Michael Vande Berg, Ph.D. Vice president for academic affairs ciee STSA Kansas CITY; June 5, 2010

1. Supporting the Learning of Business Students on Short-Term Study Abroad Michael Vande Berg, Ph.D.Vice president for academic affairscieeSTSA Kansas CITY; June 5, 2010

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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!

5. The Traditional study abroad paradigm:“learning through chance” • Learning is like a light bulb suddenly switching on • Learning occurs through immersion, through maximizing exposureto the new and unfamiliar

6. Traditional goal: “Immerse” Students as fully and quickly as possible

7. Traditional Belief about “Immersion”: students learn, swimming happily about

8. But What happens to most of our students when we throw them into the deep end?

9. 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?

10. 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)

11. Growth of Study Abroad Research* • Decade Studies Growth • 1950s 34 +127% • 1960s 117 +244% • 1970s 189 +62% • 1980s 377 +99% • 1990s 675 +79% • 2000-05 c. 500 N/A • [* Bolen, M. (Ed.) (2007). A Guide to Outcomes Assessment in Education Abroad. Carlisle: Forum on Education Abroad, p. 99.]

12. 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

13. The Emerging Learner-CenteredStudy 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.

14. 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”

15. 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?

16. 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, 1-75. • *Vande Berg, M. (2009). Intervening in Student Learning Abroad: A Research-Based Inquiry. (M. Bennett, Guest Ed.) Intercultural Education, Vol. 20, Issue 4, 15-27.

17. 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.

18. 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

19. GU Consortium Study: Two hypotheses (testing the traditional paradigm) #1 Students learn effectively on their own #2 Students learn best when we “immerse” them

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. Gender and IDI Gain (SAPs & Controls ; N = 1290)

23. Hypothesis 1: impact of cultural mentoring

24. Hypothesis 1: Structured Interventions & Intercultural Development Programs without intervention at site: IDI Gains GU Study (60 programs) +1.28 GU Study (61 programs, including AUCP) +2.33 Programs with intervention across program: IDI Gains AUCP learner-centered program +12.47 Bellarmine/Willamette U Interc. course: +8.19 CIEE Intercultural Course (5 progs., fall 09) +8.91

25. 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

26. 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 +3.4. • Students who studied abroad for other lengths of time—including a year—did not show statistically different changes in their intercultural competence.

27. “Immersion” Practice 2: Direct enrollment Students enrolled in host university courses developed less, interculturally, than those enrolled in other types of learning environments.

28. “Immersion” Practice 2: comparison of impact of learning environments (intercultural development)

29. “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

30. “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)

31. “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.

32. “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).

33. “immersion” practice 4: increasecontactwith 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)

34. 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”)

35. Thank you! Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication (SIIC: www.intercultural.org)