of her skills. 40 It’s all about Carmen used the ↑ Carmen reiterated Carmen insisted creativity word “creativity” her MU 23 & 37. on her American again. value.

(Continued) 165

Table 24: Continued 41 that’s all it is Carmen concluded ↑ Carmen By not about. her claim about underscored the addressing Joe’s American values. significance about claim about drawing. skills, Carmen did not validate Joe’s art value. 42 And that’s why Carmen continued ↓ Carmen started to Carmen like you guys to vent on Joe criticize Joe’s indirectly criticizing because he response to Jeanie’s indicted Joe for criticized Jeanie’s drawing. criticizing drawing skills. Jeanie’s art work. 43 like the little Carmen continued ↕ Carmen elaborated Carmen things her MU 42. on her MU 42. continued to criticize Joe. 44 like that’s not Carmen dropped the ↑ Carmen referred to Why does Joe very American. tone on the last Joe’s reaction in the have to be word. previous event as “American?” It “not very American.” reflects that Carmen had an assumption that Joe should be more American. 45 Joe: They want to Joe took the turn ↑ Joe got back his Joe tried to make something. back to establish his turn of talk. defend his claim about standpoint as a Chinese. Chinese. 46 How to say (0.2) Joe looked at the ↓ Joe wanted to Joe wanted to ceiling and paused. defend himself. defend himself by reinstating his Chinese art values. 47 They want to Joe claimed that ↕ Joe continued to Joe reinstated his make something Chinese aimed for elaborate MU 45. belief about art perfect perfection. appreciation. 48 and look like Joe continued his ↑ Joe tried to Joe tried to something. point. elaborate his point. reinstate his idea about art appreciation. 49 They try to- Joe started to utter ↑ Joe used the Joe tried to give his thoughts. pronoun “they” to more examples. refer to Chinese artists. 50 You can see the Joe said quickly. ↑ Joe continued his Joe continued to difference claim. think of other between examples. something

(Continued) 166

Table 24: Continued 51 you know very Joe stressed on the ↑ Joe used a new Joe used another traditional word, traditional. adjective, traditional, word to explain to explain his MU 47 his MU 47 & 48. & 48. 52 And- Joe pointed at ↕ Joe established an Joe referred to another drawing intertextual link to a someone else’s which was someone drawing to illustrate drawing to give else’s work. his point. an example. 53 Look at that Joe pointed at ↕ Joe established Joe continued to another painting another intertextual find examples to which was a close- link to illustrate his elaborate his up of a blonde girl. point. point. 54 like this type. Joe continued the ↑ Joe used a painting Joe continued to pointing. to explain what he think of examples meant by “skills” and to illustrate his “traditional.” point. 55 Maybe we Joe went back to his ↑ Joe reinstated his Joe was Chinese pay proposition of MU 36. defending his more attention to “skills”. standpoint as a your skills. Chinese artist. He cared about the techniques and perfection. 56 Yeah your Joe used another ↑ Joe referred to MU Joe thought of technique. word to explain 36. other words to “skills.” explain his point of view. 57 Something- Joe cut off his own ↓ Joe started another Joe continued to sentence. sentence. explain himself. 58 I mean Joe tried to connect ↕ Joe thought of Joe continued to to Carmen’s point another way to explain himself. of “creativity”. express himself. 59 they also Joe tried to establish ↑ Joe tried to find a Joe tried to appreciate your a bridge between middle ground establish own create Chinese and between Carmen and solidarity with something. American art himself. Carmen. values. 60 Carmen: But it’s Carmen stressed on ↕ Carmen used a Carmen re- also about “but” to stress the contrastive example directed the focus individualism difference between to illustrate her of discussion to versus Chinese and understanding of the the difference in collectivism. Americans. Chinese values. ideologies. 61 Like in Carmen explained ↕ Carmen continued. Carmen started to collectivist her presumption explain her society about Chinese understanding of societies. the Chinese values. (Continued) 167

Table 24: Continued 62 everyone is Carmen said calmly. ↑ Carmen gave an Carmen used a supposed to example to illustrate simple expression become more like what she meant by to explain each other. collectivism. collectivism. 63 It’s not that they Carmen continued ↕ Carmen tried to Carmen tried to are not to explain the establish a common connect Chinese individuals shared cultural ground between to American expectations among Chinese and values. Chinese. Americans rather than highlighting the differences. 64 it’s just that Carmen continued ↓ Carmen continued Carmen started to to explain. her point. further illustrate her point. 65 that’s the Carmen said calmly. ↑ Carmen finished Carmen finished expectations her MU 64. her point about meeting cultural expectations. 66 whereas I feel Carmen then ↕ Carmen went back Carmen referred like in individual discussed what the to talk about back to her MU society shared cultural individualism. 21 & 60. expectations were like in America. 67 there’s still a Carmen opened her ↓ Carmen further Carmen drive arms. explained MU 66. continued MU 66. 68 of course that we Carmen said slowly. ↕ Carmen used Carmen referred want to be like hedging to make sure to a quality of each other Joe understood that collectivism, being individual did which was to be not mean not wanting like each other, to to be like each other. establish solidarity with Joe. 69 but there is still a Carmen moved both ↕ Carmen used a Carmen stated drive to go hands in opposite contrastive junction, the most critical APART. directions. Carmen but, to state the most idea of being said the last word important idea. individualistic. loudly. 70 and people really Carmen repeated the ↕ Carmen repeated Carmen repeated value the going “going apart” to her major claim. her MU 69. apart. underscore its importance. 71 Joe: You know Joe said in a low ↑ Joe tried to interject Joe used “you voice. to get the turn of talk. know” to interject.

(Continued) 168

Table 24: Continued 72 I means Joe started to state ↓ Joe started to make Joe wanted to his point. his point. contribute to the discussion. 73 for example Joe said slowly. ↕ Joe tried to find an Joe continued his example. point of view. 74 kinda this one. Joe moved closer to ↕ Joe found an Joe tried to another exhibit. example to make his establish an claim. intertextual link. 75 Why I want to Joe pointed at ↓ Joe initiated an Joe wanted show this one? another exhibit intertextual link to Carmen to which is a pencil explain his point. understand why drawing of an old he painted that man’s head. picture. 76 This one. Joe stared at the ↑ Joe used a non- Joe wanted to use drawing. verbal cue to index his own drawing his drawing. as an example. 77 It’s not just about Joe said quickly. ↑ Joe referred to how Joe wanted imaging. and why he drew that Carmen to know picture. what he valued in that drawing. 78 In this picture Joe said quickly. ↕ Joe continued to Joe continued to talk about his used his own drawing. drawing as an example. 79 I used all straight Joe looked at ↑ Joe referred to his Joe underscored lines to make it. Carmen. drawing mentioned in his value on MU 75. skills. 80 Yeah it’s straight. Joe stressed on ↑ Joe wanted to Joe used his own “straight”. emphasize on the drawing as an technique he used example to when drawing the illustrate his picture. appreciation of technique. 81 You see here? Joe pointed at his ↕ Joe established an Joe used a drawing again to intertextual link to his question which illustrate his point. drawing to reiterate functioned as his focus on attention grabber technique. to reinstate his emphasis on technique. 82 This one’s a He explained that he ↑ Joe referred to the Joe gave more statue. was drawing a same drawing. information about statue. his drawing.

(Continued) 169

Table 24: Continued 83 In China we Joe wanted to ↓ Joe used the same Joe attempted to have- explain further starting words, in go back to his about his skills. China, as in MU 5 & claim about 32. Chinese art appreciation. 84 Carmen: I think Carmen interjected ↕ Carmen cut off Carmen took the what makes and took the turn to Joe’s sentence and turn of talk and American share her got the turn of talk re-focused the appreciate art viewpoints. back. discussion on American values. 85 and what they Carmen continued ↑ Carmen tried to Carmen don’t. to finish her MU 84. finish her point about continued to talk American art about her appreciation. viewpoint. 86 China Carmen stressed on ↓ Carmen changed Carmen emphasizes art “way” and crossed the topic to how positively way more. both hands to stress Chinese appreciates validated Chinese her point. She kept art. and their her eyes wide open emphasis on art. to add the intensity of her emphasis. 87 I have lots of Carmen stressed on ↕ Carmen referred to Carmen wanted stuff like this the word, lots. her classes to explain to qualify her why she knew about viewpoint. that. 88 in my education Carmen said ↑ Carmen initiated an Carmen classes. quickly. intercontextual link to explained where her education classes. her ideas about cross-cultural ideologies came from. 89 There’re a lot of Carmen said in a ↓ Carmen changed Carmen initiated schools low voice. the topic to art a change of topic education. to art education. 90 that are Carmen said slowly ↕ Carmen changed Carmen went on completely and dragged on the the topic from art to to give an cutting out last word. music education. example that music… many American schools cut off music classes. 91 because they Carmen wanted to ↕ Carmen further Carmen wanted don’t have a compare that to the explained her to further funding situation in China. observation. contextualize her point. 92 versus in China Carmen looked into ↕ Carmen established China wanted to Joe’s eyes. a contrastive link to shift the focus to China. China again. (Continued) 170

Table 24: Continued 93 there’s a lot more Carmen hesitated on ↕ Carmen further Carmen wanted focus on… the last bit of her contextualized her to make sure she sentence. MU 92. gave enough information about her claim. 94 It has to have Carmen used Joe’s ↑ Carmen repeated Carmen found more skills. word, skills, to end Joe’s choice of that Joe was only the conversation. words, skills, to interested in conclude the discussing his discussion. Her own standpoint. repetition is also an She tried to round intertextual link up the discussion within the same by agreeing with conversation. Joe that Chinese cared more about skills. 95 It has a lot of Carmen further ↑ Carmen finished Carmen wanted focus on that. explained MU 94. the discussion topic to keep the by agreeing with Joe. solidarity and the social relationship with Joe, therefore she agreed with Joe’s proposition that “skills” was more important in China.

When making a comparison between this section and the previous one, it is evident that the ESL students were more receptive when the learning opportunities were language learning. They tended to accept the spelling, meaning of new words, usage, slang, and grammatical corrections readily by giving positive feedback to show that the opportunities were taken up. However, when the discussion topic was related to the recontextualization of cultural knowledge, meaning was often contested and negotiated for several turns between the interlocutors, which are regarded as a kind of learning opportunity. The nature of such kind of learning opportunity is complex and discursive.

Unlike language learning events where usually the ESL learners gained access to 171

language learning knowledge about the English language; cultural knowledge events

open up opportunities for both the ESL learners and their native speaking counterparts to

exchange various cultural values and beliefs. More will be discussed in the following

paragraphs. As a result, there was only one case of recontextualization of cultural

knowledge identified in this excerpt.

Why was it difficult for Joe to accept the cultural values proposed by Carmen in

MU 23? With reference to De Bot (1992), when the ESL students were exposed to new

L2 vocabulary items, they only needed to add the new words to their L2 mental lexicon.

Learning new items required little changes to the conceptual structure which had been

well established among adult learners. However, new cultural knowledge which was

entirely different from the old required more effort in changing the conceptual structure.

Also, since the native speaking peers are supposed to be the dominating social group

(Lippi-Green, 1991) and hold the authority and authenticity, ESL learners tended not to

challenge them in language learning cases. However, recontextualization of cultural

knowledge cases are entirely different because they are the reflections of deeply-rooted cultural practices and values which govern “the believing, feeling, valuing, acting/doing and interacting” of the participants (Gee, 1996). Once our cultural value or practice is challenged, the stakes are high because we face the potential change of our believing, feeling, valuing, and acting. Therefore ESL learners showed a tendency to reject new cultural value and defend their own, especially when it was a first instance of conflict.

On MU 26, Carmen explicitly stated that Joe’s Mona Lisa was “relying on the past” and based on what they talked about, “relying on the past” was not desirable in the

American culture. In other words, Carmen was judging Joe’s painting as undesirable in

172

the dominant culture. On MU 27, Joe replied with a “yeah” in a low voice. It implied that

Joe did not quite agree with Carmen and so the “yeah” functions as a gap filler. Based on

my understanding of Joe and the art exhibition, Joe seemed to be aware of certain cultural

differences in art appreciation and he noticed that he was still doing it the Chinese way,

i.e., using skills to impress the audience. When he started the discussion topic with Arthur

and Carmen, he had already known the cultural differences by observing the audience’s

attention paid to his art works. He merely wanted a confirmation from Carmen. The issue

that he had about Carmen’s comment was that he did not believe that relying on the past

was undesirable, and even if it was he did not care. He wanted his Mona Lisa to be

appreciated in the American culture.

This is a representational case in which Joe’s imitation of Mona Lisa was

criticized as not conforming to the American culture. In Carmen’s mind, this was

something which needs to be repaired. However, Joe contested with her idea because he

wanted his own cultural practice to be valued. Also, from this excerpt, I see an

unbalanced power structure between Carmen and Joe.

The relationship between Carmen and Joe was similar to that between Jeanie and

Joe. Carmen was two years younger than Joe. Both of them were freshmen and thus the academic standing was the same. Joe, being the older male, was expected to take up the leading role according to traditional societal norms. However, because of his limited

English proficiency, Carmen seemed to be leading him by providing him various opportunities to learn the local culture.

Joe once said in a second language writing seminar organized by the writing

center that “Why do I have to conform to the American writing rules?” It is interesting to

173

see that often times the ESL learners were expected to conform to the mainstream rules because they were living and studying in America. This assumption was also held by

Carmen because she criticized Joe’s behavior in MU 44 that he was “not very American”.

These two critical MUs, MU 26 and 44, revealed that Carmen had hidden assumptions about what Joe should do in order to conform to the American cultural values.

Unfortunately, the same expectation was not shared by Joe. Joe defended his own paintings by referring to the skills and techniques which were highly valued in his own culture. On MU 27, he responded with a “yeah” because he understood what he did was not valued in the local culture but he refused to accept his cultural practice being under- valued.

Because the ESL students were newcomers to the United States, the power relationships between the native speaking American students and them were often unbalanced. The American students often played the role of a cultural broker who provided resources to the ESL students for bridging the linguistic and cultural gaps (c.f.,

Jezewski & Sotnik, 2001).

Having spent a summer in Changsha, China, Carmen was an ideal cultural broker because she understood the Chinese culture. However, the expectation of the cultural broker and the ESL learner could still be different. In this case, Carmen tried her best to provide a learning opportunity to Joe about what was valued in paintings. However, Joe understood Carmen’s proposition but did not accept it.

Like Belcher and Hirvela (2001) concluded, the construct of voice was problematic because of the privileged notion of Western or individualistic in situations when the learners did not share the same background. As a mature ESL learner, Joe

174

seemed to have his own voice, which he didn’t want to lose. He went on to talk about the use of straight MUs and the skills he had in the creation of artworks, which revealed that he did not give up his voice. This could be due to his male egoism, his pride in his art works, or he did not want to lose in the discussion with Carmen about cultural values.

Despite Carmen’s effort in reiterating her ideas about American culture in MU 21, 40, and 60, Joe rejected it and tried his best to defend his Mona Lisa. This telling case demonstrated that out-of-class discussions about cultural values were multi-voiced and problematic. There was no uptake observed in this case, and so does this count as a learning opportunity? I believe so because learning opportunities can be chaotic and messy. Also, though Joe and Carmen both defended their ideas, the negotiation process helped them understand better about each other’s cultural practices and values. Therefore the negotiation process itself serves as a learning opportunity for them.

Excerpt B

This event happened on February 8, 2010 when Mandy and Lily were having a tutorial session. Lily did not have any homework for Mandy to check and so they started to have a casual conversation. Lily did not have any idea about a discussion topic. Mandy took the lead and started a conversation topic.

175

IU No. Message Unit Contextualizatio Theme: Hall n Cues Cultures Interpretation I 1 Mandy: You Mandy said in a ↓ Mandy Mandy decided to know what we suggestive tone. initiated a take the lead and can talk about? discussion decide on what to talk topic. about. 2 I know what we Mandy showed ↕ Mandy did Mandy already had can talk about. excitement by not give Lily a something in mind for raising the tone chance to the discussion time. and voice. reply to her question. 3 Do you like F Mandy raised the ↕ Mandy Mandy wanted to Hall? tone at the last asked a know Lily’s opinion word. question about about F Hall but she F Hall. did not give Lily any time to answer it. 4 More than S Mandy raised the ↕ Many Lily moved from S Hall? tone at the last shifted the Hall to F Hall during word. focus from F semester break, which Hall to a was the reason for comparative Mandy to ask Lily to question compare the two between F and residential halls. S Hall. 5 Lily: No. Lily said with ↑ Lily did not Lily’s answer might confidence. like F Hall have surprised Mandy Mandy was silent more than S because Lily initiated and she looked Hall. a move from S Hall to into Lily’s eyes. F Hall. So Mandy might have assumed that Mandy liked F Hall more. 6 S Hall girls Lily said quickly. ↓Lily wanted Lily wanted to give a always close their to talk about reason for her answer doors the openness in MU 5. of the dormitories. 7 But not in F Hall. Lily stressed on ↕ Lily Since Lily did not the word, not. emphasized explain which way on the door she preferred, it was rule in F Hall. difficult to say whether she endorsed the door rule of the two dormitories.

Table 25: Excerpt B of Recontextualization of Cultural Knowledge (Continued)

176

Table 25: Continued 8 And somebody Lily laughed. ↕ Lily was Lily’s laughter told me that trying to tell signifies that the something conversation with funny. Mandy was casual and friendly. 9 S Hall girls are Lily hesitated and ↕ Lily was Lily initiated a girls that you… paused after the trying to discussion about how last word. explain S Hall residents were herself. perceived. 10 You date. Lily looked at ↕ Lily found Lily tried to give a Mandy and then the right word reason for her to like looked away. She to finish her S Hall more. stressed on the sentence in word, date. MU 9. 11 F Hall girls Lily said slowly ↕ Lily wanted Lily shifted the focus and paused at the to compare S to F Hall. end of the phrase. and F Hall. 12 are girls that you Lily stressed on ↕ Lily According to Lily, the marry. the word, marry. compared S female residents at F and F Hall and Hall were wife pointed out materials. the difference. 13 H Hall girls Lily said slowly. ↕ Lily Lily added another initiated a residential hall to the discussion discussion. about another female dormitory. 14 are girls… Lily paused. ↕ Lily was Lily stayed focus on thinking of the the perception of girls right words to of H Hall. use. 15 they are your Lily stressed on ↕ Lily used Lily showed her friends. the last word, three key understanding of how friends. words to the three girl explain how dormitories were the female perceived by others. residents were perceived. 16 Thanks goodness Lily waved her ↕ Lily showed Lily was connected to hands in the air. that she was the social stereotypes emotional in of the various female this topic. dormitories.

(Continued) 177

Table 25: Continued 17 I’m not in H Hall. Lily laughed out ↑ Lily did not The social stereotype loud. want to be of H Hall had part of H Hall. impacted Lily’s social identity as a female resident. 18 Mandy: Mandy said in a ↓ Mandy Mandy used the word Stereotypes. low voice. identified a “stereotypes” to key word to initiate a teaching describe the point about dorm social cultures. phenomenon. 19 The types of Mandy paused at ↕ Mandy tried Mandy further girls… the end of the to explain the explained the phrase. phenomenon meaning of in her own stereotypes within the words. dorm context. 20 that live in a Mandy said in a ↕ Mandy Many continued her dorm. confident tone. continued to explanation. build up her point. 21 It’s all Mandy said ↕ Mandy Mandy identified the stereotypes quickly. repeated MU social phenomenon as 18. stereotyping. 22 and not true Mandy waved ↕ Mandy Mandy wanted to Lily her hands and expressed her to know that she stressed on the disagreement. rejected to believe in word, not. those stereotypes. 23 but Mandy said ↕ Mandy used Mandy started to give SUPPOSEDLY loudly. the word, her reason. supposedly, to mitigate the tone of her proposition. 24 they don’t Mandy looked at ↕ Mandy gave Mandy told Lily one shower the table and said a reason to of the stereotypes with a frown. why H Hall about H Hall girls. girls were perceived negatively. 25 and they don’t Mandy stressed ↕ Mandy Mandy gave more care about stuff on the word, care. further examples to the like hygiene explained MU stereotypes of H Hall. 24. 26 and I don’t know Mandy said ↕ Mandy used The softening of tone quickly. this to can be interpreted as mitigate her an attempt to build tone. solidarity. (Continued) 178

Table 25: Continued 27 and they don’t Mandy said ↕ Mandy Mandy gave more get out a lot. firmly. further example to back up contextualized her claim about H the Hall. stereotypes about H Hall. 28 And S Hall girls Mandy said ↕ Mandy Mandy shifted to quickly. changed the comment on S Hall subject to S girls. Hall. 29 they come out a Mandy raised her ↕ Mandy Mandy’s choice of lot arms and waved compared H words and her around her face. to S Hall girls. expression showed her appreciation for S Hall girls. 30 and they do their Mandy said with ↕ Mandy Mandy personally hair a positive tone. showed validated the cultural appreciation practice of S Hall towards S girls. Hall. 31 and they hang out Mandy stressed ↕ Mandy Mandy got to the key with lots of boys. on the word, lots. further point that Lily was contextualized concerned with, the cultural dating potential. practice of S Hall. 32 And F Hall girls Mandy wrapped ↕ Mandy Mandy went on to her hands changed the talk about F Hall, the together. topic to F remaining one of the Hall. three. 33 just like to have a Mandy further ↕ Mandy Mandy continued to boyfriend explained how F continued to talk about F Hall. Hall girls were describe the perceived. cultural practice of F Hall girls. 34 and they like to Mandy said ↕ Mandy Mandy’s tone and have friends firmly and looked further expression showed at Lily. explained F her approval of F Hall Hall girls. girls. 35 and they wear Mandy further ↕ Mandy Mandy continued to makeup contextualized continued her explain F Hall girls. the cultural observation. practice of F Hall girls.

(Continued) 179

Table 25: Continued 36 but not like Mandy said the ↑ Mandy Mandy further TONS of word, tons, wanted to showed her approval makeup. loudly. She rolled subtly portray of F Hall girls and her eyes too. F Hall girls as their cultural practice knowing how regarding wearing to avoid over makeup. wearing makeup. 37 Lily: I can tell Lily said in a low ↓ Lily started Lily picked up the voice. to contribute discussion on to the generalizations of discussion. girls’ dorms. 38 like S Hall is a Lily stressed on ↕ Lily was Lily tried to divert the new dorm and… the word, new. more topic to facilities. concerned about the facility than other things. 39 Mandy: It’s air- Mandy said with ↕ Mandy Mandy agreed with conditioned? a smile. showed Lily and gave further agreeableness. details to Lily’s point. 40 Lily: It’s modern. Lily said firmly. ↕ Lily gave Lily liked S Hall further because of the reasons about facilities and design, her liking S rather than cultural Hall. practice. 41 Mandy: I don’t Mandy said in a ↕ Mandy did Mandy initiated a think it’s true for stern voice. not agree with learning opportunity everyone the cultural for Lily. She wanted stereotypes. to make the discussion a lesson. 42 but Mandy rolled her ↕ Mandy first Mandy used hedging eyes and paused a showed why to soften her bit. the cultural disagreement with the stereotypes cultural stereotypes. were understandabl e. 43 I’m sure it Mandy said ↑ Mandy Mandy explained how changes you a quickly. acknowledged those stereotypes little. the social might affect people. consequence of the stereotypes.

(Continued)

180

Table 25: Continued IU No. Message Unit Contextualizatio Theme: n Cues Vocabulary Interpretation II 1 Lily: How to say Lily looked at the ↓ Lily Lily initiated a a woman is so ceiling when suddenly moments of language gentle saying this. changed the learning. topic to a description of women. 2 and she’s Lily looked back ↕ Lily further Lily further responsible to at Mandy. described the contextualized the take care of the word she idea she had about a family wanted to gentle woman. learn. 3 and her husband Lily paused a bit ↕ Lily added Lily thought that a before saying more gentle woman took this. information. care of her husband. 4 and her kids? She reached out ↕ Lily used a Lily thought that a her hand to invite question to gentle woman took a reply. give more care of her kids as description. well. 5 Mandy: All that Mandy laughed ↕ Mandy used Mandy was buying in one word? after saying this. a question to time to think of the express how right word. She might difficult it was be figuring out the to use only best target word to one word to teach Lily. include all the information. 6 We can say she’s Mandy stressed ↕ Mandy Here Mandy provided really caring. on the word, found a target a word for Lily to caring. word for Lily. learn. 7 Lily: Ok. Lily said in a low ↑ Lily Lily acknowledged voice. acknowledged uptake of the learning that she opportunity. understood the target word. IU No. Message Unit Contextualizatio Theme: n Cues Personal Interpretation Appropriatio n of Hall Culture III 1 I’m always a Lily laughed after ↓ Lily Lily used herself as an caring person. saying this. connected example and she herself to the showed that she could target word, use the target word in caring. a sentence.

(Continued) 181

Table 25: Continued 2 I know what you Lily looked at ↑ By saying Lily acknowledged mean Mandy. this, Lily the uptake of learning wanted to let opportunity. Mandy know how well she understood the target word. 3 I am more like F Lily laughed after ↓ Lily Lily lived in F Hall Hall girls now saying this. connected and she associated herself with F with the generalized Hall. idea that F Hall girls were wife materials. This reflects her ideology of what a woman should be like. 4 But I am still Lily said ↑ Lily wanted Lily experienced the different in other confidently. to connect struggle about ways. Mandy nodded. herself to F wanting to be similar Hall and yet to a social group and she needed to yet keeping her own point out her unique qualities. uniqueness. Mandy nodded to show agreement.

Three learning opportunities about dorm culture were identified in this excerpt,

as represented by three interactional units. This excerpt showed that the girls’ dorms were

perceived as having certain generalizations within the college community. The

stereotypes were cultural expectations about the female residents at a dorm. For example,

H Hall girls were supposed to be not very good at personal hygiene and taking care of

themselves but they were fun to be with, S Hall girls were supposed to be fashionable and

take good care of their looks, F Hall girls were supposed to be caring and well-behaved.

The labels on them were: H girls were friends, S girls were girlfriends, and F girls were

182

wives. These were all gender specific labels from the male perspective, as if the meaning

of being a woman is to play a role as a wife, a girlfriend, or a friend to a man.

When Mandy initiated the discussion topic, Lily followed up by telling the various labels she knew about the different dorms. Then Mandy, who was a junior in social work, i.e., an old timer at the community, tried to create a learning opportunity for

Lily about stereotypes and social stigma. She explained that when S girls were perceived as fashionable, they were expected by the community to carry that title. Therefore, when new girls lived in S Hall, they were prone to become fashionable because they were around girls like that and they wanted to live up to that label. However, Mandy also wanted Lily to know that there were still individual differences within a dorm. Therefore, the judgments and labels were not always true. Lily identified herself with the F Hall girls

because they were “wife materials”. She also used the word, caring, to describe herself,

which showed how her identity was influenced by those labels. After listening to

Mandy’s opinions about the dorm stereotypes, Lily acknowledged that she learned that

those stereotypes were not the absolute truth.

When Lily moved to F Hall, she was expected to become an F girl. Within the

larger American college culture, dorm culture exists. Lily had to find a way to align

herself with those cultural values if she wanted to become an F girl. The stakes were high

because if Lily failed to become an F girl, she would not be accepted by her dorm mates

and would also be repelled by girls from other dorms. Therefore, for ESL students, the

plights were not merely learning the rules about academic life, they had to learn to adapt

to the local dorm cultures in order to be accepted as competent dorm residents.

183

The other female ESL learners also faced the same challenges. Yuki was fine

being an F girl because of the positive and desirable label on F girls. Mary, who was also

an F girl, was judged and criticized by her seniors as not dressing up appropriately,

because Mary liked to wear mini-skirts and shirts with deep Vs and low cuts. Edith suffered as an H girl because she was very conservative and she hated being labeled as goofy or gross. She practically lived in her friend’s room in F Hall most of the nights and applied to change to another dorm.

In second language learning, various theorists discussed similar phenomenon

(Krashen’s affective filter, 1982; Schumann’s acculturation model, 1978).

“According to the precepts of this model, acculturation (made up of social and affective variables) is the causal variable of second language learning. If learners acculturate, they learn. If learners do not acculturate, they will not learn.” (Gass & Selinker, 2001, p. 332)

The traditional acculturation model in the area of SLA mainly dealt with language learning issues and adjustment to American living in a broad sense. However, from my

data corpus, first year ESL students were also required to acculturate to the local dorm

culture. Most of the American colleges require freshmen to live in dorms during their

freshmen year. The ESL students were then facing challenges because they had to adapt

to the dorm cultures, which could be very different from those in their home countries.

Apart from dorm cultures, this excerpt also showed a closely linked issue of

identity. With reference to Sfard and Prusak (2005), “there were two forms of identities:

actual identity, consisting of stories about the actual state of affairs, and designated

identity, composed of narratives presenting a state of affairs which, for one reason or

another, is expected to be the case” (p. 19). The stereotypes were “designated identities”

184

required of the dorm residents. From this excerpt, it is evident that Lily’s designated identity at the time of the conversation, was an F Hall girl, which was labeled as wife- material according to the social recognition at the campus. However, Lily went back and forth between S Hall and F Hall, with the former being a modern dormitory with better facilities and door rules, and the latter being a dorm with a better gender image. Lily admitted that she liked S Hall more because of the facilities and door rules. However, she identified herself as a caring woman, which was one of the traits of F Hall. From this excerpt, it shows that social identity is often complicated and multifaceted, as demonstrated by Lily’s case. Also, Lily did not believe she was exactly the same as other

F Hall girls. She did mention that she had other personal qualities which were different from other F Hall girls. Therefore, she showed that her actual identity comprised of one of the main and well-recognized traits of F Hall, caring, and also she had many other traits which were entirely different from the rest of the group.

Excerpt C

This event happened on March 26 at the student activity hall. Carmen and Lily were hanging out and having small talk.

185

IU No Message Unit Contextualization Theme: Greeting Interpretation . Cues in another culture I 1 Carmen: Hey, Carmen smiled ↓ Carmen smiled to Carmen initiated Lily. when she greeted show friendliness. a hang out time Lily. with Lily. 2 You wanna learn Carmen looked into ↕ Carmen’s looking Carmen initiated how to greet Lily’s eyes. into Lily’s eyes a learning somebody showed her opportunity by enthusiasm. inviting Lily to learn the ways of greeting among Spanish speaking people. 3 if you’re like a Carmen and Lily ↓ Carmen brought Carmen was Spanish person? seated at a loveseat. up the subject of acting like a Carmen turned her another language cultural broker, body to face Lily. and culture. trying to teach Lily how to greet in Spanish speaking countries. 4 Well, Carmen said ↕ Carmen paused a Carmen wanted quickly. bit. to soften her tone of teaching. 5 in a lot of Carmen said ↕ Carmen wanted to Carmen was countries, quickly. refer to countries enthusiastic about other than America. cross-cultural social practices. 6 they don’t do this Carmen said in a ↕ Carmen added Carmen further in small countries, slower speed. more details to what contextualized she was going teach. the target knowledge. 7 but in a lot of Carmen said ↕ Carmen Carmen signaled countries, confidently. strengthen her tone initiation of the to claim authority. things she wanted to talk about. 8 they do this Carmen moved ↑ Carmen used non- Carmen wanted close to Lily and verbal cues to show to use actions to kissed her on both how to do greeting. teach Lily. cheeks. 9 Lily: In Britain? Lily asked half- ↕ Lily was not Lily was either heartedly. paying attention to not paying what Carmen attention or she mentioned as did not catch Spanish-speaking what Carmen countries. said about Spanish-speaking countries. Table 26: Excerpt C of Recontextualization of Cultural Knowledge (Continued) 186

Table 26: Continued 10 Carmen: Yeah. Carmen said in a ↑ Carmen did not Carmen’s yeah low voice. want to directly can be interpreted reject Lily’s idea. as 11 Well Carmen said in a ↕ Carmen tried to Carmen used louder voice. change the tone and well to signal a a small shift in slight change of topic. discussion topic. 12 I don’t know Carmen tried to ↕ Carmen softened Carmen whether they do correct her mistake her tone by explained to Lily this in Britain, by carelessly beginning with “I that the greeting replying with a don’t know.” was not “yeah” in MU 10. appropriate in Britain. 13 I don’t know. Carmen opened her ↑ Carmen repeated Carmen repeated hands in the air. the first three words her uncertainty to in MU 12. soften her tone. Carmen prepared a positive learning environment for Lily. 14 Lily: Lily kissed Carmen ↑ Lily repeated Lily on both cheeks and Carmen’s action in acknowledged then laughed. MU 8. the new cultural knowledge by repeating after Carmen. 15 Carmen: But a lot Carmen said in a ↕ Carmen needed to Carmen added of countries they serious tone and tell Lily that kissing more information don’t actually kiss stressed on the was not applicable to the cultural you, word, kiss. in all countries. practice of kissing on the cheeks. 16 some do. Carmen stressed on ↕ Carmen wanted to Carmen provided the word, some. emphasize that the more details to kissing was not the kissing that universal. she was teaching to Lily. 17 Like I’ve friends Carmen said ↕ Carmen gave an Carmen referred from Argentina enthusiastically with example of Spanish- to her personal her eyes wide-open. speaking countries. connections so as to show that the kissing might apply in Argentina.

(Continued) 187

Table 26: Continued 18 they do kiss your Carmen stressed on ↕ Carmen repeated Carmen repeated cheeks the word, do. MU 16. MU 16 to emphasize that this point was important. 19 but most of them Carmen kissed Lily ↑ Carmen used Carmen modified they just near the near her left ear. actions to assist her her kiss to teach ear teaching in words. Lily a similar kind of greeting. 20 Lily: Oh. Lily kissed Carmen ↑ Lily repeated Lily was back. Carmen’s action in receptive when MU 19. presented the new cultural practice of greeting. She repeated after Carmen. 21 Carmen: They will Carmen stressed the ↕ Carmen wanted to Carmen showed probably freak you word “freak” and warn Lily about the empathy because out. widened her eyes greeting style. she understood when saying that how it felt as an word. outsider to Spanish culture. 22 It’s very funny. Carmen smiled ↑ Lily showed that Lily learned when saying this. she understood something new Lily smiled. Carmen’s teaching. about greeting in another culture. IU No Message Unit Contextualization Theme: Drinking Interpretation . Cues as a cultural habit II 1 Carmen: What Lily was sitting next ↓ Carmen initiated a Carmen showed kind of smoothie to a large cup of casual conversation that she was is that? smoothie. in the form of a friendly to Lily. question. 2 Lily: Strawberry. Lily said in a happy ↑ By replying Carmen and Lily tone. Carmen’s question co-constructed a in a happy mood, friendly Lily showed that relationship at the she was friendly to beginning of their Carmen as well. conversation. 3 It’s very cold. Lily frowned. ↑ Lily talked about Lily continued to how she felt about engage in small the smoothie. talk with Carmen. 4 you know. Lily held the ↕ Lily showed some Lily continued to smoothie up and concern about engage in small frowned. drinking smoothie. talk with Carmen.

(Continued)

188

Table 26: Continued 5 I shouldn’t have Lily put the ↕ Lily wanted to Lily was sharing that. smoothie down. stop drinking her concern about smoothie. drinking smoothie with Carmen. 6 I mean Lily said slowly. ↕ Lily wanted to Lily was trying to give a reason. communicate her needs and concerns to Carmen. 7 it’s bad for my Lily pouted her lips ↕ Lily was upset Lily gave a stomach. and stared at the about knowing that reason as to why smoothie. smoothie was bad she needed to and still drinking it. stop drinking smoothie. 8 Carmen: Why is it Carmen looked at ↕ Carmen showed Carmen showed bad for your Lily in the eye. sincerity by looking that she cared for stomach? at Lily. Lily. 9 Lily: It’s cold. Lily frowned. ↑ Lily’s facial Lily repeated MU expression 3. explained that cold drinks were not good for her. 10 Carmen: Na. Carmen smiled and ↑ Carmen used to Carmen did not showed disbelief drink cold drinks agree that cold with her eyes. and could not drinks were not understand Lily’s good. concern. 11 That’s… Carmen wanted to ↕ Carmen tried to Carmen could explain her point of explain about cold have realized that view. drinks. there was a gap in understanding each other. 12 Lily: I know Lily patted Carmen ↕ Lily showed Lily thought that Americans can’t on the shoulder. sympathy to Americans would understand that. Carmen. not understand her. 13 You think cold Lily stressed on the ↕ Lily showed that Lily emphasized things are good for word, you. she understood on Carmen being you. about Americans’ American. habit of drinking cold drinks. 14 But… Lily paused a bit. ↕ Lily wanted to Lily changed her give contradictory tone. examples.

(Continued) 189

Table 26: Continued 15 Carmen: I know Carmen smiled. ↕ Carmen wanted to Carmen wanted Chinese like hot show that she had Lily to know that teas. background she had knowledge about knowledge about Chinese tea. Chinese culture. 16 They don’t like Carmen concluded ↑ Carmen said Carmen and Lily cold things. with a statement. confidently. started to negotiate the cultural practices of having cold drinks but they did not come to conclusion. IU No Message Unit Contextualization Theme: Cultural Interpretation . Cues definition of rudeness III 1 Lily: Are you Lily changed the ↓ Lily showed Lily initiated a going to study topic subtly by interest in Carmen’s new discussion abroad? asking a question. study abroad trip. topic. 2 Yes you are. Lily pointed a finger ↓ Lily pointed at By pointing at at Carmen. She Carmen and Carmen and stressed on the confirmed that she joking with her, word, are. knew about the trip Lily established already. solidarity and friendship. 3 Carmen: To Carmen said ↑ Carmen Carmen replied Ecuador. quickly. responded to Lily’s to MU 1. question in MU 1. 4 That’s why I’m so Carmen jumped off ↑ Carmen was very Carmen showed excited. the loveseat to show direct when her emotion to how excited she expression her Lily, which was. emotion. reflects their friendship. 5 Coz I had my Carmen said ↕ Carmen tried to Carmen wanted Ecuador class last excitedly. tell Lily about her to give more night Ecuador class. details to Lily regarding Ecuador. 6 and we’re talking Carmen paused. ↕ Carmen was Carmen paused a about the… thinking about the bit to buy time next thing to say. for fetching the right words to say.

(Continued) 190

Table 26: Continued 7 Lily: Really? Lily interjected with ↕ Lily showed Lily gave her eyes wide open. enthusiasm. positive feedback to encourage Carmen to build up on that topic. 8 Wow! Lily exclaimed. ↑ Lily showed how Lily shared the excited she felt. same excitement with Carmen. 9 It’s nice. Lily said quickly. ↑ Lily gave a Lily showed that positive feedback to she appreciated Carmen, indicating the chance to go Carmen to continue to Ecuador. the topic. 10 Carmen: We’re Carmen stressed on ↓ Carmen wanted to Carmen referred talking about the word, make. focus on gestures. to what she gestures that you learned in class make. and started a teaching point. 11 Like in America Carmen said in a ↕ Carmen referred Carmen wanted confident tone. to America to give to discuss the an example. cross-cultural difference. 12 you can point Carmen pointed her ↕ Carmen used Carmen showed index finger in the gesture to illustrate that pointing in air. her point. the air was fine in America. 13 and that’s not Carmen stressed on ↕ Carmen wanted to Carmen focused really rude. the word, rude. teach Lily what on her teaching might be rude in point about another culture. rudeness. 14 Like you can Carmen put her ↕ Carmen wanted to Carmen acted shout across the hands around her show that shouting like a cultural room mouth. was fine in representative of America. America. 15 that’s not very Carmen reiterated ↕ Carmen gave two Carmen wanted rude. MU 13. examples about Lily to American gestures understand that which were not shouting was not rude. considered rude in America. 16 Lily: Hey Lily repeated ↕ Lily’s repetition Lily joined Carmen’s action in of Carmen’s acting Carmen’s topic MU 14. showed that she by repeating acknowledged the Carmen’s action. information taught by Carmen.

(Continued) 191

Table 26: Continued 17 that’s rude in Lily pointed at ↕ Lily used non- Lily acted like a China Carmen’s nose. verbal cue to show representative of Carmen that China. pointing was rude in China. 18 We don’t do that. Lily said slowly. ↕ Lily showed what Lily was trying to was considered rude get a chance to in China. teach Carmen what was rude in China. 19 Carmen: You Carmen said in an ↕ By finding a Carmen can’t do that in agreeable tone. common social rule explained to Lily Ecuador about pointing and that certain shouting in China behavior like and Ecuador, Lily finger pointing and Carmen and shouting established a were acceptable connection in in American discussion topic. culture. Lily picked up on Carmen’s point and gave an example about the opposite practice in China. Carmen followed up on Lily and added that Ecuador was more like China in that regard. They showed reciprocity in the learning process. 20 you can’t point at Carmen continued ↕ Carmen wanted Carmen gave the menu. to give further Lily to understand more examples to examples to Lily. more about the illustrate her pointing rule. point. 21 You point with Carmen moved her ↕ Carmen continued Carmen used your chin chin up and down. to contextualize her non-verbal cues point by acting. to deliver her message. 22 Or like with your Carmen moved her ↕ Carmen continued Carmen showed lips lips. to give more how pointing was information. done in Ecuador.

(Continued) 192

Table 26: Continued 23 I know Lily smiled. ↕ When Lily smiled, By how Carmen Carmen realized realized Lily’s that the smile meant feeling with a that it was weird. smile, it is evident that their friendship was quite well established. 24 isn’t that weird? Carmen raised the ↕ Carmen showed Carmen knew tone on the last empathy. that it must be word. weird from Lily’s point of view. 25 Lily: And with Lily rolled her eyes ↕ Lily tried to Lily cooperated your eyes from left to right. imitate pointing with Carmen by without using her rolling her eyes fingers. to show that pointing at something was rude. 26 Carmen: I can’t do Carmen smiled. ↕ Carmen’s smile Carmen did not it. signified her say whether eye appreciation to rolling was Lily’s eye rolling. appropriate in Ecuador or not. 27 I have to like Carmen tried to ↕ Carmen started to Carmen tried to explain why she explain herself. communicate to couldn’t do the Lily by pointing. expressing herself. 28 tie my hands Carmen put both ↕ Carmen wanted Carmen used behind my back hands at her back. Lily to know how non-verbal cue to hard it was for her explain her point. to not use her hands. 29 And do it. Then she used her ↕ Carmen wanted to Carmen and Lily chin to point at play with Lily. were acting something. funny towards each other. 30 You know. Lily laughed. ↕ Lily’s laughter Lily and Carmen showed that she were building enjoyed the fun. friendship by acting funny. 31 It’s so unnatural. Carmen commented ↕ Carmen Carmen wanted on the Ecuador interpreted a to show Lily that practice as cultural practice cross-cultural unnatural. from her point of communication view. could be difficult.

(Continued) 193

Table 26: Continued 32 You know Carmen paused a ↕ Carmen used a The gap filler can bit. gap filler to buy be interpreted as time to think of establishing what to say next. solidarity too. 33 Americans shout Carmen uttered a ↕ Carmen used Carmen all the time sweeping statement. herself as a cultural explained why representative. In not pointing at reality, not all anything was Americans like to hard for her. shout all the time. 34 like hey YOU Carmen put both ↕ Carmen gave Carmen wanted hands around her more examples to to show Lily that mouth. She said the contextualize her shouting loudly last word loudly. argument. was common in the USA. 35 Lily: Hey STOP. Lily imitated ↕ Lily showed that Lily Carmen’s acting and she understood. demonstrated said the last word uptake of the loudly. information taught by Carmen. 36 Stop there Lily pointed her ↕ Lily continued to Lily continued to finger at someone. imitate Carmen’s show how well acting. she received the information brought about by Carmen. 37 Carmen: That’s Carmen used very ↕ Carmen repeated Carmen went very very rude in twice to emphasize MU 19. back to her Ecuador. the intensity. original teaching point. 38 Lily: I understand. Lily said in a ↕ Lily expressed Lily showed that confident tone. that she understood she learned about everything Carmen the cultural taught her. differences in America and Ecuador. 39 We Chinese don’t Lily stressed on the ↕ Lily acted like a Lily responded usually do that, word, we. cultural by relating to representative again. Ecuador culture. 40 actually. Lily said in a low ↑ Lily wanted to voice and the tone conclude the dropped at the end, discussion. which signaled an end.

194

Three recontextualization of cultural knowledge cases were identified in this

excerpt, as represented by three interactional units. At the beginning of the small talk,

Carmen wanted to share some cultural knowledge about greeting and kissing on people’s

cheeks with Lily. She initiated a learning opportunity by telling Lily about the greeting

practice among Spanish speaking people. She then kissed on Lily’s cheeks without

asking for any permission. Lily and Carmen were both 18 years old and were freshmen at

the College. They lived in different dorms but had been friends since Fall 2009. If the

trust and friendship were not present, Carmen might not have kissed Lily on her cheeks

right away. And Lily might not be so receptive to Carmen’s teaching.

On MU 2 of IU 3, Lily pointed at Carmen when saying “Yes you are”, which

initiated Carmen’s thought about finger pointing habits and the cross-cultural issues related to that. She then referred to the cross-cultural topic she had in class and gave a mini-lesson to Lily regarding nonverbal behavior. At the college town, there was a

Spanish Department and Carmen was also a Spanish major. The Spanish community was expanding because of new immigrants from Spanish speaking countries and therefore

Spanish speaking culture was another sub-culture within the area. Carmen was trying to teach some of the things she knew to Lily. Besides the kissing habit, Carmen referred to the taboo about finger pointing and compared that to American cultural habit. She wanted to illustrate that it was very impolite to point at something in Ecuador. Lily had no prior knowledge about Ecuador but she tried to relate to that because of the shared taboo in

China. She used her home culture to interpret a brand new culture and the learning opportunity was taken up by Lily.

195

Negotiation of Social Identity

In this study, I take on the social interactionist’s approach in the definition of

identities. With reference to Gumperz (1982),

We customarily take gender, ethnicity, and class as given parameters and boundaries within which we create our own social identities. The study of language as interactional discourse demonstrates that these parameters are not constants that can be taken for granted but are communicatively produced. Therefore to understand issues of identity and how they affect and are affected by social, political, and ethnic divisions we need to gain insights into the communicative processes by which they arise.” (p. 1)

Gumperz’s (1982) definition of social identity shifted the focus from rituals and

larger cultural practices to everyday conversational and communicative events, by

showing the transcripts of interethnic meetings which were overwhelmed with

misunderstandings and conflicts. Related to that is Goffman’s concept of “footing.”

Goffman’s (1981) idea of footing denoted the shifting of roles (changes in tones,

stress, politeness, loudness, gender roles) when the settings changed, which

underscores the importance of situatedness in identities.

The overarching concerns of the social interactionist approach are how meaning is constructed, negotiated, and redefined through everyday life interactions, and how identity is an ever-changing and discursive construct which situates in discourses.

Similar to the previous sub-sections, many excerpts were marked as useful for analyzing the social construction of negotiation of social identity. In order to effectively demonstrate how such opportunities were socially constructed, three excerpts were selected for further analysis. The criteria for selecting this excerpt were: (i) the excerpt was about a critical moment when many opportunities were created and taken up in a

196

short period of time, and (ii) the excerpt showed the socially constructed learning of identity related issues.

Excerpt A

This event happened on January 24, 2010, when Ben and Joe were discussing the preparation of a dance party to be organized by their dorm.

IU No. Message Contextualization Theme: Dance Interpretation Unit Cues party as a cultural practice I 1 Joe: Oh This interjection ↓ Joe started the Joe used his right with a rising tone conversation with hand to cover his shows that Joe was an exclamation. mouth. The surprised at the implicature is two- moment. Joe fold: i) he was not covered his mouth confident in himself with his right hand. in the conversation. This could be due to his lack of confidence being a non-native speaker, or he just wasn’t sure about his assumption that Ben was attending the party. 2 I think you This statement ↕ Joe showed that Joe’s statement will be functions as a he was concerned showed that he there question. Joe about whether Ben wanted to form wanted to confirm would be there or solidarity with Ben. with Ben whether not. Ben was going to the party.

3 The W Hall Joe continued to ↑ Joe indexed the This is a reference dance party cover his mouth topic of discussion, point as per what Joe with his right hand. W Hall dance was talking about. party. The nonverbal cue suggests that Joe was not confident in what he was putting forth in his statement.

Table 27: Excerpt A of Negotiation of Social Identity (Continued)

197

Table 27: Continued 4 Ben: Ab- Ben said this with ↑ Ben confirmed When Ben stressed so-lute-ly emphasis on the his participation the four syllables of four syllables to with Joe. the word, he was confirm his giving Joe attendance at the confidence. Ben was party. trying to build friendship with Joe.

IU No. Message Contextualization Theme: Dance Interpretation Unit Cues party as a cultural practice II 1 You know Ben continued to ↓ Ben continued to It is obvious that Ben give information give more details. was initiating a topic about the party. which was relevant to the aforementionedtopic, the dance party. Ben wanted Joe to learn about a typical dance party in the dorm. 2 we get to Ben used his hands ↕ Ben gave an Ben initiated a change the to signify the important conversation topic floors changing of floors. information to Joe. which laid the ground for explaining what a typical party was like to Joe. Ben was creating a learning opportunity to Joe. He used “we” to signify theshared group identity with Joe. 3 Have you Ben asked a ↓ Ben was He further heard question to check checking Joe’s constructed the anything Joe’s understanding understanding of learning opportunity about it? of the party. Ben the topic so that he to check Joe’s prior looked into Joe’s could make knowledge about the eyes when he decisions about party. proposed a question. what to tell Joe. 4 Joe: No Joe gave an answer ↑ Joe responded to Joe gave an answer to to Ben. He shook Ben’s question to Ben so that Ben his head and thus confirm that he had would go on and used nonverbal cue no knowledge explain the party to in addition to the about the party. Joe. verbal cue.

(Continued) 198

Table 27: Continued IU No. Message Contextualization Theme: Dance Interpretation Unit Cues party as a cultural practice III 1 Ben: We’re Ben tried to further ↓ Ben took up Ben was trying to like explain the party to Joe’s reply and think of examples to Joe. He used a gap tried to think of a Joe. filler, um, to buy way to explain to time in this Joe. searching for appropriate things to say. 2 Um… Ben paused. ↕ Ben needed some Ben used a gap filler time to think about for having more time what to say next. to think. 3 In this Ben first referred to ↓ Ben continued to Ben tried to lounge the lounge where explain the party. contextualize his they were located at description of the that moment. topic 4 And for you Ben was giving ↕ Ben included Joe Ben tried to include guys in the more examples in the explanation Joe in his laundry about the venues of to get Joe involved. explanation. room the party. 5 We change Ben signified a ↕ Ben shifted to Ben used “we” to it turning point “we” to further signify inclusion of signify inclusion of Joe as part of the Joe in the community. Joe’s conversation. identity as a legitimate community member was validated. 6 Like to look Ben used gap fillers ↕ Ben was planning Ben tried to look for like to organize his to give a specific better references to something thoughts example to Joe. contextualize his example. 7 Like the Ben referred to the ↕ Ben made a Ben referred to the theme last previous year as an reference to the history of the party in year was example in his previous year’s the dorm. There was rave explanation. party to show Joe a conventional thing what it was like. in the party in the dorm. 8 So it looked Ben used the ↕ Ben used rave Ben used an analogy like a rave analogy of a rave party as an to better illustrate his party party to explain how example in his topic. it was like in the explanation. previous year.

(Continued) 199

Table 27: Continued 9 There was Ben further ↕ Ben used an Ben used artifacts to like contextualized his artifact, glowing further contextualize example by stuff that we wear, his example. referring to some in his example. artifacts. 10 glowing Ben continued to ↕ Ben used Ben used colloquial stuff that contextualize his colloquial terms, terms, which signify we wear example. stuff, to explain the friendship. outfit they wore. 11 And disco Ben continued to ↕ Ben also used Ben used more balls contextualize his artifacts, disco artifacts to example by balls and crazy contextualize his referring to more music, to better example. artifacts. illustrate his example. 12 and crazy Ben continued to ↕ Ben continued to Ben used music to music give more details. index the artifacts. contextualize his example. 13 And then Ben then shifted to ↕ Building on the Ben shifted to on 2nd describe what previous talk, Ben another floor to floor… happened on the 2nd changed to the 2nd further develop the floor. He also used floor and was topic. nonverbal cues to planning to give couple with his more details about verbal reference. it. 14 Joe: So Joe interjected by ↑ Joe had a concept Joe used a question to different asking a question, about the party but confirm his concept floors have with the function to he was not sure. He of a party which he different ask for used a question to co-constructed with style? clarifications. He further negotiate Ben. was checking his for meaning. He own understanding asked for of what Ben just confirmation or said. Joe also correction by coupled with hand raising a question. gestures to refer to the floors in the dorm. His rising tone at the end showed that he was not sure about it.

(Continued) 200

Table 27: Continued 15 Ben: Yeah Ben confirmed Joe’s ↕ Ben replied with Ben confirmed Joe by yeah conjecture. “yeah” twice to saying yeah twice. He show that Joe was wanted to give more right. confidence to Joe. Ben was building social relationship with Joe. 16 different Ben repeated Joe’s ↕ Ben also repeated Ben repeated Joe’s style of saying to confirm what Joe said to words to signify his music what Joe said. confirm what Joe undivided attention to said. Joe. 17 We three Ben further made ↕ Ben further made Ben built on Joe’s floors have line 20 a complete a complete words to further different sentence to further sentence to further signify his attention style of reinforce Joe’s confirm with Joe’s to Joe’s response. music interpretation. conjecture. 18 Joe: Yeah Joe acknowledged ↑ Joe used one Joe replied to Ben’s the explanations word and a falling explanation by given by Ben. His tone to show that showing his uptake of falling tone signifies he understood what the learning his understanding of Ben explained to opportunity co- the topic. him constructed between them.

Three learning opportunities about dorm culture were identified in this excerpt, as represented by three interactional units. This excerpt showed that both dorm cultures and identities were co-constructed between Ben and Joe. On MU 3 of IU 2, Ben asked a question to check Joe’s understanding of what a dance party was like. Then Ben went on to offer the necessary cultural knowledge that Joe needed as a dorm mate. The organization of a dance party was an important event at W Hall. It happened two to three times a year and was recognized as a cultural event, which required the participation of all residents. Ben played the role of an old timer because he had been there in the previous year. He initiated a learning opportunity for Joe and offered information about what a dance party was like to Joe.

201

Within the college community, a student carried a dorm identity. Within the dorm, the dorm resident carried another layer of identity depending on the floor where the resident lived on. So that it was critical to know that “different floors have different styles” (MU 14 of IU 3). On MU 2 of IU I, Joe started the conversation about the dance party. He began the sentence using the reflexive pronoun, “I” and said I think… On the contrary, Ben did not use “I” in any of his utterances. He only used “We” and he consistently used it on Mu 2 of IU II, MU 1 of IU III, MU 5 of IU III, and MU 17 of IU

III. He insisted on using the group pronoun “We” to signify the dorm identity that he shared with his fellow dorm mates. Indeed the concept of fraternity was critical in

American colleges.

With reference to Strong (2007),

“Institutions across the United States have been investing heavily in these residential learning communities… Researchers have revealed the positive outcomes of greater retention through campus integration (Tinto, 1998), increases in academic achievement (Kuh, 1995), and successful transitions to the college environment (Gabelnick et al., 1990; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Talburt& Boyles, 2003), but much of the qualitative impact of RLCs on students is still largely unknown” (p. 26)

It is true that dorm cultures were positively affecting the students’ participation at the college. From the excerpt, it seemed that solidarity and sense of belonging were built within the dorms. When a dorm resident carried a dorm identity, e.g., Ben, he tended to have a higher motivation to help new comers such as Joe to be acculturated into the dorm culture. The sub cultures e.g., floor mates and wing mates, helped the residents to establish an even closer linkage with each other because of the geographical location of their dorm rooms. For a newcomer like Joe, his dorm was his home in the U.S.A. and he spent most of his spare time within the dorm. According to Lave (1996), “For immigrant

202

students, then, Americanization, or "assimilation," is first and foremost a process of racialization through the practices of their daily lives, whether in the official sites of tracked classrooms or in the students' social sites of gathering and socializing.” (p. 160)

Joe took up the identity as a W guy, which facilitated his Americanization process, and also gained him “currency” within the college community. Because he had a group of brothers at his back in case he needed help and support.

There were multiple layers of social identities that an ESL learner carried. For instance, a college student, a college student in the Midwest, a college student at an

American institute, a Spanish major, a dancer, an artist, a writer, a W Hall resident, an S

Hall girl, so on and so forth. Each identity represents a certain kind of social relationship that the student was having with others, and whenever there is social relationship, issues of power would exist. For an ESL student, who had no local support from families and friends, it was critical to take up local identities in the process of negotiation of power with others. For instance, when Joe was finding an on-campus job, his identity as a W

Hall resident and his reference from the W Hall Director helped him secure a job.

Excerpt B

This event was an art exhibition of Joe’s artworks at the Art Building on April 16, 2010.

Joe was introducing one of his artworks, when he took a printmaking class.

203

Breakthrough

Figure 7: Joe’s Breakthrough

IU No. Message Contextualizatio Theme: Use Interpretation Unit n Cues artwork to express identity

I 1 Joe: Actually Joe stared at his ↓ Joe wanted to At the beginning, artwork. introduce his Joe was trying to artwork to his introduce his print friends. to Arthur and Carmen. He used the dancer, and then went further to describe his idea with more specific descriptors like break-dancer. 2 this guy is a He said in a ↑ He started by Joe tried to explain dancer. confident tone. giving a general his artwork to his description. friends. 3 It’s uh He paused to find ↓ Joe used a gap Joe continued his the right word to filler, uh, to think of explanation. use. what to say next. 4 Break dance He looked at ↕ Then he moved on Joe’s eye gaze Arthur and to give more details shows that he tried Carmen. to it. to connect to his friends. Table 28: Excerpt B of Negotiation of Social Identity (Continued) 204

Table 28: Continued 5 or He said in a rapid ↑ Joe continued his Joe said rapidly to something. speed. explanation. finish his sentence. 6 A dancer. Joe stressed on ↑ Joe repeated the Joe repeated the the word, dancer. key word in MU 2. word, dancer, which signals a sense of importance. 7 He want to. He waved his ↓ Joe used hand Joe could not finish hands in the air. gesture to his sentence. emphasize what he was planning to say. 8 You know. Joe said slowly ↕ He used a gap Joe was thinking with a frown. filler to think of while he talked. what to say next. 9 He broke He pointed at his ↕ Joe explained his Joe stressed on the something artwork and artwork. word, broke, which stressed on the was another key word, broke. word in his talk. 10 and he come He looked away ↕ Joe focused on the Joe referred to his to the dark from his print. process of breaking artwork to explain into. his idea of breakthrough, which was the title of his artwork. 11 or into the Joe said with a ↕ Joe continued his Joe continued to dark strong voice. explanation. explain his idea of breakthrough. 12 or Joe finished his ↕ Joe finished his Joe finished his something. explanation. sentence. sentence. 13 It’s the- Joe cutoff his ↕ Joe initiated Joe started to give own talk. another sentence. more details. 14 you know Joe pushed his ↕ Joe used a gap Joe cutoff his own glasses. filler to think of talk in MU 13 with what to say next. a gap filler. 15 The idea is Joe stared at his ↕ Joe gave more Joe referred to his from my print. Arthur details about his friend to explain friend looked at Joe. artwork. the originality of the print. 16 One friend. Joe said slowly. ↑ Joe repeated the Joe’s repetition of word, friend, in MU the word, friend, 15. signals a sense of importance among the audience.

(Continued) 205

Table 28: Continued IU No. Message Contextualizatio Theme: New Interpretation Unit n Cues Vocabulary Item

II 1 You know Joe said slowly. ↓ Joe used a gap Joe used a gap filler to connect his filler wisely in his ideas and to buy conversation to time to think of connect his points. what to say next. 2 in break Joe said with a ↕ Joe referred to Joe used an dance strong voice. break dance when example to explain explaining his his artwork. artwork. 3 they always Joe put both ↕ Joe used non- Joe initiated a put the um hands around his verbal cues to ask learning head. for help. opportunity by 4 the hat. ↑ Joe used the word using non-verbal “hat” but it was a cues. Arthur picked wrong choice of up on the cues and word. provided a better 5 Arthur: The Arthur raised the ↑ Arthur provided word. Joe HOOD? end tone. the target word and acknowledged the raised the end tone. help from Arthur 6 Joe: The Joe repeated the ↑ Joe repeated after and repeated the hood word in MU 5. Arthur which meant word after Arthur. that Joe adopted Arthur’s choice of word. 7 And this Joe paused. ↓ Joe tried to further Joe wanted to kind… explain himself. explain about the hood in his artwork. 8 be very cool Joe lifted his ↕ Joe showed Joe was excited to eyebrows. excitement. share his feeling about his artwork with Arthur. 9 and just kind Joe paused. ↕ Joe continued to Joe continued his of explain himself. explanation.

(Continued) 206

Table 28: Continued 10 is the dance Joe repeated the ↑ Joe focused on Joe was indeed a key word, dance. associating himself break-dancer who with dance. performed on stage whenever he had a chance. He identified himself with break-dance and he believed that was a cool identity. IU No. Message Contextualizatio Theme: Actual Interpretation Unit n Cues Identity

III 1 but why I put Joe pointed at the ↕ Joe went to the Joe revealed more the wing? wings on his climax of his about his creation print. He raised a introduction. He of the wing man in question while wanted to invite his the print. He used a staring at the friends to guess his question to draw print. intention to draw attention from the wings. Arthur and Carmen, inviting them to think about his print. 2 You know. Joe said slowly. ↕ Joe wanted to Joe used some gap 3 Actually explain himself. He fillers to buy time did not give Arthur for thinking about a chance to respond what to say to his question in afterwards. MU 1. 4 I have no Joe said slowly. ↕ Joe said this to idea mitigate his assertiveness. 5 so Joe paused, ↕ Joe used a conjunction word to connect his later explanation to his question. 6 they call me Joe smiled after ↕ Joe referred to a Joe referred to his wing man saying this. term which he was nickname at the Arthur put on a associated with in dorm. He was the grin and stared at his dorm. wing man and that Joe. Carmen was the reason why stared at Joe. there were wings in his artwork.

(Continued) 207

Table 28: Continued 7 I don’t know. Joe said slowly. ↕ Joe used a gap Joe’s softening of filler to mitigate his tone signals an assertiveness. attempt to build solidarity. 8 Everything I Joe paused. ↕ Joe further Joe wanted to want to do explained why he explain why he got the title, wing was called the man. wing man. 9 have wings. Joe said ↕ Joe connected Joe continued his confidently. himself with wings. explanation. 10 I want to do Joe looked at ↕ Joe expressed his Joe wanted to fly something Arthur and enthusiasm in and that was why Carmen. achieving some he added wings to goals. his print. 11 that flies. Joe slowed down ↕ Joe expressed his a bit when saying passion in flying. the word “flies”. 12 You know. Joe paused. ↕ Joe used a gap Joe needed help so filler to connect his as to fly. But he points. did not give further 13 I want to Joe paused. ↕ Joe continued his explanations about have explanation. why he needed to something fly. 14 to help me Joe stressed on ↕ Joe explained that fly. the word “fly”. actually the wing man in the print was him. He wanted to fly. 15 Actually Joe pointed at the ↕ Joe started his Joe used “actually” wings on the explanation again. to begin his print. explanation, which also happened in MU 1. 16 these wings Joe further does not explained his belong to his artwork. body 17 Just belong Joe pointed at the ↑ Joe explained Joe further to the shoe. shoes on the where the wings explained his print. were attached to. concept of wings.

(Continued)

208

Table 28: Continued

18 Carmen: Carmen said this ↑ Carmen picked up Carmen agreed Yeah in a calm voice. on Joe’s intention to with Joe that the introduce himself as wing man was Joe the wing man. She himself. She also replied to signify wanted to let Joe uptake. know that she understood his intention. 19 Right. Carmen said this ↑ Carmen then used in an assertive “right” to agree with tone. Joe that the wings were attached to the shoes. She also said this to show that she agreed with Joe’s proposition of his identity. 20 So you can Carmen stressed ↕ Carmen asked a Carmen used a GO on the words question to Joe to question to somewhere? “you” and “go”. confirm her consolidate her speculation that it thoughts. She was Joe who wanted wanted to make to have wings and sure that Joe was fly away. talking about himself. 21 Joe: Yeah. Joe replied in a ↑ Joe’s reply Joe replied to confident voice. confirmed that he Carmen in a was the wing man in confident voice. the print. IU No. Message Contextualizatio Theme: Chinese Interpretation Unit n Cues versus American style

IV 1 Actually this Joe looked at ↓ Joe wanted to Joe’s eye contact one is not Carmen when make it clear that signals his attempt very saying this. the wing man was to connect with traditional. another identity of Carmen. his. The American Joe. 2 Chinese Joe said ↑ Joe tried to Joe tried to style. confidently. explain that his dissociate from artwork was not Chinese style. very Chinese.

(Continued) 209

Table 28: Continued 3 You know. Joe paused. ↕ Joe used a gap Joe used a gap filler. filler to establish solidarity with Carmen and Arthur. 4 Chinese style Joe frowned and ↕ Joe paused a bit to Joe wanted to is more. looked away think of what to say explain to his from his print. next. friends what Chinese style meant. 5 How to say Joe stressed on ↓ Joe used a Joe asked a 实际? the word, say. question to connect question to Nicole to Nicole. because Arthur and Carmen did not know Chinese very well. 6 Nicole: Nicole said ↑ Nicole responded Joe and Nicole Practical. confidently. to Joe’s question. shared a special connection because they both spoke Chinese. 7 This one is Joe touched his ↓ Joe continued to Joe continued his kind of more. nose and explain himself. explanation. frowned. 8 You need to Joe raised his ↕ Joe asked his Joe subtly solicited think about eyebrows when friends to think opinions from his that. saying this. about his artwork. friends. 9 I don’t know Joe used a gap ↕ Joe wanted more Joe seems to filler and paused. time to think of develop a habit of what to say next. using “I don’t know” as a gap filler. 10 why the b- Joe looked at his ↕ Joe drew attention Joe wanted to boy artwork again. back to his artwork. explain more about his artwork. 11 or the Joe said slowly. ↕ Joe used an Joe referred to the breakdancer alternative term to character portrayed describe his in his artwork. artwork. 12 they always Joe stressed the ↕ Joe used the word Joe’s grin showed do something word “crazy” and “crazy” to describe that the word, crazy. put on a grin after the American way. crazy, meant saying this. something positive.

(Continued) 210

Table 28: Continued 13 The Joe looked at ↑ Joe used Joe wanted to American Arthur and American way to further explain that way. Carmen when connect with his self portrait as saying this. “crazy”, which had the wing man was a positive associated with his connotation based American self. on the way he talked about it. 14 So it’s more Joe repeated the ↑ Joe focused on his American. word, American, idea of what was and put a stress considered on it. American. 15 This one. Joe looked at his ↑ Joe’s eye gaze artwork, indexes his artwork breakthrough, being American. again. 16 Arthur: Arthur put on a ↑Arhur’s grin and Arthur and Carmen grin and nodded. eye contact showed showed uptake of He looked at Joe that he understood Joe’s explanation for a while. Joe’s proposition of of his self portrait his American as an identity. Americanized self. 17 Carmen: Carmen nodded ↑ Carmen nodded and looked into and looked at Joe to Joe’s eyes. show that Joe’s declaration of American identity was well received.

There were four learning opportunities involved in this excerpt. The first one was when

Joe started to introduce his artwork to his friends. The second one was a moments of language learning when Joe was searching for the right word to use. He used non-verbal cues, i.e., put both hands around his head to represent the hood, to ask for assistance from his friends, Arthur and Carmen. Because Arthur was a close friend of Joe, he picked up the non-verbal cues immediately and provided the target word for Joe. The third one was when Joe too the chance to explain why he had a nickname called the wingman in W

211

Hall. The fourth one was when Joe explained why his artwork was more American to his

friends.

Besides the moments of language learning, Joe initiated three negotiation of social

identity for Arthur and Carmen. Unlike the aforementioned learning opportunities, which

were opportunities for ESL students to learn about language or culture, this excerpt

showed the reverse, that Joe was presenting his self-portrait to his friends, which was a

chance for his friends to learn about Joe.

Joe did not admit that the break-dancer in his print called “Breakthrough” was himself. He first generally described it as a “dancer” and he said he got the idea from one

of his friends. However, there was a pivotal point on MU 10 of IU III, when Joe invited

Arthur and Carmen to think about the wings. He then slowly revealed that the true

identity of the wingman, and it was a representation of himself.

On MU 6 o IU III, Joe admitted that his nickname was the wing man, which

explained why the break dancer in his print had wings. Joe further explained his intention

to fly away but he did not give reasons. Based on my understanding of Joe’s personal

history and family background, I knew the reasons for him to become the wing man.

Joe grew up in a large family with more than 15 close relatives in China. His

father was a government official and his family had high expectations of Joe. Joe’s

maternal uncle was a biologist working in the U.S.A. Because of that, his family wanted

him to become a biology major, which was Joe’s declared major at the College. Because

his family paid full tuition to support Joe’s academic pursuit at the College, they assumed

Joe to become a biologist, so that he could work in his uncle’s company someday.

However, Joe was talented in graphic design and he aspired to become an architect or a

212

graphic designer. Therefore he took printmaking and some other art courses without

informing his parents. Joe constantly expressed his frustration and how he felt about

being trapped in a situation. He wanted to be free. Therefore he added wings to most of

his artworks. The break-dancer with wings attached to his shoes was Joe’s self portrait.

However, his Chinese self would not allow him to break away from his family

expectations, and therefore the only way to be free was to have an “American self”,

which was why he said on MU 13 & 14 of IU IV that the print was more American.

Using Joe’s words, the Chinese way was more practical and realistic, it prevented him to

look for his dreams. But the American way was “crazy” (MU 12 of IU IV) and it allowed

room for imagination. His self portrait as a break-dancer was Joe’s realization of his

“American self”. When asked to describe some of the changes that happened after a year of ESL learning in the interview, Joe’s first sentence was “I’m Americanized. I think this is my… I don’t know. Personality?” (Transcription from an interview on April 29, 2010).

In the area of SLA, often times L2 learners were said to have multiple identities or

hybrid identities because they often performed differently in a different culture or when

speaking another language. Another theory which explained the same posited that L2

learners developed various personas during the language learning process. With

reference to Walker & Noda (2000),

“Persona is the starting point and the sole agent in the learning of a foreign language. Persona refers to the personal information that the learner is willing to commit to the learning experience. The persona of a learner can vary considerably from one learning environment to another. The persona can change rapidly in a period of language study.” (p. 33)

213

When Joe described his American self during the interview, he was referring to his persona which he developed in the U.S.A. The development of such a persona helped

Joe to temporarily leave his Chinese persona, so that he could be free.

To conclude, this excerpt showed that ESL learners were not always at the receiver end when learning opportunities were constructed. Joe took the agency to initiate an opportunity for Arthur and Carmen to better understand his sense of self. The social construction of learning opportunities could be the reverse because Joe had the authority to present himself. He had the authentic information about himself and therefore when the topic of learning shifted to identities, Joe became the holder of knowledge and his native speaking friends became the receiver of the knowledge.

One may ask “What is the use of knowing an L2 learner’s persona?”. I believe that knowing about the L2 learner’s persona is the only way towards building up dialogic and dialectic relationships among the interlocutors. With reference to Bakhtin (1980),

“The ideological becoming of a human being, in this view, is the process of selectively assimilating the words of others.” (p. 341). During a social interactive event, the interlocutors were co-constructing each others’ “ideological becomings” through the assimilation of the words of others. By knowing the “wing man” and Joe’s American persona, Arthur and Carmen would refer to the “wing man” later when having conversations with Joe. Their friendship would be taken to the next level because of shared terminology, which was not known by others. Also, Arthur and Carmen would have a better chance to avoid having misunderstandings when communicating with Joe.

214

Excerpt C

This event happened on March 23, 2010, when Yuki and Carmen were talking about Yuki’s personal experience as an ESL learner. Nicole joined the conversation sometimes when they talked about ways to improve English learning. Yuki and Carmen met at the student activity center in the evening and they started to have a conversation.

Yuki and Carmen sat around a round table and were very close to each other

(approximately 1.5 ft away).

IU No. Message Contextualization Theme: Expression of Interpretation Unit Cues Emotion

I 1 Yuki: You Yuki looked at ↓ Yuki wanted to open Yuki started the know. Carmen when up to Carmen to talk conversation by “I saying this. about herself. Yuki don’t always show wanted to be better my true feelings to understood by others. others”, which implied that she was going to talk about something deep.

2 I don’t Yuki said in a ↕ Carmen knew that always sincere way. Yuki was very serious show my Carmen nodded and she needed a good true feelings when Yuki listener. to others. finished the sentence.

Table 29: Excerpt C of Negotiation of Social Identity (Continued)

215

Table 29: Continued 3 If I show Yuki used her ↕ Yuki continued to It appeared that Yuki my true right hand to touch talk about her feelings. had some bad heart her heart. She wanted help from experience about 4 every one Yuki softened the others but at the same being perceived as thinks I’m tone on “weak” time she did not want weak and pitiful. But weak to appear as weak or Yuki did not refer to 5 or… Carmen gave her a pitiful. those incidents. big nod to show understanding. 6 I don’t want Carmen nodded people to slightly. feel sympathy. 7 I wanna to Yuki stressed the be word encouraged “encouraged”. by people 8 but no pity. Carmen waved her right hand to show that she was excited. 9 Carmen: Carmen looked at ↑ Carmen summarized Carmen was not sure You don’t Yuki and said what Yuki just said to about Yuki’s bad want to feel firmly. provide support. She experience because like you are added her opinion Yuki did not tell her. useless about not controlling So she wisely either. everything, which summarized what 10 But Carmen paused a meant that Carmen Yuki told her and bit after saying wanted Yuki to let go gave her a general this. of the negative feelings suggestion. 11 you can’t Carmen used her about herself. have right hand to everything support her chin under and she looked at control all Yuki when saying the time. this. Yuki then nodded and paused for a while. IU No. Message Contextualization Theme: Participation Interpretation Unit Cues in Discussion II 1 Yuki: We Yuki slowed down ↓ Yuki started to talk Yuki was concerned have many when saying about the college about the classroom discussions “discussions”. classes that she was discussion. in class taking at that moment. 2 and then Yuki paused. ↕ Yuki continued her Yuki continued her point. talk. (Continued)

216

Table 29: Continued 3 I can learn Yuki said very ↕ Yuki expressed Yuki was other slowly. interest in listening to appreciative of the people’s other people’s chance to be a opinions. opinions. listener. 4 I don’t Yuki looked away ↕ Yuki used a gap Yuki was thinking of know. from Carmen. filler to soften her what to say next. The tone. gap filler also serves as a conjunction. 5 American Carmen nodded ↕ Yuki gave a Yuki gave a general people like and smiled. Nicole sweeping statement to statement about what discussions. also nodded and talk about her she thought about smiled. frustration. Americans. 6 During the Yuki said in a low ↕ Yuki established an Yuki referred to the lunch time voice. intercontextual link to past events which the lunch time. happened during the lunch time. 7 or just Yuki paused and ↕ Yuki added more Yuki gave further chatting then said slowly. details to what she details to back up her observed about point in MU 5. Americans. 8 They Yuki stressed ↑ Yuki stressed the Yuki seriously always “always” to signify words “always” and thought that discuss the intensity. “all” to describe the Americans discuss all something. intensity that she felt the time. towards her comment “American people like discussions.” 9 Nicole: Nicole said this ↑ Nicole validated Nicole wanted to Good twice, excitedly. Yuki’s comment. encourage Yuki to observation. talk more about discussions. 10 They all Yuki stressed the ↑ Yuki reiterated her Yuki further have their word “all”. Yuki MU 5. contextualized her opinions. raised her voice MU 5. when saying this. She showed that she could not understand why Americans were opinionated.

(Continued)

217

Table 29: Continued

IU No. Message Contextualization Theme: Participation Interpretation Unit Cues in Discussion III 1 I can’t Yuki stressed the ↓ Yuki reached a Yuki used a negative express my word “can’t” to pivotal point in her expression to talk feeling emphasize her conversation with about herself. frustration. Carmen. She directly 2 in English- Yuki paused and revealed her frustration cutoff her own about expressing talk. herself. 3 sometimes Yuki said slowly. 4 and so Yuki continued her Yuki signaled her talk. intent to continue her point. 5 I don’t think Yuki used another Yuki used another negative negative expression expression in her to begin her point. talk. 6 anyone can Carmen looked Yuki did not trust understand into Yuki’s eyes anyone around her me with sympathy. because they spoke completely. English as their native language. 7 Nicole: Is it Nicole said ↕ Nicole wanted to Nicole encouraged because of curiously. understand more about Yuki to continue to your Yuki’s concern. talk about her cultural difficulty. background ? 8 If many Yuki said slowly. ↕ Yuki gave an Yuki gave an people are example of how she example to initiate a gathering felt when more than further explanation. four people were around her. The “people” were very likely “Americans”. 9 I can’t Yuki stressed on ↕ Yuki explained what Yuki explained why speak up the word, can’t. she could not do in a she felt that she was social gathering. an outsider. 10 and so Yuki paused. ↕ Yuki tried to think of Yuki was taking the other ways to express time to think of other herself. examples. 11 so three or Yuki looked at ↕ Yuki further Yuki four people Carmen. contextualized her recontextualized her is ok expression of MU 10. discomfort in a group discussion situation. (Continued) 218

Table 29: Continued 12 but not Carmen nodded ↑ Yuki wanted to Yuki wanted to let many and showed stress that she could Carmen know about people. sympathy. not express herself her frustration. when there were many Carmen nodded to people. signal understanding.

Unlike moments of language learning, the negotiation of social identity ones were not

easily captured by the video. The video recordings of participant observations did not

show incidents when the ESL learners were advised to behave more like Americans or to

take up an American identity, either directly or indirectly.

Based on Carmen’s written notes about cultural differences, it seemed that was

true. Carmen shared some of her written notes about cross-cultural experience with me in

April, 2010. Carmen wrote that,

“Americans are often hesitant to give true, individual-directed criticism. It is easy for Americans to criticize country and family, since they are large organizations which do not hold, contain, or define their own identity, whereas it is extremely hard on an American to deal with a direct, personal criticism, such as “you don’t look very pretty today” or “you have gained weight.” Americans hold the ability to self-define on a sort of pedestal, as they do the idea of self. Thus, any penetration of this idea is a deep insult.”

Therefore, as far as negotiation of social identity issues are concerned, Excerpt B and C both showed that it was more often when ESL learners opened up about their identities, rather than being given an opportunity to learn about the American identity.

The ESL learners wanted to be understood by their friends. The only way for them to achieve such goal was to open up about themselves.

Excerpt C was similar to B because in both cases the ESL learners provided opportunities for their native speaking friends to understand about them. In Excerpt C, 219

Yuki divulged some of her fears to Carmen. She had the courage to take the agency to

reveal her weakness and frustration to Carmen, which implied that there was trust built

between them. Before getting to the critical moment when Yuki directly admitted her

frustration about not being completely understood, Yuki paved the way by telling

Carmen that she felt weak sometimes because of the way she was perceived.

Then Yuki took the plunge to tell Carmen why she was frustrated. It was because

Americans loved discussions. Yuki used the words “always” (Line 8 of IU II) and “all”

(Line 10 of IU II) to show the intensity she felt. It seemed that Yuki was revealing one of

the cultural shocks she experienced. In Japanese classrooms, the students were not allowed to speak freely and the teaching was more teacher-centered. Japanese students

were trained to be silent in class. Also, female students were expected to be gentle and

submissive. However, in America, the female students were more assertive because

freedom of speech was encouraged, especially in college communities. With reference to

Hsieh (2005), “Facing the triple disadvantages of being women, Asians, and international

students in the United States, Asian female international students are held to Asian

stereotypes, such as obedience, submissiveness, subservience, quietness and non

assertiveness” (p. 37). Yuki was standing at a cross-road because she was not used to

being assertive in public, which created anxiety and sense of guilt.

On Line 8 and 9 of IU II, Yuki used the pronoun “they” when referring to the

“Americans”, so she positioned herself as an outsider who was not part of “them”. In

contrast to “they” who were always opinionated, Yuki found that her voice was not

heard, especially when positioned among many native speakers. Also, she felt that she

could never be understood “completely” (MU 6 of IU III) by others. In fact no one would

220

be “completely” understood by others. Therefore, why Yuki felt insecure was more of a psychological dissonance felt. She felt that her identity was unequal, and that she was weak and pitiful. The way that she could not speak up in public added to her feeling of isolation. Yuki’s revelation of “I”, which was mentioned nine times in the excerpt, could only happen between friends that she could trust. So that Yuki could open up to Carmen and tell her about her insecurities.

During the process of identity negotiation, Yuki was looking for sameness and differences through the social events that occurred on the way. By reflecting on herself in terms of how different she was in the college community, e.g., not being opinionated in class and not having anything to say during lunch time, Yuki developed strong feeling of frustration about her own identity. She felt that she was positioned at a lower end in the power relationship with others.

From Excerpt C, it is evident that Yuki’s negative feelings were also due to the unequal social relationship she experienced with others. In an English speaking community, the native speakers had the privilege to freely express themselves. As an

ESL learner, who had limited English proficiency, Yuki constantly felt that she could not clearly and bravely express herself. Her language barrier made her feel “useless” among others in the community. Also, the native speaking students shared similar values in the social interaction process, but Yuki, who was new to the community, failed to grasp those values. She could not understand why Americans were all opinionated because she was trained to be the opposite in Japan.

In this section, the identity construction cases show that identity is a complex and multifaceted construct that the ESL learners and their peers are trying to explore and

221

understand. The overarching concern is the ideology of “nativeness” at the immediate culture, e.g., within a dorm or a class with other native speaking peers. The ESL learners are finding their own identities and at the same time trying to be accepted by the local social group. There are dialectic relationships between the site, the ESL learners, and their peers. An interesting recurrent word that comes up in the excerpts is “the American people”. When the ESL learners are describing an incident they tend to group all

American people together, but in reality, many of their peers are also first year students who are also trying to adjust to their first year college life. They share the same plights.

Also, some of their peers are from out of state, e.g., California, South Dakota, Minnesota, etc. These people have similarities as Americans but there are also various differences between them. However, from the ESL learners’ point of view, these are one group and the “us-them” segregation is always there, which shows that the ESL learners are insecure about themselves being perceived as “the only outsiders”, but in fact many of their peers share similarities and differences with them and such differences might be comparable to how the ESL learners differ from each other.

222

( ) Nonverbal or inaudible

[ ] Overlap utterance

Underlying Stress

CAPS Loud utterance

- Cut off and interjection follows

(0.2) Time lapsed in seconds

↑ Follow up on a previously discussed topic and expect an end of

the topic

↓ Initiate a new topic

↕ Connect the previously discussed topic and expect follow up

I Initiation

N Negotiation

U Uptake

A Acknowledgement

Table 30: Transcription Key

223

Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings & Conclusion

This dissertation describes a five-month qualitative study of how five first year international students at a small, four-year Christian college in the Midwest of the United

States learned English as a second language (ESL) through social interactions outside of the classroom. The theoretical framework was built upon Gumperz’s (1982) interactional sociolinguistics, which addressed how interlocutors convey meaning in everyday communicative practice. Ideas and concepts from the New Literacy Studies (Street, 1993,

1995), dialogism (Bakhtin, 1981), discourse as a big/small d (Gee, 1999b), cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1977), acculturation (Schumann, 1986), and communities of practice

(Lave & Wenger, 1991) were consulted and adapted for the purposes of this study when analyzing and describing its findings.

In this Chapter, I approach the three research questions raised in Chapter One with reference to the key findings of the study. I also discuss the contributions of my study to the fields of TESOL and literacy education. Then I conclude the dissertation by discussing the limitations of the study.

The three research questions raised in Chapter One are: (i) What kinds of out-of-

class learning opportunities did first year ESL students have in the research setting? (ii)

How were such learning opportunities initiated, negotiated, and taken up? (iii) What were

the conditions which enabled learning opportunities to occur? For each research question,

I draw major findings from the previous chapter for the following discussion.

224

Discussion on RQ1: What kinds of out-of-class learning opportunities did first year

ESL students have in the research setting?

The purpose of this question was to move the study beyond the traditional focus on classroom-based learning and explore the possibilities that existed in other settings.

Table 31 below provides part of an answer to research question 1; Table 31 is based on the major findings from the grand tour and domain analysis presented in the previous chapter.

In Table 31, the two columns running vertically down the left side represent the domain of places, the top two rows represent the domain of actors, and each space in the middle represents the domain of activities. Detailed descriptions of these domains can be found under “Domain Analysis” in Chapter Four.

School-like Non-school-like Alone With dorm With Alone With With mates friends dorm friends mates On- Academic Study and Study Study Use Small Draw Ca Buildings work in the together together facebook talk pictures mp library and cell together us phone Dormitorie Study in the Discuss Study Listen to Dance Go to s dorm room course together music, party, dance materials watchmovi sing party, together es, play songs visit games in together dorm the dorm , play room, room, video watch lounge, games, movies, and TV watch talk room movies, about talk on dorm a daily and basis dating Table 31: Kinds of Out-of-class Learning Opportunities Engaged by the Core Participants (Continued)

225

Table 31: Continued Cafeteria Study and Talk about Talk Dine alone Discuss Discuss work in the religion about about about cafeteria and course religion dating, dating, work and partying partying course , and , and work new new movies movies in town in town Chapel Read course Discuss Discuss Pray alone Small Go to notes at the Christianit Christian talk church chapel y ity together Student Read and Talk about Talk Read and Hang Hang Activity study at the classes and about write out with out with Center lounge area religion classes novels dorm friends, and alone, mates, work religion work out work out and out together exercise at together , play the gym , play pool pool Off- Restaurant Read course Study Study Dine alone Dine as Dine Ca s and notes together together at local a group, together mp Cafes restaurants e.g., us first floor resident dining night Parks Study Talk about Talk Visit a Go to Go to classes and about park alone playgro playgro religion classes und und and together together religion House Read and Talk about Talk Visit Visit Visit Visits study classes and about someone’s the the religion classes house dorm friend’s and alone mate’s families religion families

(Continued) 226

Table 31: Continued TOEFL Take Take Take - - - Test TOEFL ibt TOEFL ibt TOEFL Center together ibt and together discuss the and test discuss materials the test and materials strategies and strategies Church Read and Talk about Talk Visit a Go to Go to study classes and about local church church religion classes church together together and alone religion Entertainm - Talk about Talk - Go to Go to ent course about ice rink ice rink Facilities work course and and work movie movie theater theater together together Groceries - Talk about Talk Shop for Shop Shop course about food and together together work course household with with work items carpooli carpooli ng ng

According to the above table, the ESL learners engaged in out-of-class literacy events both on-campus and off-campus. The kinds of on-campus events included: staying after class and studying in the academic buildings, reading and studying in the dorm rooms and lounge area of the dormitories, dining and talking about course work with friends at the cafeteria, discussing religious issues at the chapel, and hanging out with friends at the student activity center. These events can be further categorized into school- like and non-school-like. The major distinction is the purpose of the activity. For school- like activities, the ESL learners and their native speaking peers discussed course work, reviewed study notes, and engaged in conversations about school work in general. Some 227

of these events occurred because of pre-arranged tutorial sessions, but most of these events took place without prior planning, e.g., randomly talking about choosing a major.

For non-school-like activities, the ESL learners and their native speaking peers talked about topics like dating, dance parties, and pop culture.

Besides on-campus events, they also engaged in activities in off-campus

locations. The kinds of off-campus events were: dining at local restaurants and cafes, hanging out at parks, visiting other people’s homes, paying visits to the TOEFL test center, attending services at churches, going skating, watching movies, and shopping at grocery stores. Though these off-campus locations foreground non-school-like activities such as hanging out at municipal parks, playing games, watching movies, skating, shopping, working out, and partying, there were still school-like activities, such as taking the TOEFL test and talking about course work, occurring in these various locations.

The above portrayal of the kinds of out-of-class literacy events offers a broad overview of what was happening naturalistically at the research site; however, in order to fully address the first research question, I believe it is also necessary to provide a further discussion of such kinds of events which led to learning as related to each core participant individually.

For Joe, his learning mostly occurred when talking to his dorm mates and friends.

Most of these conversations occurred in his dorm room, the corridor area of the dormitory, and the cafeteria. Joe lived in a male dormitory, W Hall, which had strong fraternity ties at multiple levels. Residents at W Hall were not supposed to close their doors even while they were sleeping. Residents on the same floor formed an alliance and competed against other floors in cardboard fights and dance parties. Residents of W Hall

228

were advised by seniors to sit at a particular corner at the cafeteria. Joe did a good job of

conforming to these rules, and such conformity helped him integrate into the dormitory

life as a legitimate participant. Also, his outgoing character and talent in graphic design

and dancing helped him gain access to many of his fellow dorm mates. Also, because of his graphic design and dancing skills, many female students at the college were interested in him. As a result, there were many chances for Joe to engage in conversations with his native speaking peers. These conversations assisted Joe in learning more about the language and culture in out-of-class settings.

Similar to Joe, Mary was an outgoing and popular female learner. She worked as

a teaching assistant for a Spanish professor and therefore gained access to many native

English speaking peers who needed help with their Spanish language. However, unlike

Joe, who had a group of close friends, Mary was more particular in having close friends.

One friend, Ada, took her to a Spanish speaking church and helped her to learn English

words and cultural rules while serving as a cultural broker for her. Mary learned the most

when hanging out with her friends in the dormitory too. By talking to her friends in

English, Mary gained access to vocabulary items which she would never have learned in

class. She also learned about the dating practices in America by talking to her friends.

Edith and Yuki were not as outgoing as Joe and Mary. They were both native

Japanese speakers and were friends with another Japanese female student at the college.

The three of them spent a lot of time together and watched Japanese TV dramas in their

dorm rooms. As such, they were not exposed to conversational English as much as Joe

and Mary were. However, Edith took part in a choir and therefore did have opportunities

to talk to her choir mates in English when they practiced singing together, while Yuki had

229

a student job in the library and thus had opportunities to talk to the library patrons in

English. Her work there also allowed her to learn many library-related vocabulary items.

On the whole, though, their learning opportunities were not as “friend-bound” as was the case for Joe and Mary.

Lily was a less outgoing ESL learner who did not conform to the dorm rules. She kept her door shut and did not engage in any dorm-level social events. As such, she did not grasp the opportunities that Joe and Mary had at the dorm level. She also did not improve in her conversational skills as much after studying at the college for one year.

Lily was a talented writer, though; she read and wrote novels in her own room and was the participant who had the highest TOEFL score and school grades. However, due to her minimal participation in social events, she did not encounter or create as many opportunities to improve her English proficiency and cultural knowledge when compared to Joe, Mary, Edith, and Yuki.

To conclude, the ESL learners engaged in a variety of out-of-class literacy events which led to informal language learning. Some of them were planned, e.g., a tutorial session arranged by the international office. However, as already seen, most also engaged in unplanned events which led to learning. These events not only provided opportunities for the ESL learners to learn new vocabulary items as well as slang and idioms as well as pronunciation of these items; they also provide opportunities for the ESL learners to learn the unwritten or hidden cultural rules which govern interaction, e.g., when Lily talked about the social assumptions attached to being an F Hall female resident, and when someone told Lily about the seating arrangements in the cafeteria. There was no written rule about which area of the cafeteria was allocated to which dormitory; however, there

230

existed a cultural practice that F Hall residents would sit in a particular corner of the cafeteria, and the same was true for other dormitories. As a result, the ESL learners had to grasp these opportunities to learn to become socially competent participants in the various local settings they engaged.

In response to the first research question, then, what this study shows is that the

ESL learners were exposed to many valuable out-of-class opportunities for learning.

These involved not merely learning the linguistic rules of English; they were also participating in an acculturation process which involved socializing with their native

English speaking peers across various non-academic settings. In those settings they

acquired everyday (i.e., non-academic) English and increased their knowledge of

important cultural rules related to interpersonal exchanges. These cultural rules were

neither taught in class nor written in the student handbook. Nevertheless, they constituted

important hidden rules or codes which the ESL learners needed to be familiar with in

order to interact successfully with other students. For example, the ESL learners had to

figure out which table in the cafeteria they belonged. Sitting at the wrong table would not

lead to any formal negative assessment, as in the classroom; however, it could lead to

important social consequences, e.g., negative opinions of them, and such social

consequences carried no less weight than instructional assessments would. Similarly,

following (or not following) the stated rules of the dorms could also lead to social

consequences, e.g., not shutting the doors to dorm rooms, writing handwritten notes to

their dorm mates, and putting a hanger on the door when a visitor was in the room, etc.

Observing these rules was critical for the ESL learners to be familiarized with the local

cultural practices. As such, what the ESL learners were really taking up was the learning

231

and adoption of these cultural rules in the local setting, which echoes Schumann’s (1984)

acculturation model.

More interestingly, these cultural rules were not taught in class but were

important to the ESL learners at the research site. This raises an interesting question as to

the connection between in-class and out-of-class learning. My findings suggest that there is out-of-class learning which cannot be replaced by formal instruction in-class, and vice-

versa. With respect to acculturation, college level ESL learners learn more about how to

become competent participants by engaging in social activities, and thus the effect of out-

of-class learning should not be overlooked when considering the broader construct of

English language learning, that is, “communicative competence,” which accounts for

other forms of competence beyond the linguistic domain (e.g., strategic, discourse, and

pragmatic, as articulated in Canale & Swain, 1980).

To expand further on the kinds of learning opportunities related to the first

research question, let me reference the nature of these learning opportunities, as presented

in Chapter Four. By labeling the moments of learning with [Learning Opportunity A, B,

C, D…], I compiled a list of 27 documented learning opportunities and described the

nature of each opportunity in Table 19 (seen in Chapter Four). Then I analyzed the

similarities and differences of their nature, leading to the creation of three main

categories of learning opportunities: (i) Language Learning Moments, (ii)

Recontextualization of Cultural Knowledge, and (iii) Negotiation of Social Identity.

The moments of language learning include the learning of vocabulary items

(spelling, meaning, and usage of words), usage involving the four main language skills

(listening, speaking, reading, writing), mechanics of speech (rhythm, fluency, intonation

232

patterns), idiomatic expressions, and non-verbal communication. The reason for labeling this category as “moments of language learning” is because the boundaries which demarcate its starting and finishing points of learning are blurred. Therefore, these are considered moments and not “events” per se. As such, this category was named

“moments of language learning.”

The category “recontextualization of cultural knowledge” includes knowing about the cultural rules, expression of one’s cultural background, and cross-cultural exchanges and conversations. I use the term “recontextualization” because I do not wish to mix my findings with the established school of thought related to assimilation, acculturation, and accommodation. I believe these three terms, as normally used, have a target point of reference, which is to be closer to the mainstream culture. My use of van Leeuwen’s notion of “recontextualization” is not meant to target the mainstream culture. Rather, it foregrounds the need for new cultural values to be recontextualized by the learner through repeatedly engaging in re-appropriation of new cultural information. Therefore, I call the second category “recontextualization of cultural knowledge.”

The category “negotiation of social identity” includes moments when the interlocutors negotiated for a learner identity, dorm identity, identity as a foreigner, etc.

This category may and may not be viewed as learning by many second language researchers. However, I believe that the negotiation of social identity is also part of the process of learning to become a legitimate participant (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in the local society, and there I operationalize it as part of the learning process. These three main categories of learning opportunities are discussed in Table 19 of the previous chapter.

233

To conclude, the three categories represent the nature of the kinds of learning

opportunities identified earlier in this section. From what I found, these learning

opportunities were all predicated upon how people acted and reacted to each other. The

study suggests that the construction of these opportunities is a discursive, dialogic, and

dialectic process. They also function as a heuristics for discussing the social construction

of these opportunities and the conditions for these opportunities to occur. In the next

section, I draw findings from the in-depth analysis of the previous chapter in response to the second research question raised in Chapter One.

Discussion on RQ2: How were such learning opportunities initiated, negotiated, and

taken up?

The purpose of this research question was to build on the findings related to the

first research question by examining what actually occurred within the learning

opportunities available to the participants in the study. There are many possibilities for

representing the ESL learners’ interaction patterns in this study. Among them, I derived

an interpretive tool from Mehan’s notion of IRE, Sinclair & Coulthard’s notion of IRF,

and Bloome’s social construction of Intertextuality to analyze the process of social

interaction among the participants. My interpretation is as follows.

After analyzing nine excerpts from interactions which took place during the study,

I found that for any learning opportunity to be constructed in out-of-class situation at the

research site, a three-step process was involved, i.e., initiation, negotiation, and uptake

(or acknowledgement of uptake). Also, a precursor had to exist before any learning

opportunity could be initiated, and the precursor was established trust between the

234

interlocutors. In order to efficiently represent the three step process, I illustrate the initiation-negotiation-uptake processes involved in the nine excerpts in the following table.

Moment No. MU Message Unit INU/A No.

1 1 Joe (ESL): I don’t know how to spell Holy I Cripe. 2 Cripe. N 3 Jeanie: CRAP? 4 Joe: Holy crap. U 5 Yeah. A

Moment No. No. Message Unit INU/A

2 1 Joe (ESL): What’s organic? I 2 Jeanie: It’s something natural. N 3 It doesn’t have chemicals in it. 4 Nicole: Youji. 5 Joe: Youji. U Moment No. No. Message Unit INU/A

3 1 Joe (ESL): What’s wisdom? I 2 Jeanie: knowledge. N 3 Carmen: It’s like 4 when you learn all the big things about life and stuff. 5 Like all the things- 6 like when you study Confucius or like. 7 They are WISE. 8 All the WISDOM that passed down. 9 Joe: Yeah A 10 it’s wisdom went bananas. U

Table 32: INU/A Pattern (Continued)

235

Table 32: Continued Moment No. No. Message Unit INU/A

4 11 Carmen: What is that? I 12 Lily (ESL): Daxiaguba! N 13 I don’t know how to say that. 14 Carmen: (showed Lily the spelling) 15 Lily: Actually I know that one. A 16 Just in Chinese. Moment No. No. Message Unit INU/A

5 1 Carmen: Scottish people wear this I 2 and it looks like a dress. 3 Lily (ESL): It looks like a dress? N 4 Carmen: It looks like a dress 5 But it’s not. 6 Lily: I don’t know. 7 Carmen: Kilt. 8 They call it kilt. 9 Lily: Oh. A Moment No. No. Message Unit INU/A

6 1 Carmen: Think of all the words you know for I puking. 2 Lily (ESL): Ha? N 3 Puking? 4 Carmen: Yeah. 5 Lily: What is puking? 6 Carmen: (demonstrated puking with nonverbal cues) 7 Lily: Haha. U 8 I got it. Moment No. No. Message Unit INU/A

7 1 Joe (ESL): What’s the difference between I Chinese guy and American guy when they see the- 2 Ok. N 3 The first thing I’m gonna say. 4 In Chinese 5 I mean in China 6 when people saw the stuff, 7 they will think what kind of detail, 8 what kinda you do (Continued)

236

Table 32: Continued 9 and they will appreciate that. 10 But American guys? 11 When they see this 12 they already saw Mona Lisa 13 so they don’t want to… 14 I mean- 15 see it again. 16 Carmen: True. 17 Joe: They will move to another one. 18 Carmen: It’s… 19 I don’t know- 20 I think it’s the value of our economy. 21 Like we value individualism 22 and so like 23 we like the idea we can create new things 24 and control things 25 rather than relying on the past. 26 This is relying on the past 27 Joe: Yeah. A Moment No. No. Message Unit INU/A

8 1 Lily (ESL): How to say a woman is so gentle I 2 and she’s responsible to take care of the family 3 and her husband 4 and her kids? 5 Mandy: All that in one word? N 6 We can say she’s really caring. 7 Lily: Ok. A Moment No. No. Message Unit INU/A

9 1 Carmen: Hey, Lily. I 2 You wanna learn how to greet somebody 3 if you’re like a Spanish person? 4 Well, 5 in a lot of countries, 6 they don’t do this in small countries, 7 but in a lot of countries, 8 they do this 9 Lily (ESL): In Britain? N 10 Carmen: Yeah. 11 Well 12 I don’t know whether they do this in Britain, 13 I don’t know. 14 Lily kissed Carmen on both cheeks and then U laughed. (Continued) 237

Table 32: Continued Moment No. No. Message Unit INU/A

10 1 Carmen: Americans shout all the time I 2 like hey YOU 3 Lily (ESL): Hey STOP. N 4 Stop there 5 Carmen: That’s very very rude in Ecuador. 6 Lily: I understand. U 7 We Chinese don’t usually do that,

8 actually. Moment No. No. Message Unit INU/A

11 1 Ben: Have you heard anything about it? I 2 Joe (ESL): No N 3 Ben: We’re like 4 Um… 5 In this lounge 6 And for you guys in the laundry room 7 We change it 8 Like to look like something 9 Like the theme last year was rave 10 So it looked like a rave party 11 There was like 12 glowing stuff that we wear 13 And disco balls 14 and crazy music 15 And then on 2nd floor… 16 Joe: So different floors have different style? 17 Ben: Yeah yeah 18 different style of music 19 We three floors have different style of music 20 Joe: Yeah A Moment No. No. Message Unit INU/A

12 1 Joe (ESL): You know I 2 in break dance 3 they always put the um 4 the hat. 5 Arthur: The HOOD? N 6 Joe: The hood U

238

The twelve moments depicted in Table 32 show an emerging pattern of how the

ESL learners socially constructed learning opportunities with their native English

speaking peers. The emerged pattern is called “initiation-negotiation-

uptake/acknowledgement (INU/A)” in this study.

The label, INU/A, is theoretically framed by Mehan’s (1979) Initiation-Response-

Evaluation (c.f., Sinclair & Coulthard’s Initiation-Response-Follow-up, 1975) and

Initiation-Negotiation-Acknowledgement shown in Bloome et al. (2005).

Mehan’s (1979) IRE and Sinclair & Coulthard’s (1975) IRF were built upon

classroom observation studies. Their intention was to identify a possible classroom

interactional pattern between the teacher and students. With reference to IRE/F, a typical

class begins with an initiation, usually by a teacher. Then, there is an expectation from

the teacher that a response from the students will follow. After that, the teacher will give

an evaluation of student responses and/or follow up with another question on related

topics. I found the IRE/F pattern useful because it seems to accurately denote the

structure that most classroom discourse tends to be based upon.

However, in the out-of-class situations studied in this dissertation, IRE/F was not

relevant due to many differences between the nature of in-class and out-of-class events.

In-class learning is usually planned, controlled, and structured. For classroom teaching, the teacher assumes a teaching position and takes control in planning and carrying out the activities. Also, the teacher has to follow a curricular plan, and therefore the teaching and learning processes need to be structured. On the contrary, out-of-class learning in this study was unplanned, unpredictable, and unstructured. The interlocutors did not have a teacher-student relationship, though sometimes the native English speakers assumed the

239

role of a linguistic (Moments 1-4, 6) or cultural (Moments 5, 7-11) broker. Basically, the interactional roles of the ESL learners and native speaking peers were negotiable and fluid. For instance, an ESL learner, unlike a typical student in an ESL class, had a chance to initiate a learning opportunity by raising a question or starting a discussion topic

(Moments 1-3, 7 & 8). Therefore, though IRE/F inspired me to work on identifying the structure of out-of-class learning, it was not useful in denoting the interactional sequences occurring in out-of-class situations.

Bloome et al. (2005) discussed the concept of intertextuality, i.e., the juxtaposition of texts. They claimed that for any intertextual link to be constructed in a social event, it has to be proposed, acknowledged, recognized, and also have social consequences. Drawing on that concept, in this study it was considered that for any learning opportunity to be socially constructed, there was a three step process comprising initiation-negotiation-uptake/acknowledgement.

For the purposes of this study and this research question, I defined initiation as a

proposal of a discussion topic either by an ESL learner or his native English speaking

peer, negotiation as a back and forth meaning-making process between them, and uptake as an indication of new information acquired by the ESL learner.

Among the twelve moments listed in Table 32, there are four cases of INU (2, 6,

9, 12), six cases of INA (4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11), and two cases of INU+A (1 & 3). I explain

the difference between Uptake (U) and Acknowledgement (A) in the following paragraph.

In this study, I defined uptake as an explicit demonstration of new information

that the ESL learner is exposed to. In Moments 2 and 12, the ESL learner repeated the

240

target word the same way that his interlocutor said it to him; in Moment 6, the ESL

learner used the sentence, “I got it,” to indicate uptake; in Moment 9, the ESL learner

repeated the action demonstrated by her friend; in Moment 10, the ESL learner said, “I

understand,” to indicate uptake. All of these examples indicate a momentary uptake of

new information. A momentary uptake does not imply that the learner will be able to use

the new knowledge later on, e.g., three months later. Determining whether that occurs

will only be made possible by a longitudinal study. However, I argue that the momentary

uptake is important because it suggests t he possibility of long-term retention of the new

information. It also provides evidence of the value of doing similar work with a

longitudinal design in the future.

A variation of Uptake is “Acknowledgement.” I define acknowledgement as using

gap fillers and interjections to indicate the possibility of uptake, i.e., the demonstration of

uptake is not as explicit and concrete, as in the cases of “Uptake” discussed in the

previous paragraph. In Moments 7 & 11, the ESL learner used “yeah” (said in a low

voice) to indicate the possibility of uptake. I interpret these moments as half-hearted acceptance of new information that the ESL learner was exposed to. In Moment 4, the

ESL learner said, “actually I know that in Chinese,” to indicate uptake of the meaning of the target word. So her response indicates the possibility of an uptake of the English equivalent of the Chinese proper name, Daxiagu. In Moments 5 & 8, the ESL learner used “Oh” and “Ok” to indicate the possibility of uptake. Because these cases are not explicit indications of uptake, I believe the term “Acknowledgement” is more appropriate than Uptake.

241

Besides INUs and INAs, I also found an interesting combination of both an indication of Uptake and Acknowledge, and I call these cases INU+A. In Moment 1, the

ESL learner repeated the correct pronunciation of the target word and said “yeah” to acknowledge the help of his friend. In Moment 3, the ESL learner used “yeah” and “it’s wisdom went bananas” to tell his friend that he understood the meaning of the target word, wisdom, and he was able to use the word in a sentence. Therefore these two cases are INU+As.

The number of instances in my findings is not sufficient to make a definitive distinction between uptake and acknowledgement. The above discussion of how I demarcate these two terms is for heuristics purpose only. A further large scale study is required for a better demarcation of uptake and acknowledgment. Therefore, I use

“Uptake” or “Acknowledgment” in this study when referring to the last stage of social interaction.

The INU/As constitute theoretical and pragmatic contributions to the fields of college level ESL research and literacy studies. As mentioned in Chapter One, there exists a research gap in college level ESL research regarding how ESL learners socially construct knowledge in out-of-class settings.

My findings about the INU/A structure contributes to the theoretical base of ESL and literacy studies because it is an evidenced-based construct of out-of-class learning which emerged from the data corpus. It enhances and expands our current understanding of how ESL learners may socially construct learning experiences with their friends at the college level. It suggests that ESL learners and their native English speaking peers construct learning opportunities in a three-step process. Also, it has the potential to

242

become a systematic analytical tool for analyzing any forms of out-of-class learning which are non-academic and unplanned. However, the INU/A structure is merely a representation of what happened in my study at this particular research site, and therefore it may not mean that the same structure occurs in all other ESL learning settings. Also, the INU/A structure only represents one interpretative tool among many possibilities, and there can be other variations and possibilities for analyzing the same type of data.

What the INU/A structure did do in the context of this study was to provide a means of investigating what the second research question focused on: how the ESL learners in this study created and responded to out-of-class learning opportunities. It showed that the interaction which took place within these opportunities followed certain patterns featuring a variety of features within them.

Discussion on RQ3: What were the conditions which enabled learning opportunities

to occur?

The purpose of this question was to expand the notion of “learning opportunities” at the heart of this study by exploring the nature of those opportunities. After discussing the kinds, nature, and sequence of learning opportunities in the previous sections, this section focuses on the conditions necessary for learning opportunities to occur.

One of the most important questions raised in the field of second language learning has to do with context (Pennycook, 1989; Prabhu, 1990). Learning does not occur in a vacuum. The learner’s linguistic and cultural backgrounds, English proficiency, style of learning, and motivation have significant roles to play in their learning processes. Also, the resources provided by the learning community have

243

significant roles to play as well. In addition, the dynamic and complex interplay between the learner and the immediate learning environment affects the learning outcome. In order to effectively discuss my synthesis of the findings relative to the third research question, I first discuss what the learners brought to their learning experiences. I then discuss the social contexts and the immediate learning environment pertinent to learning.

Table 33 below provides background information helpful to this process.

Joe Lily Mary Edith Yuki Linguistic Lived in Lived in Lived in Lived in Lived in and Cultural Southwest Beijing, Honduras and Tokyo, Japan. Background China. Spoke China.Spoke California. Japan. Spoke Spoke Mandarin Mandarin Spoke Japanese. Japanese. Chinese.Stud Chinese.Studie Spanish. Studied at an Studied at a ied at a high d at a urban Studied at a international girls’ school in a high school in high school in school in college in small town Beijing California Tokyo and Japan. India English TOEFL ibt: TOEFL ibt: TOEFL ibt: TOEFL ibt: TOEFL ibt: Proficiency 20-30 50-60 50-60 70-80 70-80

Learning By By reading By talking By socially By talking Style communicati and writing with close girl connecting with close ng and novels friends with friends girl friends interacting through with others facebook and other networking sites Tendency to Outgoing and Less outgoing Outgoing and Less Less go out and popular and shy popular outgoing and outgoing socialize worldly and shy with friends Motivation Motivated to Motivated to Motivated to Motivated to Motivated improve oral study reading improve oral learn about to learn skills and writing skills accent idiomatic reduction expressions Conformity Agreeable to Resistant Agreeable to Agreeable to Agreeable to Social dorm rules against dorm dorm rules dorm rules to dorm Rules rules rules

Table 33: Learners’ Learning Profiles (Continued)

244

Table 33: Continued Willingness Willing to Seldom ask Willing to ask Seldom ask Willing to to Take ask questions questions out questions and questions out ask Risk and take risk of her comfort take risk of he comfort questions zone zone and take risk Engagement Took part in Took part in Took part in Took part in Took part in in Social ethnic fair, singing contest ethnic fair and choir, ethnic fair Activities dance party, and ethnic fair dance party orchestra, cardboard and ethnic fight, and T- fair shirt design Engagement Actively Not actively Actively Not actively Actively in Social pursued pursued pursued pursued pursued Relationshi friendship at friendship at friendship at friendship at friendship p the dorm the dorm level the dorm level the dorm at the dorm level level level

The above table describes some background information about the ESL learners.

Descriptors such as “outgoing” “motivated,” “willingness to take risk,” and “ actively pursuing friendship” are based on the findings in Chapter Four and my observation of the learners’ behavior over one year. These descriptors are indicators of the qualities that the learners brought into their learning experiences.

Each of the listed factors on the left hand column in Table 33 represents an important indicator which led to learning. As discussed in Chapter Four, the ESL learners often engaged in exchanges with their native English speaking peers based on their mother tongues and home cultures. For instance, Joe and Lily taught their friends some idiomatic expressions in Chinese. They also showed their friends how to drink hot water in China. Joe had a long conversation with his friends about art appreciation and the cultural values regarding artwork. Similarly, Mary had many chances to tell her friends about the Spanish language and her home culture. These exchanges of home language

245

and culture enabled the ESL learners to engage in social interactions with their friends.

Borrowing Moll’s (2001) notion of “funds of knowledge,” the ESL learners often used their home language and culture as their funds of knowledge, and in return they received opportunities to talk in English about their mother tongue and cultural practices.

Though each ESL learner in the study brought his or her invaluable funds of knowledge into the social exchanges, his or her learning style, personality, and motivation to learn did have a significant impact on how they made use of their funds of knowledge in the social environment. Among the five ESL learners, Joe and Mary had what appeared to be an effective language learning combination of these factors. They were both outgoing, popular, motivated to improve their oral skills, and their learning style skewed towards social interactions. The findings show that they were indeed the ones who created many learning opportunities among their friends in various social settings. Perhaps not surprisingly, after one year, their oral skills and knowledge about nonverbal cues improved the most when compared to the rest of the study’s participants.

The findings presented in Chapter Four suggest that the ESL learners’ conformity to social rules and willingness to take risk also had a significant impact on their learning.

Among the five participants, Lily, who was reserved in nature (at least in English) was the one who refused to follow the dorm rules. She kept her door shut, refused to take part in any dorm activities, rejected her dorm mates’ invitations to hang out, and remained alone in her room. Lily’s decision to keep to herself prevented her from having conversations and social interactions with others. On the contrary, Joe kept his dorm room door open, accepted his friends’ invitation to hang out, and followed all of the dorm rules. Joe was also more willing to take risks when compared to Lily. He actively sought

246

chances to ask questions among his dorm mates and friends, even though some of the

questions were related to cultural values and could be contradictory to what he believed

in. As such, his learning experience involved more of the social aspect of language

acquisition and he consequently received more help from his friends.

Last but not least, the ESL learners’ decision to engage in social activities and to

build social relationships had significant influence on their learning. Among the five ESL

learners, Joe and Mary took part in the largest number of social activities at the dorm

level and the college level. Not only did they engage in many social activities; they

established a circle of friends at the college. By doing so, they created numerous

opportunities to engage in oral conversations, in texting, and in facebooking. In return,

they gained many chances to practice oral English and improved their oral skills

accordingly.

My findings demonstrate that the ESL learners at the research site were constantly

making decisions about their social lives. These decisions were critical because they

affected the future chances for them to have social interactions with others. When ESL learners such as Joe and Lily took agency to construct their own learning experiences, they gained more access to the local resources and eventually received more learning opportunities about language and culture, while a learner like Lily, with her reluctance to interact, experienced limited opportunities for both language and cultural acquisition.

Though making such executive decisions about learning was crucial, the ESL

learners’ decisions were still confined by the resources provided by the immediate learning environment. In the following paragraph, I discuss the social environment and

247

the resources it provided to the ESL learners to further address the third research

question.

The social contexts which provided learning opportunities for ESL learners can be

divided into two categories: school-based and non-school-based. For the school-based contexts, the dormitories, student activity hall, cafeteria, and chapel provided numerous resources to the ESL learners. In particular, many learning events occurred in the dormitories. For instance, in the restrooms of F Hall, there were pigeon envelopes for the female residents to send hand written notes to each other, as seen in Photograph 1 below.

Photograph 1: Pigeon Envelopes at a Restroom of F Hall22

22 In order to keep the confidentiality of the participants, the names of the residents were blurred with a photograph editing software. 248

The messages inside the envelopes were meant to encourage the female residents to express how much they loved, cared about, and appreciated each other. These envelopes provided a means for the residents, including the ESL learners, to communicate with each other in writing at the dormitory. The heart icons on the wall index the core value of F Hall, which was love, which was consistent with the Christian values reflected and refracted through the Biblical verses displayed along the corridor, as seen in Photographs 2 and 3.

Photograph 2: Bible Verse (Psalm 133:1) at a Corridor of F Hall

249

Photograph 3: Bible Verse (Galatians 5:22-23) at a Corridor of F Hall

The Biblical verses shown in Photographs 2 & 3 index the deeply rooted ideologies endorsed by the dormitory. These ideologies were “to live in unity”, which was to foster solidarity and sorority, “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control”, which were to encompass positive attitudes and beliefs. These icons provided reading references for the ESL learners and other residents at the dormitory. They were also intertextual references to the Bible.

Lily, Mary, and Yuki lived at F Hall at the time of data collection. Among them,

Mary was the only Christian female ESL learner. Mary mentioned that the Christian values endorsed by F Hall provided many inspirations for her to keep her Biblical faith.

They also reinforced her Christian beliefs and confidence to finish her studies at the

250

college. Though Lily and Yuki were not Christians, they told me that they enjoyed the

loving environment created at F Hall. They felt welcomed by their fellow dorm mates

because of such a social environment.

Likewise, all other dormitories provided similar Biblical references in the

corridors, which provided opportunities for the ESL learners to know about the Christian

values endorsed by the local community.

A typical dormitory room in W Hall provided bunk beds, a desk and chair, and

limited living space for its two residents. However small the physical space, the imagined

space for them to socially interact and construct opportunities to discuss language and

culture was unlimited. Joe mentioned that he and his dorm mate had bedtime moments

when they switched off the light and got ready to retire. Those were the moments when

they exchanged stories that happened before and at the moment. Also, with the “open

door” policy, Joe and many of his dorm mates had conversations across the dorm rooms.

Though F Hall provided similar facilities for its residents, Lily did not utilize the

room as Joe did. She refused to keep the door open, chose to live without a room mate,

and therefore did not engage in bedtime stories or cross-room conversations like Joe did.

By comparing Joe and Lily’s experiences, it is evident that though the resources provided

by the immediate learning environment were similar, the learning outcome depended

upon the ESL learners’ decision as to whether to take up those opportunities.

The student activity center was another social environment which provided many opportunities for the participants to interact. Besides the lounge area where the participants worked on their assignments and studied together, there was a gym attached to the student activity center. The ESL learners often played pool and basketball, and

251

worked out with their dorm mates and friends at the gym. They learned new vocabulary

items such as “stripes” and “solids” while playing pool with their native English speaking

peers. Also, they established friendship by having fun at the student activity center. The

language learning moment when Lily learned new vocabulary items by playing “Apples

to Apples” with her friend happened at the student activity center as well. By providing a

seating area for students to gather and work out facilities, the student activity center was

one of the important social environments where learning occurred.

The cafeteria of the college provided buffet lunches and dinner. It was also a

popular place for ESL learners to have a part-time job at. Both Joe and Lily worked at the cafeteria as student workers at the time of data collection. Joe’s job was to was to wash dishes, and Lily’s was to wipe the tables in the dining area. Joe mentioned that many ESL learners agreed that the room where dishes were washed was where they talked in

English intensively with native speakers. I video taped Joe’s work there and found that he started chatting with other colleagues the moment he entered the room. The room was about ten square feet in size, and the workers’ job was to collect dirty dishes and put them into the dishwasher. There were about four people working at the same time, and they could not stop chitchatting while their hands were busy picking up the dirty dishes.

Besides working there, the ESL learners usually sat with their dorm mates during lunch hour and dinner time. At these times, the dining room would be filled with students. Only the insiders knew that each dormitory had a socially designated area and the residents had better follow the rules and sit together in that area. Such a cultural practice promoted solidarity and facilitated friendship building among the dorm residents.

At the same time, it limited the cross-dorm conversation and socialization that could take

252

place. The dining area provided the ESL learners an opportunity to talk with their fellow dorm mates at least two times a day, and it was a significant area for learning to occur.

Yuki mentioned that she was not used to taking part in the fast-paced conversation at the dining table, but she learned many idiomatic expressions and references to pop culture while eating with her dorm mates. Lily was the only core participant who often ate on her own. She rejected the social rule about sitting with her dorm mates and was often eating alone in the dining area. After a couple of months of dining alone, she decided to have takeaway meals and eat in her own room. Again, though the cafeteria provided the physical space and food for the participants to share meals and talk with their friends, this one ESL learner made the decision not to take up those opportunities. While Lily was just one among the five participants, her story is a reminder of the importance of treating ESL learners as individuals, as was the case in this study, and not as one monolithic group. That is especially true when researching out-of- class learning opportunities and experiences, where the locus of control rests with the student, not the teacher (as in a classroom setting). This study shows that ESL students’ voluntary efforts at achieving communicative competence are guided by individual factors—personal goals, motivation, social engagement, etc.—as well as the settings in which those efforts occur.

The chapel at the college offered three worship-related services to the students at the college on a weekly basis. There were three major kinds of worship activities: invited talks about Christianity and college life, students’ testimonies about how they became

Christians, and drama or singing performances. As such, the chapel provided multimodal

253

opportunities for the students to know more about Christianity, and, in the case of the

ESL learners, additional opportunities for communicative activity and language learning.

As for settings beyond the campus, there were not many entertainment facilities

for students in the small town where the school was located. The ESL learners learning

opportunities away from the campus occurred in restaurants, home visits, parks, stores,

and an ice rink. The closest McDonald’s franchise and Walmart store were a half-hour drive away, and none of the ESL learners had a car. As a result, they spent most of the off-campus time in the college town.

Similar to the cafeteria located on campus, the restaurants located in the college town, which included two Chinese restaurants and two pizzerias, provided space and dining facilities for the participants to hang out with their friends. One of the Chinese restaurants was especially popular. Some of the ESL learners talked with the owner in

Chinese and established a sense of belonging to the college town mainly because of the restaurant located downtown. Similar to the chances provided by the restaurants, the municipal parks and the ice rink provided the necessary space for the students to hang out, engage in conversations, and build friendships.

There were two grocery stores and a handicraft store located downtown; these, too, were popular among the ESL learners. When shopping with their native English speaking peers, the ESL learners asked for the names of the grocery items and learned new vocabulary items while shopping. As discussed in Chapter Four, the handicraft store located downtown provided cultural artifacts from all over the world. There, too, the ESL learners learned new vocabulary items and cultural knowledge while shopping with their friends. For instance, when Mary was at the shop, she connected with the artifacts from

254

Honduras, which provided an opportunity for her to talk about her home culture with her

friends.

To conclude, the social environment just described provided valuable spaces for

the participants to socialize during out-of-class time. Such learning was contextualized and localized, i.e., the ESL learners were exposed to knowledge that was situated in the local context provided by each place they frequented.

Another condition for learning to occur had to do with the exchange of “cultural capital” (Bourdieu, 1977) between the core participants and their native English speaking peers. That is, they drew on the cultural backgrounds and knowledge they possessed in their interactions. This exchange of cultural capital is one of the conditions that can promote learning, in that each participant in an exchange stands to benefit from the interaction.

With respect to cultural capital and this study, the ESL learners attracted native

English speakers who wanted to learn their mother tongues. For example, Joe and Lily made friends with Carmen, who attended a summer missionary camp in Changsha,

China, about a year before the study began. Carmen studied Chinese when she was in

China and was enthusiastic about learning the Chinese language. When Carmen, Joe, and

Lily spent time together, they were co-creating learning opportunities for each other.

Carmen helped Joe and Lily learn English and Spanish, while Joe and Lily helped

Carmen learn Chinese.

The ESL learners also utilized their cultural capital with their native English speaking peers. For instance, on April 29, 2010, Joe said that

If I say one thing about China, they will tell me one thing about America. Like

255

one time we were talking about cowboy. Because I notice that a lot of people just talk about cowboy in America. But I don’t know how to join in the discussion so I said, in America you have cowboy in China we have kungfu warrior, then they will ask me ok about kungfu warrior. And how they do and what kind of person is famous in history. I just tell them and in the end they just say I don’t think kungfu warrior can win cowboy because warrior just have kungfu so he cannot win. So in this kind of dialogue we share different culture.

Unlike the Chinese language, which was not a language taught at the college, Spanish enjoyed a prestigious position within the community. The college had a strong Spanish

Department, which was consisted of four Spanish speaking professors. Thus, the power relationships between the various foreign languages spoken by the international learners were not balanced.

East Asian languages (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean), which were spoken by four core participants, were marginalized languages at the college, while Spanish was frequently taught and spoken within the college. As a result, Mary received a lot of privileges, because her native language was Spanish. There were many Spanish majors at the college who were trying to befriend Mary. Mary’s teaching assistant position in the

Spanish Department also helped her gain currency within the college. Because she helped professors grade the papers of the Spanish majors, she gained respect from many learners taking Spanish classes. Mary had college granted authority because of her teaching assistant position at the college. The four other core participants in the study never experienced this kind of heightened appreciation or status for their native languages.

To sum up with respect to the third research question, the ESL learners indeed exchanged their cultural capital with their native English speaking peers and sometimes each other and therefore gained access to many out-of-class learning opportunities. This was also true with regard to other campus-based opportunities as well as those available

256

in the town where the college was situated. In short, the core participants had access to, and made use of, a plethora of learning opportunities that contributed to the development of their communicative competence.

Significant Findings of the Study

This section is devoted to discussion of the overall argument of this dissertation, i.e., that the environment beyond the language classroom is full of learning opportunities that can, if utilized appropriately by L2 learners, promote meaningful target language acquisition and the development of communicative competence in that language. As such, there is a need for more emphasis in the ESL field on how ESL learners take up and benefit from such learning opportunities. Relative to that argument, the findings in this study can be represented by the following three major assertions.

1. Learning is predicated on a critical dialogic discourse between the learners,

other interlocutors, and the immediate learning environments.

2. Initiation-Negotiation-Uptake/Acknowledgement (INU/A) denotes the

structural sequence for learning opportunities to be socially constructed, with

established trust as the necessary precursor.

3. Out-of-class learning is unpredictable, uncontrolled, and involves a discursive

appropriation of localized cultural knowledge and identities in multiple

spaces.

The following paragraphs discuss these grounded theoretical hypotheses in accordance with my responses to the research questions earlier in this chapter and the literature review presented in Chapter Two.

257

Assertion One

Learning is predicated on a critical dialogic discourse between the learners, other interlocutors, and the immediate learning environments.

The three research questions regarding the kinds and nature of learning opportunities, and the conditions necessary for them to occur, guided me to explore the intricate relationship between the learners, their conversational partners, and the immediate learning environments. Here I draw upon Bakhtin’s (1981) notion of dialogism for the discussion of such dynamic and complex relationships. In my study, all learning moments were predicated upon dialogues, and I argue that the learners exercised agency in order to engage in a critical dialogic discourse (Lee, 2011a) with other interlocutors and the immediate learning environment.

When the learner is making decisions about what to do and how to learn, they are carrying out a “discourse” (Gee, 1999) with what is provided to them by the immediate environments and what is made available to them by their conversational partners. The discourse is inherently dialogic because the learner engages in a dialectic relationship with their personal needs, the interlocutor’s availability and willingness to provide help, as well as the resources provided by the environment. The process is “critical”

(Fairclough, 1992) because it involves learners’ constant reflection upon their linguistic and cultural background, learning style, and a critical assessment of what is made available to them, all of which has to happen in a timely manner.

For example, when Joe and Mary visited the handcrafts store with Carmen and

Jeanie, they saw many handmade artifacts from various cultures. At that point, they had already built trust with Carmen and Jeanie so as to feel safe about asking questions.

258

Based on the artifacts provided to them, and Carmen and Jeanie’s willingness to help, Joe

and Mary asked many questions in the store regarding the English names of the products

and the meaning of them. For instance, Mary saw a tummy warmer but did not know what to call the item in English. She then turned to Carmen and Jeanie for help. As such, the learners became informed decision makers who took agency to engage in a critical dialogic discourse, which was pertinent to their learning of new vocabulary items at the store.

Other findings also corroborate this claim, such as when Lily learned new vocabulary items when playing the game “Apples to Apples,” and when Yuki picked up library jargon while working with her colleagues at the library. These were the moments when the learners engaged in a critical dialogic discourse with what was made available to them. As mentioned in the earlier discussion of the conditions which allowed learning to happen, though the social environment and its provision of space and materials is important in the learning process, it is the learner’s decision to pick up such provision of space and materials which is critical to the success of the learning experience. As such, I

use the following illustration to represent my assertion.

Learner

Other Immediate Interlocutors Learning Environment

Illustration 1: Relationship between the Learner, Other Interlocutors, and the Immediate Learning Environment

259

With reference to the above illustration, learning in a social context presumes a complex relationship between the learner, other interlocutors, and the immediate learning environment. A critical learner assesses the resources provided by the environment and his or her relationship with the interlocutors when negotiating for a chance to learn new vocabulary item or cultural knowledge. The learning outcome is a collaborative effort made by the learner, the interlocutors, and the people who provided resources, which might not be intended for learning, within the learning community.

Assertion Two

Initiation-Negotiation-Uptake/Acknowledgement (INU/A) denotes the structural sequence for learning opportunities to be socially constructed, with established trust as the necessary precursor.

After illustrating my assertion about learning as collaborative effort, the next assertion that I make relates to the second research question, i.e., how are learning opportunities initiated, negotiated, and taken up. Illustration 2 below captures the ways in which I see this process occurring.

Established Trust

Initiation (I)

Negotiation (N)

Uptake (U) or Acknowledgement (A)

Illustration 2: INU/A Pattern

260

As discussed in my response to the second research question, a structural pattern of Initiation-Negotiation-Uptake/Acknowledgement (INU/A) emerged from the microethnographic discourse analysis of participant observations presented in Chapter

Four. This pattern (Illustration 2) represents how the interlocutors socially constructed learning opportunities together. For example, when Carmen asked Lily whether she knew about the greeting approach commonly used among Spanish speaking people, she initiated a learning opportunity for Lily. Then Carmen kissed Lily’s cheeks to demonstrate the greeting. Lily imitated Carmen’s kissing but asked a question to further contextualize the greeting. She asked whether British people do the same, and then

Carmen said she did not know. Lily then acknowledged her learning of the greeting by kissing Carmen and saying “Oh” to acknowledge the learning opportunity. In this example, there was an INA pattern in the interaction. Similarly, all other learning opportunities analyzed in Chapter Four share the INU/A sequence.

Depending on the nature of the learning opportunity, duration and complexity of negotiation varies. From my findings, all of the language learning moments involved less negotiation when compared to communication about culture and identity issues. The ESL learners were less resistant toward linguistic types of knowledge, such as spelling, pronunciation, grammar, and usage of an expression, which were presented to them.

However, when the discussion was related to cultural ideologies and identities, e.g., the moment when Joe and Carmen talked about cultural ideologies regarding art appreciation. Joe was eager to explain his own cultural practice to Carmen, and he defended his own cultural practice, which was labeled as “relying on the past” by

261

Carmen. Thus, when cultural exchange was involved, the ESL learners exhibited more

resistance in the learning process.

The INU/A pattern was found in all of the learning opportunities discussed in

Chapter Four. It reflects the necessary steps for learning opportunities to be socially constructed and materialized. My findings also show that for any learning to happen, especially out of class, established trust is a necessary precursor. For instance, when

Carmen took the agency to teach Lily how to greet a Spanish speaker, If Carmen did not

have a trusting relationship with Lily, she might not have taken the initiative because of

the rejection that she might face. Similarly, Ben had to know Joe well enough to

understand what kind of local knowledge would be relevant to Joe. These opportunities

occurred because Carmen and Ben had established trust with Lily and Joe.

Similarly, for the ESL learners to initiate a learning opportunity, e.g., to ask a

question, they also had to have established trust with the interlocutors. The ESL learners

had established a trusting relationship with a number of their native English speaking

peers. However, they were selective about this. For example, according to Lily and Yuki,

there were several native English speakers with whom they would avoid conversations,

e.g., Eva, who talked too fast and never had the patience to listen. Thus, the ESL learners

were judicious when finding suitable interlocutors, but when they did find them, they

were formed trusting communicative relationships with them. Therefore, the findings of

this study suggest that establishing trust is a precursor for learning to happen, at least the

kinds of learning explored in this study.

262

Assertion Three

Out-of-class learning is unpredictable, spontaneous, and involves a discursive

appropriation of localized cultural knowledge and identities in multiple spaces.

The findings of this study corroborate the recent claims made in the area of

reconceptualized SLA (Firth and Wagner, 1997): that learning is situated, discursive, and

multidimensional. Also, the findings shed light on the social interactional processes that

were involved in out-of-class learning among the ESL learners.

For the purposes of this study, “out-of-class learning” was defined as learning that occurred apart from class time. My findings, such as the casual conversations recorded in various locations between Joe and Ben, Carmen and Lily, Yuki and Carmen, Mary and

Ada, suggest that out-of-class learning is unpredictable, spontaneous, and involves a

discursive appropriation of localized cultural knowledge and identities in multiple spaces.

To elaborate, learning, as far as ESL learners are concerned, happens, or at least

can happen (depending on the circumstances at hand), twenty-four hours a day and does

not stop when the classroom bell rings. When these ESL learners left the classroom, some

significant learning experiences began. They chatted with their classmates in the corridor,

went to lunch with their dorm mates, hung out with friends in the student activity center,

and shared with their roommates what happened during the day. Such out-of-class activities were unplanned and unpredictable. There was no syllabus, and there were no instructional materials provided, as in the classroom. These ESL learners could meet new friends at a dance party, chat with a different dorm mate in the dining room, and decide to go to a new ice-cream store. The spontaneity involved in the wide range of activities available beyond class is what made learning an enjoyable and unpredictable experience

263

for the ESL learners. Indeed, it might have been the unpredictable nature of the activities

that added to their appeal and enjoyment, as could be the case for other ESL learners as

well, while the relative predictability of what often takes place inside the language

classroom may limit its appeal.

First year ESL learners are new comers to the USA, and thus their out-of-class learning experiences are likely challenging. Many of them do not have similar cultural practices in their home countries. For instance, Joe, Lily, and Yuki did not have the same religious practice in their home countries as they encountered at the research site.

Worshipping at the chapel on campus required localized cultural knowledge. Similarly, attending a dance party also required knowledge of the localized cultural practices related to such an event, such as the music to be played and the way in which the room was arranged. The assistance of a cultural broker is beneficial and rewarding to an ESL learner, as in the case of Carmen helping Joe with the understanding of words and objects in the art crafts store. However, Joe, as the learner, still had to go through the process of appropriating localized cultural knowledge (Lee, 2011b).

My findings suggest that the appropriation process is dialectic and discursive. In my study, when the ESL learners were exposed to new terms and cultural practices, they experienced the centripetal and centrifugal forces referenced in Bakhtin’s (1981) notion of dialogic imagination. At the college, ESL learners were encouraged to keep their own cultural identities. However, by triangulating my data sources, I found that there was a hidden agenda shared among the ESL learners and their native English speaking peers:

Americanization. For example, Joe said, “Sometimes they ask me to broke the culture shock. And they will say ‘Joe you are very Americanized’. Because I learned a lot of

264

body language. And I learned how to make jokes. And sometimes I care about some

persons very individually. And so they said you are Americanized.” (Interview with Joe,

April 29, 2010) Therefore, I used Americanization as a central point of reference, and I define “centripetalism” as becoming more Americanized and “centrifugalism” as moving away from Americanization. When the ESL learners engaged in conversations about cultural practices or beliefs, they often experienced both centripetalism and centrifugalism at the same time, as in the case of Joe’s art exhibition, when he defended his Mona Lisa as a skillful portrait (centrifugal), but at the same time identified another piece of his work, Breakthrough, as more American (centripetal). Here he exhibited both centripetal and centrifugal forces in one social event. This example reinforces my claim that second language learning in the social settings is discursive and dialectic.

The acculturation, accommodation, and assimilation models which are popular in

SLA studies encompass similar assertions about these ESL learners’ socialization process.

However, these models envisioned the target language and culture as the ultimate goal for

ESL learners, perpetuating a hierarchical relationship between the target and home culture, with English placed in a superior position. In my study, because Americanization is at the center, rather than being envisioned as the ultimate goal and target of learning, the centrifugal and centripetal model does not assume a hierarchical relationship between the target and home culture. Also, it sheds light on the dialectic and discursive process involved in the cultural appropriation process experienced by the ESL learners.

Appropriating localized cultural knowledge is one of the plights that ESL learners have to face. Negotiating for social identities (Gee, 2000) is another challenge for them.

Gee (2000) defined identity as “being recognized as a certain kind of person in a given

265

context” (p. 99). How to become a socially competent participant in the college town and establish or maintain an important personal identity was always a challenge to these newly arrived ESL learners. For example, when Lily learned about the socially designated identities (Sfard and Prusak, 2005) for various female dormitories, she was eager to align herself with the women in F Hall, whom were recognized as the wife- material. Why would a newcomer like Lily have the urgency to align herself with such a socially legitimate identity? My findings suggest that ESL learners at the college level were shaping and reshaping their social identities through interacting with other participants within the community. They felt a sense of urgency to become somebody, but at the same time they wanted to be unique and different. Joe was facing the same plight as Lily and he sought opportunities to negotiate a legitimate dorm identity in W

Hall. By actively participating in the dance party and showing his break-dance skills, Joe negotiated for a title, “Prince of China,” in W Hall.

Besides social identities in the dorm, the ESL learners were also negotiating for identities as representatives of their home countries. The international office on campus encouraged the ESL learners to wear costumes from their home countries at the fashion show during the ethnic fair. Edith and Yuki both wore costumes from their home country.

By contrast, Lily showed resistance and she said she was wearing local American clothing at the fashion show. Lily’s resistance demonstrates a negotiation process when

ESL learners are asked or required to represent their home cultures. The results of this study suggest that, from their perspective, the ESL learners want to be recognized as unique individuals, rather than, or not solely as, a representation of an ethnic group.

These findings corroborate my assertion that the ESL learners were negotiating multiple

266

layers of social identities in out-of-class learning: those they brought with them, and those they needed to succeed or wished to adopt in the new cultural/linguistic setting.

To further capture how the ESL learners changed both linguistically and culturally after one year of study at the research site, I will now those changes through the lens of Schumann’s acculturation model, which has played an important role in the field of second language acquisition.

Schumann’s (1986) acculturation model features nine factors that can account for how a learner integrates knowledge about the target group into her or his own emerging acquisition of the target language and culture: social, affective, personality, cognitive, biological, aptitude, personal, input, and instructional, His model was derived from earlier theories developed in other fields, including psychology, and therefore some of the previously generated factors were not relevant for the analysis conducted in this study, e.g., cognitive and biological. After one year of study at the research site, I observed that the ESL learners’ personal decisions made in out-of-class settings were essential for them to gain access to learning opportunities and thus enhance their acculturation. For instance,

Joe and Mary both followed the dorm rules, which allowed them many opportunities to talk with their dorm mates. On the contrary, Lily did not follow the dorm rule about keeping the dorm room door open. As a result, she lost many opportunities to interact socially with her dorm mates.

In out-of-class settings, the input and other learning factors at hand were not similar to those found in classroom settings. Due to their unplanned nature, many learning resources located in the immediate, non-classroom learning environment were not designed for teaching and learning purposes. Thus, the ESL learners and their native

267

English speaking peers had to improvise and utilize those unplanned instances to initiate

learning opportunities. How the ESL learners exercised personal agency to initiate

learning opportunities was critical as far as out-of-class learning was concerned. ESL learners such as Joe, Mary, and Yuki, who actively sought chances to raise questions and discussed their issues and struggles as second language learners, benefited the most from the local resources provided in situ. Also, their attitudinal changes played a significant role in learning, too. For instance, at the beginning of the year, Lily had the highest

TOEFL score among the core participants and thus, seemingly, the greatest aptitude for acculturation; however, she gradually changed and became less motivated to learn for many reasons, such as not being selected for the singing contest. These affected her attitude toward seek opportunities to learn. She declined more and more dining invitations and became insulated and idiosyncratic in the dorm. As a result, her communicative competence did not improve as much as, say, Joe after the year of learning at the research site.

Among all five core participants, Joe and Mary improved the most both linguistically and culturally. Their pronunciation was much better, and they became more capable of carrying out conversations with even strangers. Also, they learned about many non-verbal cues such as hugging and the various forms of accepted body language; these were important indicators of their acculturation process. As their ESL instructor, I can say that Joe and Mary improved the most after one year of socialization at the research site. Edith and Yuki spent a lot of time watching Japanese movies and speaking Japanese among themselves; as a result, their oral skills did not improve as much. Lily chose to be

268

on her own by refusing many invitations to study or socialize at the dorm, and she

improved the least among the five.

Because it was not a purpose of the study to systematically measure how they

improved academically and socially, and it was difficult to attribute their improvement to

just the in-class or out-of-class learning, my observations about how much they improved

is only speculation. However, as an informed observer who had ample opportunities to

witness their learning-related behaviors inside and outside class, there are good reasons to

believe these observations are at least reasonably accurate. It seems safe to say that

acculturation played an important role in the development of their communicative

competence (or the lack thereof in the case of Lily). Those who sought, or at least were

open to, acculturation seemed to enjoy the greatest linguistic and cultural success during

the study. The findings suggest that five of Schumann’s acculturation factors—social,

affective, personality, personal, and input—played a role in the acculturation domain of

the study.

Empirical Contributions to the Field

There are three major empirical contributions that my study made to the fields of

TESOL and literacy education, and I now discuss each of them.

1. The study provides a rich corpus of data about dorm life and other out-of-class

activities among ESL learners.

As stated in Chapter One, there is a gap in the research concerning out-of-class learning in the SLA literature. It has been proven that formal instruction is beneficial to

ESL learners (Long, 1983; Ellis & Laporte, 1997; Nunan, 1989). However, there is a lack

269

of understanding of how ESL students learn in out-of-class settings, especially in the

context of acculturation. My study highlights the co-construction of learning experiences

between ESL learners and their native English speaking peers. With the use of grand tour,

domain analysis, and microethnographic discourse analysis, I documented and

represented the dorm life and other out-of-class activities among the core participants.

Previous studies have not provided data of this kind.

Rather than focusing on classroom learning, like many previous studies (Lezberg

& Hilferty, 1978, Zuengler & Mori, 2002), or focusing on the grammar, vocabulary, and phonology instruction (McCarthy, 1991; Higgs in B.F. Freed, 1991), my study underscores the importance of examining how out-of-class time is spent by ESL learners and how they make use of such time and space to learn and thus enhance the development of their communicative competence. The video recordings of dormitory life, such as the conversation between Joe and Ben, capture the moments when learning occurs, and together they form a rich data corpus of dorm life among ESL learners.

My other video recordings of social activities also serve as a significant contribution to the field. Many of the naturally occurring learning moments were video taped and analyzed for educational researchers and educators to extend their knowledge about college life among ESL learners. As mentioned in Chapter Two, many of the previous studies about out of school literacy events were conducted with immigrant children with low socioeconomic status. At the college level, studies about out-of-class learning were mainly conducted with first language speakers of English (Strong 2007).

Therefore, my findings fill the research gap regarding how ESL learners at the college

270

level construct learning experiences in their dormitories and other off-campus spaces they engage in their daily lives.

2. The study provides an extended understanding of how out-of-class learning

opportunities are socially constructed.

My findings lend support to the previous studies conducted about the social aspects of learning among second language users. More importantly, it stems from a social-interactional approach, and it expands our current understanding of how learning and learning opportunities are socially constructed. As mentioned in the significant findings section earlier in this chapter, the INU/A pattern that emerged from the transcript of participant observations represents the structural sequence for any learning opportunity to be socially constructed. Similar to the IRE/F sequence for classroom interactions, the

INU/A sequence performs the same function. It lays the groundwork for any out-of-class learning experiences to be analyzed and discussed. Also, it creates a framework for further discussion of the moment-by-moment analysis of learning in out-of-class settings.

The INU/A pattern extends our understanding of learning in out-of-class settings, and it reframes learning as a social, collaborative effort between ESL learners and their native English speaking peers. Also, it underscores the social collaborative nature of learning in out-of-class settings.

3. The study underscores the importance for ESL learners to seize out-of-class learning opportunities to generate a better overall learning experience in the target culture.

My findings suggest that those who exercised agency to seek learning opportunities by engaging in multiple levels of social relationships and taking part in

271

various social activities, Joe and Mary, had the greatest number of “social

accomplishments,” using the term explained in Firth & Wagner (2007). They formed

friendships with classmates, dorm mates, and school mates by conforming to the existing

social and cultural rules, taking risks to ask questions, and engaging in a critical dialogic

discourse with their interlocutors and the immediate learning environment. Thus, my

study draws attention to the the need for ESL learners to actively seize out-of-class learning opportunities through social interaction so as to maximize their learning experiences.

Out-of-class learning involves a wide range of places which provide various resources for learning, whereas in-class learning involves teaching materials which are

chosen based on the curriculum at hand. Both learning in-class and out-of-class are important to ESL learners, but traditionally more emphasis has been placed on classroom learning. However, true communicative competence cannot be achieved in the classroom alone, and the findings of this dissertation show that ESL learners who exercise agency to engage in social activities gain more chances to learn about the target language and culture. Therefore, the effect of out-of-class experiences on overall learning should not be overlooked. ESL learners are encouraged to seize opportunities in social settings to create a more fruitful overall learning experience.

272

Theoretical Contributions to the Fields

As mentioned in Chapter One and Two, there is no consistent framework

accounting for the full notion of learning opportunities in the area of SLA and literacy

education. Only fragmented descriptions of learning opportunities are recorded in the

literature (Allwright, 2005; Baquedano-Lopez, Solis, & Kattan, 2005, Carroll, 1963;

Crabbe, 2003; Wang, 1998; Yeager, Florian, & Green, 1998). As far as SLA theories are concerned, Krashen’s input hypothesis ( i+1), Schmidt’s notion of incidental learning, and Schumann’s acculturation model were developed within the sociocognitive paradigm, which foregrounded how learners internalize new information into their brains and how such information merges with the existing schema to enrich learning. Little is known about second language learning in out-of-class settings from a social interactional perspective. By adopting the lens of social interactional theories (Bakhtin, 1981;

Gumperz, 1982; Gee, 1999b), the findings of this study shed light on the social interactional perspective of second language learning, and therefore foreground the process rather than the product of learning.

Based on the study’s grand tour, domain analysis, in-depth analysis, responses to the research questions, and the major findings discussed in this Chapter, the following framework has been developed to capture the out-of-class learning experienced by the

ESL learners in this study.

273

Precursor Conditions: Personal Contextual Relational

Language

Identity Culture

Opportunity

Process Established Trust

Initiation (I)

Negotiation (N)

Uptake (U) or Acknowledgement

Hybridized Linguistic Result Knowledge

Hybridized Hybridized Understanding Understanding about Cultures about Identities

Illustration 3: Framework of Out-of-class Learning Opportunities among College Level ESL learners

274

The above illustration is a conceptualization of how learning opportunities are

socially constructed among ESL learners. The following paragraphs will be devoted to an

explanation of the framework.

As far as second language learning is concerned, learning is redefined as the

appropriation of knowledge about the literacy practices regarding language, culture, and

identity. The appropriation process requires second language learners to engage in a

dialogic discourse with their own learning history, the interlocutors’ learning histories,

the established social relationship between the learners and their interlocutors, and the

resources provided by the immediate learning environment. Learning opportunities are

redefined as moments of interaction between the interlocutors regarding topics related to

language, culture, and identity. As shown in the major findings of the study, learning

opportunities are socially constructed through a three-step process of initiation- negotiation-uptake/acknowledgement, with established trust as the necessary precursor.

In the following paragraphs, the three phases—precursor, process, and result--will be discussed in detail.

With reference to the above illustration, there are three kinds of conditions for any learning opportunity to occur, and they are: personal, contextual, and relational. The personal qualities which affect the occurrences of learning opportunities are: linguistic and cultural background, English proficiency, learning style, personality, motivation, conformity to social rules, willingness to take risks, engagement in social activities, and engagement in social relationships. When comparing these qualities to Schumann’s

(1986) acculturation model, my description of personal factors includes more variables

275

grounded in the social perspective than his. For example, conformity to social rules,

willingness to take risks, engagement in social activities, and engagement in social

relationships are not found in his acculturation model. As such, my findings contribute to

the theoretical understanding of some of the personal qualities which condition learning

opportunities to happen socially by expanding Schumann’s original model.

The contextual conditions in my framework are divided into two categories:

school-based and non-school-based. The school-based contextual conditions were mainly provided in the dormitories, student activity hall, cafeteria, and chapel. The non-school-

based ones were mainly provided in the restaurants, home visits, parks, stores, and

entertainment facilities.. The relational conditions involve the social relationships

established between the ESL learners and their native English speaking peers. From my

findings, the social relationships denote the level of trust built among them and therefore

the safe and trusting condition necessary for learning to occur. The following paragraph

focuses on how an ESL learner moves from the precursor to the result phase based on the

findings of this study.

During the “precursor” stage, an ESL learner brings his or her own prior

knowledge about language, culture, and identity in his original home culture and the

target culture into the learning process. Then, when an opportunity appears, e.g., a

conversational opportunity with a dorm mate in the hallway, the ESL learner engages in a

critical dialogic discourse with himself, the interlocutors, and the local resources

provided to him, and makes a decision as to whether to take up the opportunity. Based

on my findings, the level of trust established between the learner and his conversation

partner has a direct influence over his acceptance or rejection of the opportunity. Then,

276

once the conversation begins, either the ESL learner or the conversation partner has a chance to initiate a topic for discussion. The topic usually revolves around three major areas: language, culture, and identity. The interlocutors then enter into a negotiation process, during which they ask questions to check on each other’s comprehension of the topic and contextualize the topic. Then the learner uses expression to signify uptake or acknowledgement of the learning of social practices. As a result, the ESL learner leaves the learning process with a hybridized understanding of language, culture, and/or identity of the target culture.

I draw upon Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, and Carlos’ (1999) notion of “hybrid language practices” (p. 293) and “hybrid culture” (p. 291) to describe the result of social interactions in Illustration 3. Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, and Carlos’ notion of “hybrid language practices” and “hybrid culture” stemmed from the definition of hybridity as a translation process, “in which people negotiate what is known, for example, local cultural knowledge and linguistic registers, when people attempt to make sense of one’s identity in relation to prevailing notions of self and cultural practices.” (p. 288) I employ the term hybridized because linguistic, cultural, and identity issues in any learning setting are inherently multivoiced and multidimensional, especially when the ESL learners were negotiating for a translation of the local practices. My hypothesis is that the ESL learners went through a translation process of linguistic, cultural, and identity knowledge after engaging in a social event with their native English speaking peers. Therefore, the result of the interaction is a hybridized knowledge about language, culture, and identity.

As far as second language learning theories are concerned, the findings of the study extend our understanding of Krashen’s theory of comprehensible input and

277

learning. Krashen underscored the significance of comprehensible input, which can be a

single stimulus such as the pronunciation of a word, but, as shown in Illustration 3, the

precursor stage involves complicated factors such as the learner’s personal attributes

towards learning, resources provided by the immediate learning context, and the

relationship between the learner and other interlocutors. Learners are not mere recipients

of input stimulus; rather, they exercise agency to engage in a dialogic discourse with the

learning environment and the interlocutors.

Schmidt’s notion of incidental learning argued for increased awareness of resources provided to learners when learning was not planned and instructed. My findings corroborate Schmidt’s notion of incidental learning by raising the learner’s awareness of the resources provided by the immediate learning contexts, e.g., a book store or an art craft store, so that the learners may make better choices about how they interact with their learning contexts in out-of-class settings. Schmidt’s notion of incidental learning was related to how second language learners grasped a serendipitous opportunity for unplanned learning, e.g., learning new vocabulary items by reading newspapers. However, my findings provide an interactional perspective to Schmidt’s view of incidental learning, and so learning in an out-of-class setting involves engagement in discourse rather than merely receiving input and remembering new words.

As such, my study extends our understanding of what happens when incidental learning occurs in out-of-class settings.

Regarding Schumann’s acculturation model, the nine factors he put forth were related to how a learner can be affected by these sociocognitive and psychological factors via instructed learning. My findings broadened the “social” factor in his model and

278

provided an “interactional” dimension to his acculturation model and thereby enriched

that model.

Also, my findings corroborated the importance of the notion of communicative

competence, e.g., discourse competence (Canale & Swain, 1980) and pragmatic

competence (Bachman, 1990) mentioned in the communicative competence model. Both

the discourse and pragmatic competences highlighted the importance of the social aspect

of learning. However, the term competence suggests that the second language learners

were required to meet a certain standard for being pragmatically competent learners, e.g.,

observation of Gricean principles, the awareness of and conformity to a social rule, being

polite, and paying attention to the context, etc. I see the term “competence” as revoking a

deficit model and a hidden hierarchical structure in which second language learners were

being underprivileged; therefore, the term “repertoire of practice” (Gutierrez & Rogoff,

2003) is used in this study to describe “the (learners’) ways of engaging in activities

stemming from observing and otherwise participating in cultural practices” (p. 22). The

notion of repertoire of practice foregrounds how learners exercise agency to negotiate for

opportunities to learn across settings, rather than focusing on being competent, which

implies a pass or fail assessment that does not exist in out-of-class learning. Therefore,

my findings extended the boundaries of discourse and pragmatic competence by

providing insights into how the ESL learners exercised agency to engage in a repertoire

of practice across out-of-class settings.

Most importantly, the findings of the study contest Crabbe’s (2003) learning

opportunity framework, which was built within an input-output hypothesis, in which output was measured by the learner’s ability to demonstrate successful use of a linguistic

279

feature or grammatical rule. Rather, my framework of learning opportunities focuses on

the process rather than the product, i.e., how learners negotiate for a chance of uptake of

linguistic and cultural knowledge. As such, success is reframed as engagement in social

discourse rather than demonstration of linguistic and grammatical knowledge.

The illustration shown earlier provides an extended understanding of learning and

the social construction of learning opportunities for second language learners at the

college level. It contributes to the theoretical base of TESOL and literacy education by

adding on a new framework rooted in the social interactional perspective of learning,

which was systematically developed through grounded theorizing.

Limitations

Though my findings yield some significant results which broaden our

understanding of learning in out-of-class settings, the study has limitations which need to

be thoroughly addressed in this Chapter.

First, my study was conducted by a sole researcher and therefore there were many

limitations arising from shortage of time and resources. As the sole researcher of the

study, I was responsible for the documentation of the five core participants’ out-of-class learning, which limited the participant observation time that I could spend with each participant. At the time I started data collection, I compiled a chart which recorded the regular and planned out-of-class activities, such as tutorial sessions, choir practice, and on-campus employment, so that I had an idea about the whereabouts of the core participants. However, as mentioned in the earlier sections in this chapter, out-of-class activities are unpredictable and spontaneous. There were many occasions when two ESL

280

learners invited me to their dorm activities, but I could only video record one of them. As

such, being the sole researcher limited the possible video recordings of the five

participants’ social activities.

Another limitation related to me being the sole researcher has to do with the

credibility of the study. Keeping notes about the biases that I have regarding out-of-class learning was useful. However, the data gathering, data analysis, and interpretations were conducted solely through my biased and subjective lens. In order to increase the credibility of the findings and the interpretations of them, I invited an external peer reviewer who was a doctoral candidate in literacy studies to review some of the excerpts transcribed from participant observations. By comparing her interpretation and my own of findings, I noticed that the main emerging theme, which was about the appropriation of localized cultural knowledge, was also noted by the external reviewer, which improved the overall credibility of my findings. In an ideal situation, more external reviewers could be used to improve the credibility of the study.

Third, the research design, methodology, and analytical tools that were employed

in this study were based on Gumperz, Spradley, and Bloome et al. Employing other

theoretical frameworks to examine the same data set may yield different conclusions.

Therefore, it is important to remember that my interpretations were drawn from a

particular angle when approaching the data.

Fourth, the microethnographic discourse analysis approach provided me with a

unique lens for analyzing the participants’ behavior. However, I share the same concern

expressed by other discourse analysts: that the excerpts selected for analysis in this study

only represent a small proportion of the video data. There was a large supply of other

281

excerpts which could be analyzed. Owing to the scope and length requirement of the

dissertation, these excerpts were not used.

Fifth, the size and location of the research site limit the transferability of the

findings. The small size and secluded location of the research site turned out to be a two-

edged sword. On the one hand, it prevented the ESL learners from staying in the comfort

zone of surrounding themselves with other speakers of their native language. Also,

because of the secluded location of the college, the ESL learners were confined to the

college town and thus had more opportunities to communicate with their friends at the

college. On the other hand, the results of the study may be limited to similar colleges in

secluded locations. As far as larger colleges in urban settings are concerned, the

interactions between ESL learners and native English speakers may not be as frequent

because the ESL learners will have a much better chance of finding friends who speak the

same native language. Also, college students in large-scale universities in urban settings

have opportunities to socialize in a much wider range entertainment facilities, such as

karaoke bars, dance clubs, and malls. These facilities were not found at the research site.

Therefore, the transferability of the findings may be limited to similar small-scale colleges in rural settings.

Closing Comments

The findings from this study support an overarching claim that learning involves

the appropriation of knowledge about the literacy practices regarding language, culture,

and identity both in L1 (home language) and L2 (target language) among ESL learners in

both classroom and non-classroom settings. The appropriation process requires second

282

language learners to engage in a dialogic discourse with their own learning history, the

interlocutors’ learning histories, the established social relationships between the learners

and their interlocutors, and the resources provided by the immediate learning

environment. In this way they experience the acculturation process that promotes a

deeper level of second language acquisition enacted in the form of increased

communicative competence. In this study, then, learning opportunities were reframed as

moments of interaction between the interlocutors regarding topics related to language,

culture, and identity as opposed to more classroom-oriented opportunities.

As such, ESL learning involves not only moments of language learning, but also recontextualization of cultural knowledge, and negotiation of social identities. The findings support a claim that language learning is constructed through social interaction across multiple settings and is reframed across settings. It is hoped that looking at second language acquisition through the lens adopted in this study will contribute to the generation of a broader and richer view of SLA in keeping with the reconceptualization of SLA proposed by Firth and Wagner (1997).

283

Appendix A: Courses Taken by Core Participants

Fall 2009 Courses (credit Spring 2010 Courses Remarks hours) Joe Cross-cultural Issues (2), Advanced Speaking (4), Joe spent 16 hours in class per Speaking (4), Writing (4), English for Academic week in Spring 2010. He mainly English for Specific Purposes Purposes (4), English for focused on ESL classes with one (2) Religious Studies (4), Print- exception, the print-making making (4) class. He learned a tremendous amount of vocabulary items in the print-making class. Lily Cross-cultural Issues (2), Advanced Speaking (4), Lily spent 12 hours in class per Speaking (4), Writing (4), Film Studies I (4), Basic week in Spring 2010. She English for Specific Purposes Academic Writing (4) mainly focused on the Film (2) Studies class which was required by her major. Mary Cross-cultural Issues (2), Advanced Speaking (4), Mary spent 20 hours in class per Speaking (4), Writing (4), English for Academic week in Spring 2010. As a native English for Specific Purposes Purposes (4), English for speaker of Spanish, she mainly (2), English Literature (4) Religious Studies (4), helped the instructor in the Spanish I (4), Basic Spanish I class. Academic Writing (4) Edith Cross-cultural Issues (2), Basic Academic Writing (4, Edith spent 12 hours in class per Speaking (4), Basic Academic retake), Piano II (4), week in Spring 2010. She was Writing (4), Piano I (2) General Education I (4) intending to become a music major and thus the music course was the most important in her schedule. Yuki Cross-cultural Issues (2), General Education I (4, Yuki spent 12 hours in class per Speaking (4), Basic Academic Biology), Introduction to week in Spring 2010. She Writing (4), English Literature Sociology (4), English struggled in the Sociology and (4) Composition (4) General Education courses because the former was a science course which she had little interest in, and the latter required active participation in group discussions which she was not accustomed to.

284

Appendix B: Interview Questions

One-on-one interviews with core participants

1) What do you usually do with your roommate/dorm mate/conversation partner outside of class time? 2) What kind of speaking activities do you engage in outside of class time? 3) What kind of reading and writing activities do you engage in outside of class time? 4) Would you describe a tutorial session to me? 5) Would you describe a bible study session to me? 6) Did you learn some idiomatic expressions (both speaking and writing) from your roommate/dorm mate/conversation partner? What are they? 7) Do you think your speaking and writing proficiencies improved because of the social interactions with others? 8) What kind of out-of-class activities are the most helpful for your literacy developments? 9) As time goes by, have you noticed any changes in the social interactions with your roommate/dorm mate/conversation partner? 10) Do you still engage in the speaking, reading, and writing activities as you did before?

One-on-one interviews with noncore participants

1) What do you usually do with your ESL friend outside of class time?

2) What kind of speaking activities do you engage in outside of class time (together with the ESL friend)?

3) What kind of reading and writing activities do you engage in outside of class time (together with the ESL friend)?

4) Would you describe a tutorial session to me?

5) Would you describe a bible study session to me?

6) Have you noticed any changes in your ESL friend’s speaking and writing proficiencies?

285

7) Have you noticed any changes in the kinds of social interactions that you had with your ESL friend?

8) Have you noticed any idiomatic expressions (both speaking and writing) that your ESL friend learned from you?

286

References

Allwright, D. (2005). From teaching points to learning opportunities and beyond. TESOL

Quarterly, 39(1), 9-31.

Atherton J S (2011) Learning and Teaching; Assimilation and Accommodation. [On-line:

UK] retrieved 6 May 2012 from

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/assimacc.htm

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Texas: University of Texas Press.

Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A (Eds.). (2001). Linking Literacies: Perspectives on L2

Reading-Writing Connections. University of Michigan Press.

Bernstein, R. J. (1976). The restructuring of social and political theory. New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Baquedano-Lopez, P., Solis, J.L., & Kattan, S. (2005). Adaptation: The language of

classroom learning. Linguistics and Education, 16, p. 1-26.

Bashir-Ali, K. (2006). Language learning and the definition of one’s social, cultural, and

racial identity. TESOL Quarterly, 40(3), 628-639.

Bloome, D. (1991). Anthropology and research on teaching the English language arts. In

J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp & J. Squire (Eds.) Handbook of research in teaching the

English language arts. (pp. 46-56). NY: Macmillan.

287

Bloome, D. (2003). Anthropology and research on teaching the English language arts. In

J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp & J. Squire (Eds.) Handbook of research in teaching the

English language arts. (pp. 53-66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bloome, D., Carter, S., Christian, B., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse

analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic

perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge and New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Bruce, C. D. (2007). Questions arising about emergence, data collection, and its

interaction with analysis in a grounded theory study. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods, 6(1), Article 4. Retrieved (December 22, 2010) from

http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/6_1/bruce.pdf

Canagarajah, A. S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and

language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(5), 923-939.

Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1-47.

Carbonaro, W. (2005). Tracking, students' effort, and academic achievement. Sociology

of Education, 78(January), 27-49.

Carr, W., &Kemmis, S. (1983). Becoming critical: Knowing through action research.

Waurn Ponds, Victoria: Deakin University.

Carroll, J.B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.

Carroll, J.B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26-31.

288

Clark, C. T. (2003). Examining the role of authoritative discourse in the labeling and unlabeling of an "LD" college learner. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47 (2), pp. 128-135.

Cooper, T.C. Processing of idioms by L2 learners of English. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2),

233-262.

Crabbe, D. (2003). The quality of language learning opportunities. TESOL Quarterly,

37(1), 9-34.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall Pearson Education.

Cummins, J. (1979) Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on

Bilingualism, 19, 121-129.

Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingual Education and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy San Diego: College Hill.

De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s speaking model approach.

Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1-24.

De Certeau, Michel (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (2003). Landscape series of the handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

289

Dewey, M. (2007). English as a lingua franca and globalization: An interconnected

perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 332-354.

Duff, P. (in press).Identity, agency, and SLA. In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. London: Routledge.

Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1985). Analysing casual conversation. NY: Equinox.

Ellis, N. (1994). Consciousness in second language learning: Psychological perspectives

on the role of conscious processes in vocabulary acquisition. In J.H. Hulstijin, J.H. &

Schmidt, R. (Eds.) (1994). Consciousness in Second Language Learning. AILA Review,

11, 37-56.

Ellis, N. C., & Laporte, N. (1997). Contexts of acquisition: Effects of formal instruction

and naturalistic exposure on second language acquisition. In A. M. B. De Groot & J. F.

Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 53-83).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ellis, T.J. & Levy, Y. (2009). Towards a guide for novice researchers on research

methodology: Review and proposed methods. Issues in Informing Science and

Information Technology, 6, 323-337.

Ernst, G. (1994). Talking circle: Conversation and negotiation in the ESL classroom.

TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 293-322.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and

Education, 4, 269-293.

Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley

Pub. Co.

290

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social

accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. Modern Language Journal.

91, Focus Issue, 800-819.

Gaies, S. J. (1983). The investigation of language classroom processes. TESOL

Quarterly, 17(2), 205-217.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course

(second edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (second

edition). London: Falmer.

Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A

methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119-169.

Gee, J.P. (1999a). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York:

Routledge.

Gee, J.P. (1999b). The new literacy studies and the social turn. ERIC Online Database.

Retrieved on November 13, 2010.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtS earch_SearchValue_0=ED442118&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED4421 18

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., Christian, D. (2005). English language

learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for

Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363-385.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicao, IL: Aldine.

291

Green, J., & Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations: A sociolinguistic

ethnography. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational

settings (pp. 161-204). Norwood, N.J.: ABLEX Publishing Corp.

Green, J., & Weade, R. (1987). In search of meaning: A sociolinguistic perspective on lesson construction and reading. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 3-34).

New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Grice, Paul (1975). "Logic and conversation". In Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts,

ed. P. Cole & J. Morgan. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Studies in the Way of

Words, ed. H. P. Grice, pp. 22–40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. On interactional sociolinguistic method. In S. Sarangi and C. Roberts (eds.),

Talk, Work, and Institutional Order. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 453-471, 1999.

Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P, & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity:

Hybridity and Hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity:

An International Journal, 6, 286-303.

Gutierrez, K.D. & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or

repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.

Haneda, M. (2006). Becoming literate in a second language: Connecting home,

community, and school literacy practices. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 337-345.

292

Hatcher, B. (ed.) (1987). Learning opportunities beyond the school. Wheaton, MD:

Association for Childhood Educational International.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S.B. (2011). Words at work and play. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herras, A. I. (1993). The construction of understanding in a sixth grade bilingual classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 275-300.

Higgs, T. V. (1991). Research on the role of grammar and accuracy in classroom-based foreign language acquisition. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath & Company.

Hirvela, A. & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 83-

106.

Hsieh, M. (2005). Negotiating identity in a second-language environment: A narrative study of nine East Asian female international students. Ed.D. Dissertation. Northern

Illinois University. Dissertation Abstract: UMI Number: 3185437. Retrieved on March

18, 2010.

Hull, G. & Shultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out-of-school: A review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 575-611.

Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. In J.J.

Gumperz & D Hymes (Eds.).The ethnography of communication (pp. 1-34).

Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Hymes, D.H. (1966) "Two types of linguistic relativity." In W. Bright (Ed.)

Sociolinguistics (pp. 114-158). The Hague: Mouton.

293

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Institute of International Education.(2011). "International Students by Academic Level,

2009/10 - 2010/11."Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange.

Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G.H.

(Ed.) Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamins (pp. 13-31).

Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Jezewski, M.A., & Sotnik, P. (2001). The rehabilitation service provider as culture broker: Providing culturally competent services to foreign born persons. Buffalo, NY:

Center for International Rehabilitation Research Information and Exchange.

Kachru, B. B. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana and

Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Kachru, Y. & Nelson, C. L. (2006). World Englishes: In Asian contexts. Hong Kong:

Hong Kong University Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London:

Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1988). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language

Learning. Prentice-Hall International.

Kuh, G.D. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom.

American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 277-304.

294

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis.TESOL Quarterly,

33(3, Critical Approaches to TESOL), 453-484.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends.

TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.

Kamhi-Stein, L.D. (2003). Reading in two languages: How attitudes toward home language and belief’s about reading affect the behaviors of underprepared L2 college readers. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 35-71.

Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday litearcies: Students, discourse, and social practice. New

York: Peter Lang.

Knobel, M. & Lankshear, C. (2007). A new literacies sampler. NY: Peter Lang

Publishing Co.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London:

Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440-464.

Martin-Jones, M. & Jones, K. (2000). Multilingual literacies. Philadelphia: John

Benjamins Publishing Co.

Kubota , R. (2001). Discursive construction of the images of U.S. classroom. TESOL

Quarterly, 35, 9–38 .

295

Lafford, B.A. (2007). Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impace of Firth

and Wagner (1997). Modern Language Journal, 91, Focus Issue, 736-756.

Laufer, B. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do with it?

RELC Journal, 28(1), 89-108.

Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(3), 149-

164.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, Y.L. (2011a). Conceptualizing the dialogic discourse between adult immigrants and

their learning resources in an ESL class. Ohio TESOL Journal, 4(1), 16-18.

Lee, Y.L. (2011b). Students’ and teachers’ appropriation of faith and biblical teaching: A

reflection. TESOL CELT Caucus Newsletter, 3(2).

Lezberg, A., & Hilferty, A. (1978). Discourse analysis in the reading class. TESOL

Quarterly, 12(1), 47-55.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination

in the United States. London; New York: Routledge.

Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of

research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-82.

May, S. & Hornberger, N. (2000). Encyclopedia of Language and Education. New York,

NY: Springer.

296

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

McKinney, K., Medvedeva, M.A., Vacca, K., & Malak, J. (2004). Beyond the classroom:

An exploratory study of out-of-class learning in sociology.Teaching Sociology, 32, 43-60.

McMurray, P. (1998). Gender behaviors in an early childhood classroom through an

ethnographic lens. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 2, 271-

290.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Mitchell, J.C. (1984). Typicality and the case study. In R. Ellen (ed.) Ethnographic

research: a guide to general conduct (pp. 238-241). New York: Academic Press.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D. and Gonzalez, N. (2001). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into

Practice, 31(2), 132-141.

Moore, D.W., Alvermann, D.E., & Hinchman, K.A. (2007). Literacies in and out of school: A survey of U.S. youth. The Reading Matrix, 7(3), 170-190.

Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL

Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31.

Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. [Introduction,

Special Issue] TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409-429.

Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language

297

classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New

directions in research (pp. 159–171). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

Ochs, E. (1985), ‘Variation and error: A sociolinguistic study of language acquisition in

Samoa’, in D. Slobin (ed.), The Cross-Linguistic Study of Language Acquisition,

Vol. 1, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 783–838.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Paribakht, T.S. & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 195-224.

Pavelenko, A. & Blackledge, A. (Eds.) (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual

contexts. New York: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Schieffelin, B.B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 15, 163-191.

Schieffelin, B.B. and Ochs, E. (eds.) (1986). Language Socialization across Cultures,

Cambridge University Press, New York.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.

Schumann, J. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In R.

Fingras (Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 27-50).

Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Schumann, J. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language

acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7, 379-392.

298

Schwandt, T.A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-

231.

Seloni, L. (2007). Reconceptualization of academic literacy socialization in an intercultural space: A micro-ethnographic inquiry of first year multilingual doctoral students in the U.S. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Ohio State University. Retrieved 6 May

2012.

Sfard, A., &Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14-

22.

Shultz, K. & Hull, G. (2002). Locating literacy theory in out-of-school contexts. In K.

Shultz & G Hull. School’s Out: Bridging Out-of-School Literacies with Classroom

Practice. MA: Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. England: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and

Winston.

Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Stauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: technique sand procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

299

Street, B. (1993) (Eds). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge: England,

Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. Culture is a Verb: Anthropological, aspects of language and cultural process

Language and Culture. Graddol. D., L. Thompson and M. Byram. (eds.) Clevedon:

BAAL and Multilingual Matters , pp. 23-43, 1993.

Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in

theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2).

Strong, P.E. (2007). A qualitative investigation of out-of-class student-faculty interaction in an undergraduate residential learning community. Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State

University. UMI 3282204.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990).Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass& C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. & Deters, P. (2007). New mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched.

Modern Language Journal, 91, Focus Issue, 821-836.

Suh, J.S., Wasanasonsithi, P., Short, S., Majid, N.A. (1999). Out of class learning experiences and students’ perceptions of their impact on English conversation skills. IN:

Indiana University Bloomington.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatics failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.

Valdes, G. (1998). The world outside and inside schools: Language and immigrant

children. Educational Researcher, 27(6), 4-18.

300

Upshur, J. (1968). Four experiments on the relation between foreign language teaching

and learning. Language Learning, 18, 111-124.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2008) Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse

analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and

authenticity. London: Longman.

Van Maanen, J. (1982). Introduction. In J. Van Maanen, J.M. Dabbs, & R.R. Faulkner

(Eds.), Varieties of qualitative research (pp. 11-29). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Voloshinov, V. N. (1986). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Walker, G. and Noda, M. (2000). Remembering the Future: Compiling Knowledge of

Another Culture. In Diane W. Birckbichler and Robert M. Terry (Eds.), Reflecting on the

Past to Shape the Future (pp. 187-212). Lincolnwood: IL: National Textbook Company.

Warms, N. (1998). Cultural anthropology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing

Company.

Wang, J. (1998). Opportunity to learn: The impacts and policy implications. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 137-156.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of Practice. Learning, meaning and identity,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wesche, M. & Paribakht, T. (Eds.) (1999.) Introduction. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 21, 175-180.

Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Current approaches to researching second language learner

processes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 98-111.

301

Yeager, B., Floriani, A., & Green, J. (1998). Learning to see learning in the classroom:

Developing an ethnographic perspective. In A. Egan-Robertson, & D. Bloome (Eds.).

Students as Researchers of Culture and Language in Their Own Communities. Cresskill,

NJ: Hampton Press.

Yi, Y. (2005). Asian adolescents’ out-of-school encounters with English and Korean literacy. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15(1), 57-77.

Yi, Y. and Hirvela, A. (eds.) (2009). Composing in and out of school: Biliterate Asian students’ encounters with heritage and second language literacy. Journal of Asian Pacific

Communication, 19(1), 1-6.

Zuengler, J., & Mori, J. (2002). Microanalyses of classroom discourse: A critical consideration of method. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 283-288.

302