Search News


Browse Archives

News

So What Did You Learn in London?

June 1, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

With assessment and accountability at the center of policy discussions in Washington and elsewhere, international educators emphasized an increased need for research on measurable study abroad outcomes and what particular program characteristics cause student learning gains at several sessions during this week’s annual NAFSA: Association of International Educators conference in Minneapolis.

“It is no longer a fringe activity,” with more than 200,000 American college students going abroad each year and new federal funding initiatives for international study, Richard C. Sutton, senior advisor for academic affairs and director of international programs for the University System of Georgia Board of Regents said Wednesday afternoon. “But that money will not be free. It will come at the price of accountability and assessment measures."

In a session on “Changes That Occur Abroad,” Sutton highlighted Georgia’s systemwide research of study abroad outcomes, the Georgia Learning Outcomes of Students Studying Abroad Research Initiative (or GLOSSARI). The ambitious six-phase, six-year-old project covers a lot of ground, including:

  • Comparing learning outcomes of study abroad participants with those of their peers who stay stateside.
  • Tracking learning outcomes of study abroad participants by administering pre- and post-tests.
  • Comparing the experiences and learning of students taking a particular course abroad versus those taking that same course at home.
  • Performing a statistical analysis on graduation and persistence rates relative to study abroad participation.
  • Identifying and conducting case studies on study abroad programs that produce strong results in student learning.

Some of the research depends on a battery of skills tests measuring intercultural learning outcomes -- among them a functional knowledge of cultural practices, increased knowledge of geography and knowledge of global interdependence.

Among some of the potentially surprising results of the Georgia study, at least within the study abroad world where longer is typically perceived as better: Students who studied abroad in short-term programs of eight weeks or less had higher four-year graduation rates, regardless of SAT score, than did students who studied abroad for longer periods of time.

Sutton suggested the possible explanation that shorter-term, mainly summer programs might not interrupt other academic plans, whereas spending a semester or more abroad could get in the way of degree completion. (Over all, however, the analysis does suggest that study abroad participants have improved academic performance and much higher persistence/graduation rates than their peers upon return. In a test sample of three Georgia universities with the lowest graduation rates, researchers found that 92 percent of those who studied abroad in 2000-1 were still enrolled or had graduated in spring 2003, compared to 22 percent of those who didn't go abroad.)

Following up on Sutton's presentation, Michael (Mick) Vande Berg, vice president for academic affairs at the Council on International Educational Exchange, made a case for programs that emphasize mentoring while sharing data from a multi-year study of more than 1,300 students from Georgetown and Rice Universities, Dickinson College, and the University of Minnesota. Students who reported receiving more mentoring on site also showed higher gains on the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), Vande Berg said -- perhaps a particularly important finding when it comes to reaching male students.

Not only did male students abroad record just half the language gains as females abroad, where female students gained in inter-cultural sensitivity as measured by the IDI, Vande Berg said, but males actually went backwards from their pre- to post-tests. Their language gains were just barely above those of the control group that didn’t study abroad, while their intercultural sensitivity scores were actually lower than those of students on their home campuses.

“The research simply doesn’t point to having students participate in any old study abroad program and coming back with positive results,” Vande Berg said -- again emphasizing the importance of intervention and mentoring for all students (though perhaps more critically for males).

The importance of ensuring a particular program's components are effective in enhancing student learning was also a topic during a session on “Qualitative Research” Thursday morning, where Lilli Engle, co-founder and director of the American University Center of Provence, described her research on gains associated with adjusting the components of her own program. “The fun part is realizing that the laws of cause and effect do work,” Engle said.

For instance, she described observing that students who traveled on group flights tended to stay in a pack with other program participants. After rearranging the program design so that students traveled individually and were met at the airport by their host families, she found that they were more able and willing to experience the culture on their own -- one of her goals for them.

“We can never in this day and age rest on our laurels, because things always shift and change,” Engle said. “Research is just a way of keeping abreast of that.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on So What Did You Learn in London?

  • Don't Get Larry's Point
  • Posted by Daryl Close , Professor of Computer Science and Philosophy at Heidelberg College on August 10, 2007 at 9:55pm EDT
  • RE Larry: "I have nothing against studying abroad. However, I think that there should be actual studying that can’t be done at home. In many fields one must go abroad to do some research or learn things from people that are not available stateside."

    I really don't follow the reasoning here. This rule seems far too strong to my eye. Does your rule imply that Ohioans Bob and Mary should not take the kids on a camping trip to Yosemite because they can camp in Ohio? If they do go to Yosemite, should they not play catch along the Merced River because they could just as easily play catch in the back yard at home? Or, how about Sally, the daughter of a resident Forest Ranger in Yosemite? Should Sally not go rock climbing in the Grand Tetons because she has plenty of hard rock climbing available in Yosemite? I just don't get your thinking here.

    P.S. Maybe your objectives for undergraduate study abroad are different than mine. So far, I've been very fortunate in leading a group abroad (New College, Oxford). Many of my students had previously never left the state, let alone the country. Students' eyes are opened again and again, regardless of how many pints they had the night before. "The world is small," "There are so many differences," "They're just like us," "I'm not afraid to travel anymore," "You won't believe what I ate for dinner," etc. I hear these comments again and again. I ask my students to write reflectively about their travel experiences. Those travel reflections are intensely personal and reveal, to me at least, global education. That's all over and above the classroom component, of course, which itself has local travel requirements to take advantage of the unique opportunities that you note. I welcome your comments on our team-taught course from 2004: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dclose/oxford09.htm

  • Posted by Evelyn on August 20, 2007 at 12:40pm EDT
  • The argument here is basically about the differences between experiential learning and traditional learning. When done well, experiential learning can far surpass traditional passive learning. However, if done poorly, experience can be, as Homer Simpson says, "Just a bunch of stuff that happened." The teacher needs to encourage and expect students to ask questions of their experiences. A student who merely observes the British court, who walks out and says, "that was weird, where's the pub?" is probably wasting their time and money, but they also may simply need prodding to get to deeper significance of the experience. Sure, my students can read Keats at home and take notes on his short life and pass a test.
    But when my students visited his house--seeing his medical certificate, seeing the room where he nursed his brother until death and then waited for his own, seeing his ring that Fanny Brawne wore for the rest of her life--they talked about the man's bravery and wrote papers about themes in his poetry that I've never had a student write about state side. I found one of the students moved to tears bu what they learned there. I'm just NOT that good in lecture.
    I also know that even a pub can be an eye opening place for students: when a bunch of drunken men shout, "Hey! Americans!" when three girls look in the door of a pub, it was eye opening (and a little scary) for them to face the stereotypes of their own culture abroad.
    Study Abroad can be a lost experience on some students--but for the open and curious, and for the students encouraged to ask questions--it is life changing. I know---I was a student from a poor, rural place whose experience abroad shaped the rest of my life.

  • Learning in other countries
  • Posted by Fred Flener , Retired on June 1, 2007 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Thoreau once said, "(Formal education) makes a straight-ditch cut of a meandering brook." Much of what we learn when we travel is that "meandering brook." Now we want to make sure such programs are producing the "straight-ditch cuts." If a student spends a year at Cambridge, or in Frankfort, and he/she doesn't learn whatever we are pre/post testing for, so what?

  • I think we all agree on some basics
  • Posted by LArry on June 1, 2007 at 1:25pm EDT
  • Fred, I think everyone here pretty much understands that many students going abroad are treating it like a vacation, and the schools are treating it like a cash cow. (It has gotten to the point where putting certain programs on a “resume” detracts from an applicant’s worth.) Personally, I think that study abroad is a waste of time unless there is something that can’t be learned in the US. If you just want to hang out in another country (or learn another language), you don’t need the school to babysit you.

  • I DON'T THINK WE ALL AGREE ON SOME BASICS
  • Posted by Helen on June 1, 2007 at 2:05pm EDT
  • And it's attitudes like yours, LArry, that make study abroad necessary.

  • attitudes ?
  • Posted by Larry on June 1, 2007 at 3:40pm EDT
  • Helen, What is that supposed to mean? Is that some kind of insult? What attitudes?

    I have nothing against studying abroad. However, I think that there should be actual studying that can’t be done at home. In many fields one must go abroad to do some research or learn things from people that are not available stateside.

    On the other hand, I think it is a disgusting waste of resources to send kids abroad and pretend that they are learning when they are just partying with the same people they would party with at home. Right now, only word of mouth informs employers and graduate programs about which schools offer “high road” programs. Real accreditation and real information on specific programs will allow students to determine in advance whether a program is a party program or an actual educational enterprise.

  • A Matter of Balance
  • Posted by Maggie on June 2, 2007 at 12:35am EDT
  • Study Abroad is beneficial on measurable and immeasurable levels. Important personal and academic learning can take place away from a student's comfort zone. More often than not it is the personal learning (that which can not be assessed statistically) that impacts and shapes the student's worldview, and thus provides the backbone for his educational experience abroad.

    However, in terms of the institutions, a school needs to plan and implement study abroad programs that should reflect the values and aims of the school. The overall goal of study abroad needs to be more than just making the school "internationalized". It is important for the school to be able to assess its programs to assure that it attains it goals and does provide some academic benefit to its participants. If a school sends students abroad freely without monitoring their programs and outcomes, then, indeed the school is just sponsoring a big American party abroad.

    I think we need to focus on the balance of how to monitor study abroad programs, while also remembering the human side of the equation.

  • Study abroad!
  • Posted by Fred Flener , Retired on June 2, 2007 at 6:05pm EDT
  • I suspect studying abroad is as varied as college life on any campus. What someone gets out of it depends on the student. All I was saying is that why must we decide what is "learned?" when one goes abroad? Why must we choose the most narrow path? If a student thinks going to London is simply a new location to party and carries back none of the culture, I feel that student missed a golden opportunity. The student who visits Parliment and sees first hand what "back benchers" do to a prime minister, or go to Old Bailey to see the wigged baristers, they are getting more of their education than simply reading about it in a text, or hearing someone lecture on the topic. Will the math or chemistry be better in England? Maybe, maybe not, but then the math was always better in my class than it was in Professor Jones' class.

    However, I have personally always preferred a broader liberal education rather than a narrow controlled training. It is just so much more difficult for us experts to know what a student learns in one of those open-ended marshmellowie courses, so we prefer the tightly controlled courses in which every student is taught precisely what they are expected to know. Yet we know that those curious, irrascible students who never do what we want them to do are the one we remember most. It's not Thoreau, but George Bernard Shaw (In Man and Superman) wrote, "The reasonable man tries to adapt himself to the world. The unreasonable man tries to adapt the world to himself. Thus, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

  • Posted by Larry on June 3, 2007 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Fred, An undergrad that watches barristers in the Old Bailey will, quite frankly, be wasting her airfare. Sure, they might come back telling people how “wonderful” it is, but after you quiz them for ten minutes or so on basic British trial procedure, you will see that they just acted like a tourist. I actually have done this. Obviously, should an American lawyer wish to pursue an organized course of study in England on the same terms that a British barrister would, things wouI am not saying that study abroad programs should be completely eliminated. But, I am saying that there needs to be more accountability, and schools need to tell students, up front, whether it will be a “big American party abroad” and how many full actual professors will be teaching and what their relationships to foreign universities will be. ld be different.

    And, watching parliamentary proceedings can be done without the aid of the school. In fact, you can simply download the transcripts if you want to listen to question time. It also takes considerable study to understand any form of politics on a deeper level than just the public pageantry. So, for example, even in the US, American political scientists have only a superficial knowledge of what lobbyists do, and they have more time and greater access.