Premium
Living Language: Self‐Assessment, Oral Production, and Domestic Immersion
Author(s) -
Dolosic Haley N.,
Brantmeier Cindy,
Strube Michael,
Hogrebe Mark C.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
foreign language annals
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.258
H-Index - 49
eISSN - 1944-9720
pISSN - 0015-718X
DOI - 10.1111/flan.12191
Subject(s) - strengths and weaknesses , psychology , self assessment , production (economics) , multitude , metacognition , language production , mathematics education , developmental psychology , medical education , pedagogy , social psychology , medicine , cognition , philosophy , epistemology , neuroscience , economics , macroeconomics
With 24 adolescent students enrolled in a French language summer camp, the present study examines the relationship between self‐assessment and oral production in French, interpreting results through a framework of individual learning variables. Participants were surrounded by French inside and outside the classroom. Self‐assessment was measured through a criterion‐referenced self‐assessment questionnaire (Brantmeier, Vanderplank, & Strube, 2012). Oral production was examined with a structured oral interview that involved recording students for four minutes while they described four images (Llanes & Muñoz, 2009). The recording was coded on measures including words per minute, silent pauses per minute, and longest fluent run (Llanes & Muñoz, 2009). Findings demonstrated significant improvement in oral production. Self‐assessment measures and performance on posttest measures for oral production were significantly correlated. Upon arrival at camp this was not true, which may indicate that students who were unable to assess their French abilities at the beginning of camp were better able to assess their abilities following the program. Results have strong pedagogical implications, as self‐assessment may serve as a metacognitive tool for students to learn to self‐diagnose strengths and weaknesses, which may help instructors account for individual learner differences. Implications suggest that self‐assessing such strengths and weaknesses may be easier after a multitude of real‐world and need‐based interactions.