Short-Term Study Abroad and Summer Schools, with a Parent or Alone: Do They Work? — The Reality of "Language" and "Experience" Seen Through Research

Why this topic is on parents’ minds

After reading our related articles, Does early English education really work? and English conversation schools: what should you look for?, and concluding that “the critical period is not so strict” and “a once-a-week school alone has limited effects,” the next option that comes into view is “What about using the long block of summer vacation to send my child on a short-term study abroad trip?”

• I want to show my child a wider world and let them experience an environment where English is used every day
• I want my child to be “showered” with English over a block of time, since it doesn’t improve with a once-a-week school
• I want to combine it with the family summer vacation and spend more time together through parent-and-child study abroad
• When I hear that a friend’s or coworker’s family is going “to Canada for 3 weeks this summer,” I feel pressure too

On the other hand, on social media and in ads by study abroad agencies, somewhat exaggerated messages stand out, such as “speak English in 2 weeks” and “their output changed right after coming home.” What actually improves with short-term study abroad, and what does not? Research gives a clear answer, though a rather plain one.

In this article, we lay things out by answering not “should I send my child on short-term study abroad?” but “what expectations won’t be let down, and how can it be designed to get the most value from the experience?”

The basic premise: “my child will be able to speak English” is an overly high expectation

Before going into specific choices, we place the most important premise first.

With this in mind, let’s look in a little more detail at what research shows about the “language effects of short-term study abroad.”

The language effects of short-term study abroad — what does research show?

An empirical study comparing children and adults

Llanes and Muñoz (2013)

A longitudinal study comparing children (ages 10 to 11) and adults (ages 18 to 34) who took part in short-term study abroad of about 3 to 4 weeks in an English-speaking country

is a representative empirical study in the debate on the effects of short-term study abroad.

The study compared English listening, fluency (speech rate), accuracy (grammatical correctness), and complexity (complexity of sentence structure) before and after study abroad. The results were as follows.

• Listening and fluency (whether one can speak smoothly) improved in both children and adults
• Grammatical accuracy and structural complexity tended not to improve much in a short period
• Children’s gains in fluency were relatively larger, while in formal aspects, as with adults, there were limits in the short term

In other words, over a span of 3 to 4 weeks, the result is plain but consistent: “it works for speech rate, smoothness, and listening, but grammar and complex sentence structures do not improve greatly.”

You don’t improve “just by being there” — the quality of interaction

There is another important study in discussing the language effects of short-term study abroad.

Magnan and Back (2007)

A study that analyzed the relationship between interaction abroad and linguistic gains among U.S. learners who studied abroad in a French-speaking country

showed that “time spent abroad” and “time actually spent interacting with speakers of the local language” are not the same. Many participants tended to stick together with learners who shared their native language even abroad, and deep interaction with host-country speakers was much less than expected. It also reported that the less the quantity and quality of interaction, the smaller the participant’s linguistic gains.

Allen (2010)

A review examining whether “interactive contact” in short-term study abroad functions as a linguistic affordance

reinforces the same point. It concludes that interactive contact with speakers of the local language does not arise naturally as much as short-term study abroad programs assume, and that without deliberate design (homestays, volunteering, exchanges with local schools), it is hard to reach a state of being “showered with English.”

Compared with an “intensive at-home program”

Furthermore, important for putting short-term study abroad in perspective is Freed, Segalowitz, and Dewey (2004)a study that compared learners of French in three groups: regular classroom, short-term study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion (at-home immersion).

The result was a little different from many people’s intuition. The intensive domestic immersion group was equal to or better than the study abroad group in gains in fluency. The authors concluded that what works is not “whether you are abroad” but “how much you used the target language during that period.”

That is an overview of the research on the language effects of short-term study abroad. Starting from the premise that “language effects are limited,” what formats, destinations, and ages should you specifically think about? From here, we lay out practical options.

The main formats of short-term study abroad — what can you choose?

Although we say “short-term study abroad or summer school” as one thing, the formats vary quite widely. Depending on the child’s age, how the family works, the budget, and the child’s personality, some suit and some do not.

The basic yardstick when choosing is: “how much does the design secure time for the child to actually interact with host-country speakers?” From the research summaries (Magnan & Back 2007, Allen 2010), it is fair to think that the longer a program has children sticking together with others of the same nationality, the less language effect it produces.

Features by destination — which country to choose

Destinations for short-term study abroad include the five major English-speaking countries, and in recent years options in Southeast Asia have also expanded. Each differs in “its character as an English environment,” “cost,” and “peace of mind for parents.”

What to keep in mind is that from a research point of view, “whom you talk with and how much, where you go” matters much more than “where you go.” Even at an expensive camp in the U.S., gains are unlikely if the child sticks with a Japanese group, while even at an inexpensive language school in the Philippines, talking one-on-one for 4 hours every day produces language effects. Your choice of destination will be steadier if you think of it as a question of designing the experience: “what do we want to see as a family” and “what do we want our child to experience.”

The reality by age — from what age, and which formats are possible

Short-term study abroad options are divided quite clearly by age. The basic structure is that the younger the child, the more it is “parent-and-child study abroad only,” and as the child gets older, “going alone” options expand.

1. Ages 5 to 7

   Parent-and-child study abroad is the only choice. Design it as "a summer vacation of engaging with English"

   It is fair to assume that programs sending children of this age abroad on their own almost do not exist (even if they do, acceptance is decided case by case). It is realistic for parent and child to travel together and for the child to attend a local day camp or a short English program. Expect almost no language effect; the main purposes are <strong>learning that 'there are places where English is used in daily life' and making memories of playing with friends from other countries</strong>. The greatest advantage is that the risk of homesickness is low and, being with a parent, the child stays emotionally stable.

2. Ages 8 to 10

   Mainly parent-and-child study abroad. Some summer schools for children on their own also come into view

   Parent-and-child study abroad is still the main option, but options start to appear for children age 8 and up on their own, such as summer schools at long-established U.K. schools and U.S. day camps. This is a time to decide carefully, based on the child's personality (whether they are the type who can talk to someone in a new place, or shy), familiarity with English, and past experience of being apart from family (such as sleepovers at grandparents' homes).

3. Ages 11 to 12

   Boarding and homestay options expand greatly

   Many traditional summer schools and boarding experience programs set age 10 to 12 and up as the age of acceptance. Overlap with the timing of junior high school entrance exams is often an issue, and the summer of 6th grade tends to come up as a candidate as 'the last free summer.' At this age, <strong>the experience of independence and adapting to a multinational environment</strong> gained from dormitory life with peers becomes a bigger gain than the language effect.

4. Age 13 and up

   Full study abroad on one's own and exchange programs come into view

   Moving from short-term study abroad to exchange programs or full study abroad of one term or one year becomes a realistic option. It is beyond the scope of this article, but many families use short-term study abroad as a 'trial' and as a step to see whether the child really wants to go.

People tend to picture that “the younger you send them, the more it helps their English later,” but research does not clearly support this. That is because over a short span of 3 to 4 weeks, “the amount of interaction abroad” matters much more than differences in age (Llanes & Muñoz 2013, Magnan & Back 2007). It is best to understand that the meaning of going at a young age lies less in “language gains” and more in “creating positive early memories of English.”

Cost guide — what costs how much

Costs swing widely by destination, length, and format, but a rough guide is as follows (as of May 2026).

• 2-week program on one’s own: ¥300,000 to ¥1,000,000 (¥300,000 to ¥500,000 in the Philippines and Malaysia, ¥600,000 to ¥1,000,000 in the U.S. and U.K.)
• 4-week program on one’s own: ¥500,000 to ¥1,500,000 (in the same range as above; summer schools at long-established U.K. schools can also be ¥1,500,000 to ¥2,000,000)
• Parent-and-child study abroad: in addition to the child’s costs, the parent’s language school and stay cost almost the same amount, so assume about the child’s cost × 2
• Airfare: ¥200,000 to ¥400,000 per person to North America and the U.K., ¥100,000 to ¥250,000 per person to Australia and Southeast Asia
• Overseas travel insurance: ¥10,000 to ¥30,000 per person per week
• Local living costs and pocket money: separate from program costs, ¥50,000 to ¥150,000 for 2 weeks

For parent-and-child study abroad, it is not unusual for 4 weeks to total ¥1,500,000 to ¥3,000,000. This is a big decision for a household budget, and an investment on a scale that calls for careful judgment, including the family’s careers and the balance among siblings.

Also, from the JAOS Survey of the Number of Japanese Students Studying Abroad (2024) and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology’s materials on “The Status of Japanese Students Studying Abroad,” you can see that after the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, demand for short-term study abroad among high school students and younger is increasing again. You will want to decide by your own family’s priorities, without being swept along by the peer pressure of “everyone is starting to go.”

Preconditions for “becoming a child who can speak English”

If you want short-term study abroad to be “a trigger for speaking English,” the realistic conclusion from research is that you need to meet at least 2 of the following 3 preconditions.

• Engaging with English every day even before the trip: having a base of vocabulary and listening through online English conversation, an English school, English picture books and cartoons, and so on. Without a foundation, whatever the child hears abroad tends to be just noise.
• A design that gets the child “away” from the Japanese group abroad: choosing a design that physically secures time to talk with host-country speakers, such as a homestay, a trial at a local school, one-on-one lessons, or a local camp.
• A system for continuing contact with English after returning home: the “circuit for speaking English” built during the trip fades in a few months if it is not used. There should be a prospect of continuing online English conversation, English books, family English time, and so on after returning.

Put the other way, when all three come together—almost no contact with English before the trip, sticking with a Japanese group abroad, and no continuation after returning—the language effect of short-term study abroad comes close to zero. The value of the “cross-cultural experience” still remains, but if you position it as “for English,” the design needs to be reconsidered.

Risks and points to watch

Short-term study abroad also has risks that must be faced squarely, even more than its effects.

• Homesickness and emotional burden: when studying abroad alone, many children are overwhelmed by loneliness at night. The younger the child, the higher the risk, and forcing them to go may plant the memory that “English = a painful experience.”
• Safety: check the safety of the destination, emergency medical care, the quality of chaperones, and how dormitory life is managed. Do not rely only on reviews on social media; look at the history and track record of the organization running it.
• Feeling bad at English: if experiences of not being able to understand or speak at all continue abroad, some children lose confidence in English itself. Check in advance whether the program’s difficulty is too high for the child’s age and English level.
• Culture shock: some children feel strong stress about differences from Japan in food, hygiene, religion, views on gender, and so on. This is itself a chance to grow, but it tends to be a burden for young children.
• Emotional effects of being away from family: during study abroad alone, if a situation continues in which parent and child find it hard to contact each other, both are affected. Decide as a family in advance on the means of communication and rules for how often to be in touch.

Most of these risks can be managed through preparation before the trip and judging the child’s personality and developmental stage. What matters is not “don’t send them because there are risks,” but the viewpoint of choosing a design that takes the risks into account.

How to keep going after returning — turning “a summer experience” into “the power to continue”

The value of short-term study abroad is maximized depending on continuation at home after returning. Research also shows that fluency gained abroad becomes less noticeable within a few months if not used (Llanes & Muñoz 2013 also suggests that the retention of the effect differs between right after study abroad and a few months later).

The practical options for continuing partly overlap with our related articles, but combinations like the following are realistic.

• Online English conversation: 2 to 4 times a week, starting from 25 minutes. It makes it easier to keep the feeling of speaking abroad. For details, see Online English conversation.
• Continuing or starting an English school: continue if the child attended before the trip; if new, start from once or twice a week. For how to choose, see English conversation schools: what should you look for?.
• Family “English time”: 10 to 20 minutes every day—reading English picture books, watching English cartoons together, sending letters or videos to friends met abroad, and so on. The key to keeping it up is for the family to do it together.
• Keeping in touch with summer camp friends abroad: even just a few exchanges a year by email or video call keeps “a reason to use English” in daily life.

Balance with the family’s careers and finances

Finally, in thinking about short-term study abroad, just as important as the English effects and the child’s experience is the balance of the whole family.

• The parents’ careers: for parent-and-child study abroad, the parent also needs to secure about 4 weeks of long leave or remote work. Consider in advance coordinating with the workplace and the effect on evaluations.
• The impact on the household budget: an expense on the scale of ¥1,000,000 to ¥3,000,000 in total—you will want to share as a couple how it affects annual savings goals, overall education costs, and the family’s other spending plans before deciding.
• Balance among siblings: if only the older child goes on short-term study abroad, the younger child may be left with the feeling “I wasn’t taken along.” Talk as a family about whether to make it a parent-and-child trip with all siblings, or a design in which each child experiences it in turn according to age.
• Understanding from grandparents and relatives: for families that rely on support from people around them—contact during a long absence, support in emergencies, looking after the home while away—reaching agreement in advance matters too.

If arranging all of this is hard, choosing “we’ll skip it this year” or “we’ll prepare for next year or the year after” is also a perfectly wise decision. Short-term study abroad is not something where you irreversibly lose something if you don’t go.

A short-term study abroad design that tends to work, seen from five viewpoints

Here we place the points covered so far side by side as examples at both ends. Most programs fall in between.

Closing dialogue — “as an experience of the world” rather than “for English”

For planning English learning as a whole, reading Does early English education really work?, English conversation schools: what should you look for?, and Online English conversation together should make it easier to set your family’s direction along three axes: “everyday accumulation,” “intensive short-term experiences,” and “choosing lessons.”

Research details

Primary sources

StrongLlanes & Munoz2013Language Learning, 63(1), 63-90

Study design: A longitudinal quasi-experimental study comparing a group of children and a group of adults who took part in short-term study abroad of about 3 to 4 weeks in an English-speaking country

Participants: Children (ages 10 to 11) and adults (ages 18 to 34) from Spain who studied abroad for a short term in an English-speaking country, about 60 people in total. Listening, fluency, accuracy, and complexity were measured before and after study abroad

Main results: Significant gains were observed in listening and in the fluency of oral speech (speech rate, phonation time ratio, etc.) in both children and adults. On the other hand, grammatical accuracy and structural complexity tended not to improve much over a short span of 3 to 4 weeks. Children’s gains in fluency were relatively larger than adults’, but in formal aspects there were similarly limits in the short term. It is a representative study that showed empirically that the language effects of short-term study abroad appear in a form weighted toward fluency and listening comprehension.

Limitations: The sample size is moderate, and participants’ English levels before the trip varied. Because it did not directly study Japanese learners, caution is needed in generalizing. However, it shows results consistent with several studies on the effects of short-term study abroad.

MixedAllen2010Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 19, 1-26

Study design: A review/qualitative study examining whether “interactive contact” in short-term study abroad functions as a linguistic affordance

Scope: An integration of existing research on interaction patterns of participants in short-term study abroad programs, and the author’s own field observations

Main results: It showed that interactive contact with speakers of the local language does not arise naturally as much as short-term study abroad programs assume. Many participants tend to stick together with people from their own country, and “time spent abroad” and “time spent speaking the local language” diverge greatly. It concluded that without deliberate design such as homestays, volunteering, and exchanges with local schools, a “language shower” state is hard to achieve.

Limitations: It centers on qualitative research and review, not a quantitative estimate of effect sizes. Short-term study abroad programs vary greatly, and it does not apply uniformly to every format.

StrongMagnan & Back2007Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 43-61

Study design: An empirical study analyzing the relationship between interaction and linguistic gains among U.S. learners who studied abroad for a short term in a French-speaking country

Participants: A combination of oral proficiency measurement and interaction diaries, covering about 20 U.S. university student learners who studied in France for about one term (“short to medium term” in the context of this article)

Main results: The quantity and quality of interaction with speakers of the local language (host-country speakers) during study abroad correlated strongly with gains in oral proficiency after study abroad. On the other hand, among participants whose interaction was mainly with people from their own country, linguistic gains from study abroad were limited. It showed that it is not that “you improve as long as you go abroad,” but that deliberate design of interaction abroad is needed.

Limitations: It is a study of university students, so caution is needed in applying it directly to children. The sample size is small. On the other hand, the conclusion has been replicated in several later studies.

StrongFreed, Segalowitz & Dewey2004Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 275-301

Study design: A quasi-experimental study comparing learners of French in three groups: a regular classroom group, a short-term study abroad group, and an intensive domestic immersion group

Participants: U.S. university student learners of French, about 30 in total across the three groups. Oral fluency (speech rate and fluency measures) was measured before and after

Main results: The intensive domestic immersion group showed results equal to or better than the study abroad group in gains in oral fluency. The authors concluded that what works for gains in fluency is not “whether you are abroad” but “how much you used the target language during that period.” It is often cited as an important empirical study that puts short-term study abroad in perspective.

Limitations: It studied university students and cannot be applied directly to children. The intensive immersion program had a special design and cannot be generalized to every English environment in Japan. On the other hand, the conclusion that “being physically abroad” does not in itself work magic is supported by several follow-up studies.

MixedMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology2024Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Higher Education Bureau, published materials including 「日本人の海外留学状況」 [The Status of Japanese Students Studying Abroad]

Study design: A compilation of the number of Japanese students studying abroad, based on government statistics

Scope: Year-by-year trends in the number of high school students, university students, graduate students, and others studying abroad, and trends by destination country and length

Main results: The number of Japanese students studying abroad, which fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020 to 2022), has been on a recovery trend since 2023, and demand for short-term study abroad in particular has recovered quickly. The number of high school students and younger taking part in short-term study abroad and summer schools is also increasing. The government has indicated a policy of continuing to promote the internationalization of education.

Limitations: It is a statistical compilation, not a test of effects or an analysis of causal relationships. Public data on the “effects” of short-term study abroad are limited, and note that it is a different measure from families’ subjective satisfaction or objective evaluation of language effects.

MixedJapan Association of Overseas Studies (JAOS)2024JAOS 「日本人留学生数調査 2024」 [Survey of the Number of Japanese Students Studying Abroad 2024]

Study design: A count of users and a trend survey through member study abroad agencies

Scope: Japanese students who traveled abroad through JAOS member study abroad agencies (compiled by age group, country, and length)

Main results: From FY2023 to FY2024, demand for short-term study abroad among elementary, junior high, and high school students has been recovering and growing, with the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the Philippines as top destinations. As a family decision, the share of “parent-and-child study abroad” is also increasing. It reports that the choices of cost and length are widening.

Limitations: The figures are through agencies, and may not include trips arranged individually or organized by schools. Keeping in mind that it is a survey by an industry group, the trend of growing demand can be referred to, but it should be treated as information independent of evaluating “effects.”