Abstract
This study examines the differences in English language exposure among Taiwanese college students living in Taiwan and in the Philippines. One-hundred and eighty participants completed an English language exposure questionnaire. The results revealed that the Taiwanese in the Philippines significantly showed higher levels of English language exposure than their counterpart in Taiwan t(180)=8.99, p<.05. A large effect size on exposure (d=1.34) was observed for that difference. English learners within an English-speaking context are more exposed to the language, which enables them to imbibe and internalize the English language through communication.

Keywords: English language exposure, English exposure scale

Introduction
College students living and studying in the Philippines are more exposed to the English language than college students in Taiwan, however, there are very limited published empirical reports that support this hypothesis. Considering that the English language in many cultures such as in Taiwan is in demand to be learned, many Taiwanese are seeking to learn English in a context where exposure to this language is high. The Philippines as one of the English speaking countries in Asia provides a good environment where foreign students gets exposed and learn the English language. In the Philippines, exposure to the English language started since American colonization. Gradually, English started to be utilize in the Philippine barrios and municipalities through the public elementary school system and eventually, in 1901, the Department of Education made English the sole medium of instruction in the Philippines (Gonzalez, 1997; Martin, 1999). Even after gaining independence from the Americans, English remained to be widely used in the country. This is shown in many different studies, for example Bautista (2000) revealed that 51.43% of the families in member schools of the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines spoke English at home. A study commissioned by the Linguistic Society of the Philippines (Social Weather Stations as cited in Gonzales, 1997) reflected similar findings. In their sample, 56% were found to have the ability to speak English, 73% have the ability to read English, and 59% have the ability to write in English. For those reasons among others, English has been declared as one of the official languages of the Philippines (Garcia, 1997; Gonzales, 1997; Villacorta, 1999). Provided these assumptions, it is necessary to test the hypothesis that exposure to English is high in a context where English is used. The main objective of this study is to establish a basis and provide empirical support for the assumption that Taiwanese college students living and studying in the Philippines are more exposed to the English language than their counterparts in Taiwan.
   It is known in studies that second language acquisition is influenced by personal characteristics, such as metacognition and motivation, and different environmental factors, such as language exposure and sociocultural context. Previous studies on oral proficiency in English show its direct link to cognitive factors (Bremner, 1999; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Lee, 2003; O’Malley et al., 1985; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Victori & Lockhart, 1995). These cognitive factors are better facilitated if an English learner is placed in an environment where they are exposed to the English language making them use the English as part of their daily communication. Exposure to English then enables the English learner to improve their ability to express the English language and eventually becomes more proficient.

Exposure to the Second Language
Exposure, as defined in this study, refers to the total amount of time in which an individual has contact with a language, may it be in verbal or written form, formal or informal ways of communications and in which the individual may have either an active or a passive role. Adopting this definition, exposure to a second language occurs whenever individuals engage in conversations in the second language with family members, friends, classmates, and colleagues; whenever they read books, magazines, and newspapers written in that language; whenever they come across information being disseminated in different multimedia sources; or even when they are mere passive listeners in any activity or place in which the second language is being spoken. Chiswick & Miller (1998) defined exposure as the features of formal learning and “learning by doing” that impact the acquisition of fluency in the target language. There are many dimensions of exposure, but the current study only focuses on the intensity of exposure per unit of time in the context. These dimensions include the different external cues like print, media, and audiovisual materials. This exposure enhances English language skills even for non-native English speakers (de Carvalho, Magno, Lajom, Bunagan, & Regodon, 2006).
   Previous studies have shown that exposure to the second language is one of the environmental factors that can enhance language proficiency (Jia, 2003; Ji, Zhang, & Nisbett, 2004; Kim & Margolis, 2000). Jia (2003) found that learners’ proficiency in the second language increases as they experience richer language environments. Prior to Jia (2003), Reber (1985) explains that through exposure an individual becomes involved in a socialization process, thereby acquiring the knowledge, values, and social skills required in learning a second language. The socialization process includes interaction with an English speaker or other English learners. This results in the learner’s opportunity to master a new array of social norms, attitudes, and mannerisms enable the learner to become an effective speaker of the second language (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Chen, 1993; Levine, Baxter, & McNulty, 1987). Furthermore, a study on migrants to the US showed that those who were nine years old or younger preferred second language (L2) to first language (L1) and are more proficient in L2 as early as their first year of stay in the new context (Jia & Aaronson, 2003). Although young children have been established to readily discern differences among the phonetic units used in language and thus acquire language more efficiently (Kuhl, Tsao, & Liu, 2003). Other important factors interact resulting to the observed L2 preference and proficiency (in this case, the dominant language) in the young migrants include L1 proficiency, peer interactions, social abilities, and cultural preferences (Jia & Aaronson, 2003). Many of these factors are embedded in the context where the learner acquires the destination language.
   Bachman (1990) and Chapelle (1998) characterize the use of language as interactionalist, where both knowledge or competence and the capacity for implementing and executing that competence in language use are in context. In this view, language acquisition is socially and culturally-mediated. There is an interaction between the language user, the context, and the discourse. Bachman (1990) emphasizes that context is important to the extent it allows the expression of language and thus develops language abilities.
   Exposure to the second language can also influence a learner’s motivation to learn that second language. As Kim and Margolis (2000) reported, students who were exposed to a greater amount of English material or learn English from native English speakers were highly motivated.  As a result, the level of exposure that an individual has to the second language is directly related to language proficiency in that language.
   In many Asian countries, such as Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, students often acquire insufficient communication skills in English (Chen, 2002). Particularly, these students in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan’s weakness in communication skills emphasize on oral skills in English. In these three countries, it was reported that many of the native teachers do not have enough training to teach English adequately (Butler, 2004). In Taiwan, the government introduced English as part of their curriculum only in 1999, with teachers who still need further training to adequately acquire English. Despite efforts in their educational system, they faced a serious shortage of qualified teachers (Butler, 2004). It appear to indicate that the context in Taiwan offers less opportunity for exposure in the second language.
   In the present study, a questionnaire was constructed and administered to Taiwanese students in Taiwan and in the Philippines. It is hypothesized that Taiwanese in the Philippines will have higher level of exposure given that English is one of the country’s official languages.

Method

Participants 

The participants were 180 Taiwanese college students. There were 98 students living and studying in Taiwanese universities, while the other 82 are Taiwanese living and studying in the Philippines Universities for not less than 6 months. Participants in the study were voluntary and no extra course credits were given for participation.

Procedure

The data gathering was conducted in the Philippines and in Taiwan. The researchers themselves administered the Checklist for English Language Exposure (CELE) to the participants. The participants were instructed to read each statement and check how often the situation applies to them. They were then informed that there was no right or wrong answer and they could answer the items at their own pace. Respondents were asked to check in the 5-point scale (always, often, sometimes, rarely, never) how often each situation applies to them. After administering the checklist, the participants were debriefed about the study.

Instruments

An English language exposure survey questionnaire was constructed to determine the frequency of time in which an individual has contact with the second language (see appendix A). The instrument was developed for students whose second language is English.
   The items for the English exposure questionnaire reflect different situations where English is spoken in the home (e.g., speaking and conversing in English at home), friends (e.g., conversing in the English language with friends), school (e.g., teachers and classmates speaking in English, activities in school conducted in English), and media (e.g., watching English television shows, listening to English music, reading English books). There is a total of 23 unidimensional items that depict situations where an individual comes in contact with the English language.
   An initial 21-item questionnaire was reviewed by two English professors and two psychologists who specialize in psycholinguistic research. The items were assessed by way of their relevance and whether they are representative of the domains of English language exposure. In the final form, 23 items were arrived at, after considering the revisions and changes that were suggested.
   The exposure checklist was pre-tested in 67 students taking courses in general psychology in two different universities. The pretest was administered to the students in groups and they were instructed to think about the use of the English language around them and to answer the checklist as it applies to their own experience.
   The internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha from all participants indicated high reliability of scores with a value of .91. This shows that at least 91% of the total within-test score variance was due to true score variance rather than to item content heterogeneity or poor item quality.
   The mean of the scores obtained was 71.54 with a standard deviation of 13.55. The percentile performance based on all 180 participants was 88.5 for the 90th percentile and 53.5 for the 10th percentile.
   In examining the shape of the score distribution, the calculated skewness was .09 with a kurtosis coefficient of -.25. In sum, the distribution of scores indicates a low peak and it is normally distributed. 

Data Analysis

The t-test for two independent samples was used to determine the difference in the level of exposure between the two context groups (Taiwanese students in Taiwan and Taiwanese students in the Philippines). The Cohen’s d was used to determine the effect size of context on English exposure. Measures of effect size was used to determine how large would the effect of context on the English exposure (.20 and below: small effect size, .21-.50: medium effect size, .60 and above: large effect size). The results in using inferential statistics such as the t-test is subject to large sample size (Reyes & Magno, 2007). Hence, the Cohen’s d formula can partial out the influence of large sample size on the result. Levene’s test was used to analyze the variance in the absolute deviation of values from each group mean. Since there are unequal groups being compared, the Brown-Forsythe test was conducted to check the homogeneity of variances of the two groups compared.

Results
The participants’ scores on the questionnaire for English language exposure were grouped according to their context (Taiwanese students in Taiwan and Taiwanese students in the Philippines). The English language exposure scores ranged from 23 to 115 (M=71.54, SD=13.55) for the overall group. The difference between the Taiwanese participants in the Philippines (M=79.80, SD=10.95) and the Taiwanese participants from Taiwan (M=64.63, SD=11.13) was significantly different, t(180)=8.99, p<.05. This means that the Taiwanese in the Philippines are more exposed to the English language as compared to the Taiwanese in Taiwan.
   The effect size of context on exposure among the Taiwanese college students is large with a Cohen’s d value of 1.34 and an estimated effect-size r of 0.56. The large effect size value is noted to be independent of the sample size of the study. The large effect size of 1.34 accounts for a 65.3% of nonoverlap between the two context groups.

Figure 1
Difference among Taiwanese in Taiwan and in the Philippines in their English Exposure.

It can be seen in Figure 1 that the mean of exposure of the Taiwanese in the Philippies is higher (M=79.80) as compared to the mean of exposure of the Taiwanese in Taiwan (M=64.63). Having this difference in the mean scores of English exposure for the two groups with a total sample size of 180 reached significance, p<.05. There is also a large effect size of English exposure (d=1.34) in performing the meta-analysis. Based on the standard deviation, a large variability of scores occurred in both context groups and this was further tested using the Levene’s test to determine the significance in the homogeneity of the given variance. The Levene’s test also showed significant difference of the two groups despite the difference in the samples for the Taiwanese in Taiwan (N=98) and Taiwanese in the Philippines (N=82).

Discussion
Results showed that the Taiwanese in the Philippines had significantly higher English language exposure compared with the Taiwanese in Taiwan. The context where a Taiwanese uses the English language can strongly explain the differences in their exposure as indicated in the effect size. This results further recommends that learning an English language is strengthened if exposure to the language is high. These findings support literature where high levels of exposure are expected among the Taiwanese students in an English-speaking country like the Philippines (Jia & Aaronson, 2003; Reber, 1985). The English learner within an English-speaking context is more exposed enabling the learner to imbibe and internalize the English language through communication. Given that the Philippines is an English-speaking country, the Taiwanese in that context are more exposed since there are many opportunities for them to use the English language. The results support recent studies that show 51.43% of the families in private schools of the Philippines spoke English at home (Bautista, 2000). With the time Taiwanese students spends in the Philippines, they come in contact with the English language may it be in verbal or written form, formal or informal ways of communication. This contact in the English language makes them actively socialize enabling them to become proficient in that language (Reber, 1985).
   The Taiwanese students need to be exposed more with the English language through engaging in conversations in the second language with family members, friends, classmates, and colleagues; whenever they read books, magazines, and newspapers written in that language; whenever they come across information being disseminated in different multimedia sources; or even when they are mere passive listeners in any activity or place in which the second language is being spoken to further enrich their English proficiency. Through these socialization processes, they master a new array of social norms, attitudes and mannerisms that enable them to become effective speakers of the second language (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Chen, 1993; Levine, Baxter, & McNulty, 1987).
   Further study is recommended to explore the cognitive processes that occur among language learners in second language acquisition across contexts with varying levels of exposure. Future research needs to address the specific cognitive processes involved in language acquisition, such as strategy use and metacognition since they strongly mediate language learning (Victori & Lockhart, 1995; Bremner, 1999; Lee, 2003).

References

Bautista, M.L.S. (2000). Defining standard Philippine English. Manila: DLSU Press.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bremner, S. (1999). Language learning strategies and language proficiency: Investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 1-15.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Butler, Y. G. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan and Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 245-277.

Chapelle, C. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In Bachmann, L. and Cohen, A. (eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32-70). New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Chen, R. (1993). Responding to compliments: A contrast study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 49-75.

Chen, S. (2002). The spread of English in Taiwan: Changing uses and shifting attitudes. Taipei: The Crane.

Chiswick, B. R. & Miller, P. W. (1998). English language proficiency among immigrants in the United States. Research in Labor Economics, 17, 23-45.

De Carvalho, M., Magno, C., Lajom, J., Regodon, J., & Bunagan, K. (2006, April). Factors involved in the use of second language learning strategies and oral proficiency among Taiwanese students in Taiwan and in the Philippines. Paper presented at the Regional English Language Conference, Singapore.

Garcia, E.A. (1997). The language policy in education. In M. L. Bautista, (Ed.), English is an Asian language: The Philippine context, (pp. 73-86). Australia: The Macquarie Library.

Gonzales, A.B. (1997). The history of English in the Philippines. In M. L. Bautista, (Ed.), English is an Asian language: The Philippine context, (pp. 73-86). Australia: The Macquarie Library.

Hsiao, T., & Oxford, R. (2002). Comparing language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 368-383.

Ji, L., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett, R. E. (2004). Is it culture or is it language? Examination of language effects in cross-cultural research on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholgoy, 87, 57-65.

Jia, G. (2003). The acquisition of the English plural morpheme by native Mandarin Chinese-speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1297.

Jia, G. & Aaronson, B. (2003). A longitudinal study of Chinese children and adolescents learning English in the US. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 131-161.

Kim, D. D. & Margolis, D. (2000). Korean student exposure to English listening and speaking: Instruction, multimedia, travel, experience and motivation. The Korea TESOL Journal, 3, 39-47.

Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F., & Liu, H. (2003). Foreign language experience in infancy: Effects of short term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 18–27.

Levine, D.R., Baxter, J., & McNulty, P. (1987). The culture puzzle: Cross-cultural communication for English as a second language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Martin, M.I. (1999). Language and institution: Roots of bilingualism in the Philippines. In M. L. Bautista & G. O. Tan (Eds.), The Filipino bilingual: A multi-disciplinary perspective, (pp. 132-136). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. [on-line]. available: essex.uk/vcook/L2_learning_strategies.htm.

Peacock, M. & Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 179-200.

Reber, A. S. (1985). Dictionary of psychology. New York: Penguin Books.

Reyes, M. & Magno, C. (2007). Considerations of power, effect size, and sample size in planning and analyses of studies. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 40, 43-66,

Villacorta, W.V. (1999). Ang politika ng wikang pambansa sa kasaysayang konstitusyonal ng Pilipinas. In M. L. Bautista & G. O. Tan (Ed.), The Filipino bilingual: A multi-disciplinary perspective (pp. 119-126). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

Author Notes

Appendix A
Items for the Checklist for English Language Exposure
Gender: ___ Male   ___ Female                            
Nationality:_____________
Age: ______                                                                            
School: ________________

Instruction: Read each item and check how often is the situation applied to you. Shade the bubble corresponding to your answer