MICHAEL VANDE BERG, PH.D. VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS CIEE STSA KANSAS CITY; JUNE 5, 2010 Supporting the Learning of Business Students on Short-Term Study Abroad

LEARNING OUTCOMES IN STUDY ABROAD IBM’s Institute for Business Values Survey: 1500 CEOs*:  Major issue chief executives face: Global complexity (“interconnectedness, interdependency, complexity”)  Most desired quality/skill: Creativity  What’s needed in their firms: “Creative disruption”:  Disrupt the status quo (“break with existing assumptions, methods, and best practices”)  Disrupt existing business models (“continuous, rapid fire shifts and adjustments in their business models”)  Disrupt organizational paralysis *Kern, F. (May 19, 2010). What chief executives really want. Business Week.

STUDY ABROAD: A TALE OF TWO PARADIGMS The traditional paradigm:  Students learn effectively abroad when left to their own devices (“Learning through chance”*) The Emerging Paradigm:  Most students learn effectively only when we intervene in their learning (“Learning through design”*) *Savicki, V. (2008.) Developing Intercultural Competence and Transformation. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

THE TRADITIONAL STUDY ABROAD PARADIGM: TEACHING- & CONTENT-CENTERED  Teachers are “fonts of wisdom” who deliver content to willing recipients  Students learn through exposure to the new and different  When they don’t learn... It’s their fault!

THE TRADITIONAL STUDY ABROAD PARADIGM: “LEARNING THROUGH CHANCE”  Learning is like a light bulb suddenly switching on  Learning occurs through immersion, through maximizing exposure to the new and unfamiliar

TRADITIONAL GOAL: “IMMERSE” STUDENTS AS FULLY AND QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE

TRADITIONAL BELIEF ABOUT “IMMERSION”: STUDENTS LEARN, SWIMMING HAPPILY ABOUT

BUT WHAT HAPPENS TO MOST OF OUR STUDENTS WHEN WE THROW THEM INTO THE DEEP END?

STAKEHOLDERS ARE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT STUDENT LEARNING What are all those students actually learning over there?  How do we in fact know they’re learning--are student reports of “transformation” enough?  How can home & resident faculty and staff intervene to promote better student learning?

DISCIPLINARY FINDINGS LEAD TO NEW UNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT HOW STUDENTS LEARN  Anthropology  Communications  Psychology  Training  Neuroscience  Critical Theory  Organizational Behavior  Developmental & Experiential Theory  Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)

GROWTH OF STUDY ABROAD RESEARCH*  DecadeStudiesGrowth  1950s34+127%  1960s %  1970s189+62%  1980s377+99%  1990s675+79%  c. 500N/A  [* Bolen, M. (Ed.) (2007). A Guide to Outcomes Assessment in Education Abroad. Carlisle: Forum on Education Abroad, p. 99.]

RECENT STUDY ABROAD RESEARCH  Georgetown Consortium project: Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, Paige  Maximizing Study Abroad: Paige, Cohen et al  American University Center of Provence studies: Engle & Engle  Facilitating Intercultural Learning at a Distance: Lou & Bosley  SAGE study: Paige & Fry  CIEE Longitudinal Learning study: Fry & Paige  CIEE Seminar on Living and Learning Abroad study: Vande Berg  University of Georgia System GLOSSARI project: Sutton & Rubin  Employer Attitudes study: Trooboff, Vande Berg, Rayman  Short-Term Facilitated & Non-Facilitated Learning: Nam  Intellectual learning in short-term programs: McKeown

THE EMERGING LEARNER-CENTERED STUDY ABROAD PARADIGM  262,416 participant*: 400%+ increase  Assumptions: Students learn through frame shifting: through experience, reflection, meaning making, and testing of new meanings For most students to learn effectively abroad, educators need to intervene Institutional success: whether students learn & develop effectively abroad.

THE LEARNER-CENTERED PARADIGM Teachers strategically intervene in student learning:  Actively involve students in the learning process  Identify learning goals  Provide frequent, prompt feedback  Encourage collaboration and cooperation among students “Without the intentional engagement of students little, if any, learning will take place”

THE EMERGING STUDY ABROAD PARADIGM: “LEARNING THROUGH DESIGN” Learning is like a Dimmer Switch Learning is developmental-- the continuous re-framing of experience When students don’t learn —who’s to blame?

ALL OF WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION: If theory and research tell us that, to learn effectively at home, students need teachers to intervene intentionally in their learning... why wouldn’t students need educators to intervene intentionally when they study abroad?

U.S. STUDENT LEARNING ABROAD: RESEARCH FINDINGS  The Georgetown Consortium Project* researched the learning of 1,300 students in 61 programs abroad.  190 home institutions, several providers  $550,000 Title VI funding  Two Learning Domains:  Oral Proficiency (seven foreign languages)  Gains in Intercultural Development  *Vande Berg, M.; Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, R. M. (2009). The Georgetown Consortium project: Intervening in student learning abroad. Frontiers. Vol. XVIII,  *Vande Berg, M. (2009). Intervening in Student Learning Abroad: A Research-Based Inquiry. (M. Bennett, Guest Ed.) Intercultural Education, Vol. 20, Issue 4,

STUDY’S PRINCIPAL INDEPENDENT VARIABLES* ( EACH POINTS TO A POTENTIAL INTERVENTION IN LEARNING) Duration of Program Amount of pre-departure target language study Language of coursework on site ( a. content courses in target language; b. target language courses) Context of academic work (a. location of courses; b. students-in-course composition) Type(s) of housing at program Experiential learning activities Mentoring, or guided cultural reflection  * Engle, L. and J. Engle (2003). Study abroad levels: Toward a classification of study abroad types. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad IX: 1-20.

GU STUDY: OTHER INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Pre-departure and on-site orientations with cultural component Gender Academic Major Prior study abroad experience Prior experience living abroad Amount of Interaction with host country nationals Student perception that the new culture is similar/dissimilar to home culture

GU CONSORTIUM STUDY: TWO HYPOTHESES (TESTING THE TRADITIONAL PARADIGM) #1 Students learn effectively on their own #2 Students learn best when we “immerse” them

HYPOTHESIS 1: SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION  On average, Female Student scores improved one ACTFL sublevel, about twice as much as female control students at home campuses.  However, Male students, on average, improved only about half an ACTFL sublevel, barely more than male control students at home campuses.

HYPOTHESIS 1: INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT  Female Students showed statistically significant—though not particularly impressive— increases in their intercultural development.  Male students’ intercultural scores, however, actually decreased—their scores were lower, on average, than the scores of control students on home campuses.

GENDER AND IDI GAIN (SAPS & CONTROLS ; N = 1290) NMean IDI-1SDIDI-2SDChange score SAPsMale Female Total ControlsMale Female Total Total

HYPOTHESIS 1: IMPACT OF CULTURAL MENTORING

HYPOTHESIS 1: STRUCTURED INTERVENTIONS & INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Programs without intervention at site: IDI Gains GU Study (60 programs) GU Study (61 programs, including AUCP)+2.33 Programs with intervention across program:IDI Gains AUCP learner-centered program Bellarmine/Willamette U Interc. course:+8.19 CIEE Intercultural Course (5 progs., fall 09) +8.91

HYPOTHESIS 2: STUDENTS LEARN BEST WHEN WE TAKE STEPS TO “IMMERSE” THEM Four common “immersion” practices:  Encourage students to enroll in longer programs  Encourage them to enroll directly in host university courses  Encourage them to live with—or provide them with—host families  Increase their contact with host nationals

IMMERSION PRACTICE 1: DURATION  Students who studied abroad for a semester (13-18 weeks) showed the greatest change in their intercultural development—average IDI gains of  Students who studied abroad for other lengths of time—including a year—did not show statistically different changes in their intercultural competence.

“IMMERSION” PRACTICE 2: DIRECT ENROLLMENT Students enrolled in host university courses developed less, interculturally, than those enrolled in other types of learning environments.

N IDI-1SDIDI-2SD Change score Study mainly alongside other US students Study alongside US, International, and host country students Study mainly alongside international students Study mainly alongside host country students “IMMERSION” PRACTICE 2: COMPARISON OF IMPACT OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS (INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT)

“IMMERSION” PRACTICE 3A: HOME STAYS (IMPACT ON SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION)  Students housed either with a) host families or b) other international students made equal oral proficiency gains  Students housed with c) other U.S. students or d) host country students gained less than those who lived with host families or with other international students

“IMMERSION” PRACTICE 3B: HOME STAY AND ENGAGEMENT (INTERCULTURAL LEARNING)  There is a significant relationship between second language gains and the percentage of time students spent with a host family (the more time spent with a family member, the greater the gains)

“IMMERSION” PRACTICE 3C: HOME STAYS (IMPACT ON INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT) Students who lived with U.S. students, or with host country students, made significant intercultural learning gains. Students who lived with a host family or with (non- U.S.) international students did not make significant intercultural gains.

“IMMERSION” PRACTICE 3D: HOME STAY AND ENGAGEMENT WITH HOST FAMILY (INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT)  The more time spent with the host family, the greater the change in students’ intercultural development  (The critical importance of cultural engagement: the same variable associated with oral proficiency learning in home stays).

“IMMERSION” PRACTICE 4: INCREASE CONTACT WITH HOST NATIONALS  Students who spent 26-50% of their time with host country people showed significantly greater gains in their IDI scores than those who spent 1-25% of their time with host nationals.  However, students who spent more than 50% of their time with host nationals actually scored lower on their post-test than on their pre-test.  (Consider the Challenge/Support Hypothesis)

OBSERVATIONS, THEORY AND RESEARCH ALLOW US TO IDENTIFY PROGRAMMING TRAPS TO AVOID  Making programming decisions based on notion that students learn through contact, exposure alone  Buying into the corollary: that we do our jobs well through “immersing” students while they’re abroad  Believing that we adequately prepare students for learning and developing abroad through a few pre- departure and on-site orientation sessions  Assessing learning abroad by relying on student self report alone (“study abroad transformed me”)

THANK YOU! Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication (SIIC: