1. Introduction
As the title suggests, in this plenary paper I will make a plea for a much stronger connection between study abroad research and practice, both in Asia and beyond. Similar to many contemporary study abroad researchers, I am convinced that this is essential to optimize the language and intercultural learning of student sojourners. After providing a definition of study abroad, I will identify some common understandings and indeed myths about study abroad learning and then review some recent research findings that challenge these idealistic notions. Many studies, including my own, are pointing to the need for interventions to help students make the most of international educational experience. I will argue that applied linguists and intercultural educators can play a vital role in shaping the way sojourns unfold. The remainder of my paper will center on two research-inspired courses that I have developed in Hong Kong to deepen and extend the language and intercultural learning of tertiary students who study abroad. I suggest that, while developed in an Asian context, the lessons learned are apt to be relevant for study abroad educators and students in other parts of the world.
2. What is meant by study abroad?
The literature on international education is replete with many definitions and conceptions of study abroad. In this plenary, it will refer to ‘a subtype of education abroad that results in progress towards an academic degree at a student's home institution’, excluding ‘the pursuit of a full academic degree at a foreign institution’ (Forum on Education Abroad 2011: 12). In some parts of the world this is known as ‘credit mobility’ (European Commission 2015). Hence, I will focus my talk primarily on short-term sojourners, that is, those who study and reside in the host country for an academic year or less, although much of what I will say may also be relevant to longer-term international students.
3. Common expectations and aspirations for study abroad
At the Chinese University of Hong Kong, in the last two decades, I have participated in countless screening interviews for students who have applied to join a study abroad program (e.g., credit-bearing summer language immersion, faculty-led sojourn, a semester- or year-long international exchange program). Invariably, the applicants are asked to discuss their aims and expectations for the sojourn and explain why they wish to study abroad. Over the years, I have been struck by how similar the responses tend to be. Comments like the following are typical: ‘I'd like to go abroad to experience life in another culture and improve my English (or skills in another language)’. ‘I want to make friends with people from other language and cultural backgrounds’. ‘I want to experience another way of life’.
Each year we have nearly 1,000 international students on campus so I then usually ask the applicants if they have interacted with any of them in or outside of class. With great candor, most of the interviewees concede that they have had little contact with non-local students. They then quickly remark that they are looking forward to making intercultural friends when they study abroad. When probed about plans to diversify their social networks, it is evident that they have given this little thought. Many seem to believe that intercultural friendships will happen like magic when they are in the host environment. Along similar lines, the applicants often comment that they expect to experience significant gains in their L2 proficiency, especially their listening and oral skills, because they will be surrounded by the host language in daily life.
In-depth interviews with outgoing international exchange students from Hong Kong and Mainland China have revealed similar expectations and aspirations (Jackson Reference Jackson2015a, Reference Jackson2016a). Prior to venturing abroad, most assume that they will be fully immersed in the host language and culture and, by the end of their stay, many expect to morph into more sophisticated, interculturally competent, global-minded bilinguals. Significantly, most also demonstrate little or no awareness or understanding of language and culture learning strategies that could facilitate this transformation (Jackson Reference Jackson2016a). Scholars in many other contexts have uncovered comparable pre-sojourn beliefs, aims, and desires so this phenomenon is certainly not unique to Hong Kong or Greater China (e.g., Kinginger Reference Kinginger2009; Allen Reference Allen and Kinginger2013; Coleman Reference Coleman and Kinginger2013) It is not unusual for students to have unrealistic expectations about study abroad learning, but what about educators and administrators?
With the advent of accelerating globalization and the push for internationalization across the globe, institutions of HE are spending a lot of time, energy, and resources to increase participation rates in study abroad programs. On their websites, study abroad is usually portrayed as a fun-filled time with many wonderful adventures shared with intercultural friends. In this promotional material, it is evident that participants are expected to become more global-minded and interculturally competent while enhancing their L2 skills in an exciting, often pristine, environment (Jackson Reference Jackson and Jackson2012; Diao Reference Diao, van Campernolle and McGregor2016). Buying into the ‘immersion myth’, scant attention is typically paid to the quality of sojourn learning. Hence, most institutional data collection in relation to study abroad consists of the administration of student satisfaction questionnaires (e.g., questions about housing and other facilities) and the actual learning experience is still largely ignored (Bolen Reference Bolen and Bolen2007; Deardorff Reference Deardorff2015).
These idealistic notions are not confined to university leaders, policy makers, and international program administrators: convinced of the benefits of immersion, L2 teachers frequently advise their students to spend some time studying in a country where the language is widely spoken. German language teachers, for example, may advise their students to study in Germany as they imagine that the sojourners will gain ample exposure to the language in daily life. As noted by Coleman (Reference Coleman and Kinginger2013: 26),
Language learning through study abroad relies on the expectation that massive exposure to the L2 will lead to L2 acquisition, exposure both in interactions with native and expert speakers of the L2 and non-interactive input from the L2 environment.
Largely due to the expectation of immersion and a strong belief in the transformative dimension of international experience, most university students are still sent abroad with very limited intercultural guidance or preparation for the use of the host language in informal, social situations. If a pre-departure orientation is provided, it typically centers on logistics (e.g., the transfer of academic credits, health, and security issues) with only brief mention of adjustment challenges. Once students are abroad, the host institution may offer a welcoming session for international students, but then the newcomers are generally expected to adapt to the new environment on their own. Most often, the re-entry phase is ignored as the home institution expects returnees to quickly settle back into familiar routines (e.g., Meyer-Lee Reference Meyer-Lee and Anderson2005; Bathurst & La Brack Reference Bathurst, La Brack, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012; Lou & Bosley Reference Lou, Bosley, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012; Paige & Vande Berg Reference Paige, Vande Berg, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012). While students, educators, and administrators often have high expectations for sojourn learning, what does study abroad research tell us?
4. What does the research tell us?
The findings from many recent studies challenge the utopian vision of ‘immersion’ and the ‘automatic personal transformation’ of student sojourners (e.g., Kinginger Reference Kinginger2009; Jackson Reference Jackson and Jackson2012; Paige & Vande Berg Reference Paige, Vande Berg, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012; Allen Reference Allen and Kinginger2013; Jackson Reference Jackson2015a). Increasingly, study abroad researchers are discovering that a complex mix of internal and external elements is resulting in divergent outcomes, and transformative learning is not assured. Contrary to their own expectations and those of many educators and administrators, in some cases, students return home with reinforced stereotypes and little interest in using their L2 to engage in intercultural dialogue (Block Reference Block2007; Jackson Reference Jackson2008, Reference Jackson2010, Reference Jackson and Jackson2012).
Individual differences in terms of such aspects as motivation, willingness to communicate in the host language, and the use (or non-use) of language and culture learning strategies are just some of the many elements that can lead to starkly different developmental trajectories among student sojourners. With limited sociopragmatic awareness and intercultural competence, communicating with people who have a different linguistic and cultural background may lead to misunderstandings, misattributions, and hurt feelings. Students may then choose to avoid intercultural interactions and valuable learning opportunities for both local and international students evaporate. While newcomers may wish to develop friendships with locals, many find this difficult and end up spending most of their free time with co-nationals either face-to-face or online (Brown Reference Brown2009; Hendrickson, Rosen & Aune Reference Hendrickson, Rosen and Aune2011; Gareis Reference Gareis2012; Vande Berg, Paige & Lou Reference Vande Berg, Paige, Lou, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012; Coleman Reference Coleman, Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura and McManus2015).
With rapid advances in information and communications technology (e.g., the internet, social media), the nature of study abroad has changed dramatically in recent years (Donatelli Reference Donatelli, Hoffa and DePaul2010). In view of that, many study abroad scholars and L2 educators have pointed to a noticeable reduction in the ‘immersion’ experience as student sojourners can now choose to remain closely connected to their first language (L1) and home country throughout their stay abroad (e.g., via Skype or QQ Chat) (Knight & Schmidt-Reinhart Reference Knight and Schmidt-Rinehart2002). As Coleman & Chafer (Reference Coleman and Chafer2010: 165) observe, ‘thanks to telecommunications technologies, abroad is less abroad than it once was.’
Besides agency and an array of individual differences, multiple external factors can influence the quality of sojourn learning (Jackson Reference Jackson2008, Reference Jackson2010; Kinginger Reference Kinginger2009). For example, the degree of host receptivity (e.g., how welcoming hosts are) can significantly impact the access that newcomers have to local practices; this, in turn, can affect intercultural attitudes and the willingness to engage. Contemporary study abroad researchers now recognize that full immersion in the host language and culture is not guaranteed and sojourn outcomes are highly variable. While some individuals experience gains in L2 proficiency, intercultural competence, and global-mindedness, many others do not appear to have benefited from their stay in the host country, at least not in the immediate aftermath. Study abroad learning is much more complicated and variable than is often assumed.
Since 2000, I have been conducting my own ethnographic and mixed-method investigations of the study abroad learning of students from Hong Kong and Mainland China and, more recently, our incoming international exchange students who come from many parts of the world (Jackson Reference Jackson2008, Reference Jackson2010, Reference Jackson2015a, Reference Jackson2016a). Over the years, I have collected and analyzed diverse types of qualitative data (e.g., application essays, sojourn diaries, interview transcripts, responses to email prompts, reflective essays). As well as administering survey questionnaires (e.g., Jackson Reference Jackson2015a, Reference Jackson2016a), at various stages of the study abroad cycle, I have also employed the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), a cross-culturally validated psychometric instrument, to measure intercultural competence (Hammer Reference Hammer, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012). Similar to many of the studies that I have cited (e.g., Paige & Vande Berg Reference Paige, Vande Berg, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012; Allen Reference Allen and Kinginger2013), my research challenges the immersion assumption and points to the need for some form of intervention to bring about more positive sojourn outcomes, such as higher levels of sociopragmatic awareness, intercultural competence, and constructive intercultural relationships.
Bolstering participation in study abroad programs and increasing the number of international students on campus does not necessarily lead to meaningful intercultural interactions and significant growth in L2 proficiency, intercultural sensitivity, and global-mindedness. Accordingly, with recent research findings in view, more and more study abroad researchers are advocating research-based language and intercultural interventions both on the home campus and abroad (e.g., Lou & Bosley Reference Lou, Bosley, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012; Vande Berg et al. Reference Vande Berg, Paige, Lou, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012; Deardorff Reference Deardorff2015; Jackson Reference Jackson and Jackson2012, Reference Jackson2015b).
5. Research-inspired language and intercultural interventions: Illustrative case studies
In light of recent research findings, a growing number of study abroad scholars are calling for a much closer connection between research and practice. Many advocate courses and workshops that center on the host language (e.g., informal, social discourse; sociopragmatic dimensions of L2 use) as well as intercultural interventions, that is, ‘intentional and deliberate pedagogical approaches, activated throughout the study abroad cycle (before, during, and after), that are designed to enhance students’ intercultural competence’ (Paige & Vande Berg Reference Paige, Vande Berg, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012: 29‒30). Interventions may take many forms. At the pre-sojourn stage, for example, there may be pre-departure sessions, workshops, L2/intercultural communication courses, and sharing sessions with study abroad returnees. When students are in the host country, the receiving institution may organize orientations or ‘buddy schemes’ (linking new arrivals with local partners). The newcomers may also have the opportunity to take lessons in the host language or intercultural communication courses that integrate local and international students. For the post-sojourn phase, institutions may offer re-entry workshops or intercultural transition courses to help returning students make sense of their international, intercultural experience and set new goals for the expansion of their L2 and global learning (Meyer-Lee Reference Meyer-Lee and Anderson2005; Jackson Reference Jackson and Jackson2012).
For many years, at my university in Hong Kong I taught an introductory course in language and intercultural communication that was open to students with or without study abroad experience or plans to venture abroad. More recently, my study abroad investigations have inspired the development of several elective courses that have been specially designed to enhance the language and intercultural learning of student sojourners and returnees. ‘Intercultural transitions: Making sense of international experience’ is a blended, 13-week credit-bearing course for returnees as well as incoming international exchange students and ‘Intercultural communication and engagement abroad’ is a fully online, 13-week, credit-bearing General Education course that I have developed for international exchange students to take while they are in the host environment.
5.1 Intercultural transitions: Making sense of international experience
5.1.1 Rationale
My investigations of the language and intercultural learning of both incoming and outgoing international exchange students heightened my awareness of some of the challenges that many face as they adjust (or readjust) to university life in a different environment (e.g., reverse/culture shock, identity misalignments, isolation, unfamiliar roles and responsibilities, a language barrier) (Jackson Reference Jackson and Jackson2012). Even though the number and diversity of incoming international exchange students had increased significantly on our campus, I also observed that there was still limited interaction between local and international students. For these reasons, I decided to create an elective intercultural transitions course that would provide a supportive environment for local and international students to ‘unpack’ their international experience and engage in meaningful discussions about language and intercultural issues.
5.1.2 Theoretical underpinning
The development of the course was guided by multiple theories including poststructuralist notions of identity (Norton Reference Norton2013; Baxter Reference Baxter and Preece2016), experiential learning theory (Kolb Reference Kolb1984; Passarelli & Kolb Reference Passarelli, Kolb, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012), transformational learning theory (Mezirow Reference Mezirow1994, Reference Mezirow2000), and contemporary conceptions of intercultural competence (Bennett Reference Bennett and Savicki2008; Byram Reference Byram and Jackson2012; Deardorff & Jones Reference Deardorff, Jones, Deardorff, de Wit, Heyl and Adams2012).
Poststructuralist notions of identity
Early identity scholars generally viewed identity as singular and fixed by the time an individual enters adolescence (Erikson Reference Erikson1968). Poststructuralists, on the other hand, stress the fluid, relational, and sometimes contradictory nature of identities (Block Reference Block2007; Baxter Reference Baxter and Preece2016; Dervin Reference Dervin and Jackson2012; Norton Reference Norton2013). Young people may give little thought to their identities in their home community; however, if they travel or study abroad and perhaps become a visible minority for the first time, they may become more aware of multiple dimensions of their identities and those of others (e.g., cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national, regional, religious identities) (Block Reference Block2007; Kinginger Reference Kinginger2013; Jackson Reference Jackson2014).
How sojourners define and express themselves is only part of the picture as the people they encounter abroad may view and label them differently from what they expect or would like. Our avowed identity refers to the particular identity that we wish to present or claim in an interaction, whereas an ascribed identity is one that others give to us (or we give to someone else) (Oetzel Reference Oetzel2009). When students study abroad they may discover that their preferred identities are not recognized. For example, they may view themselves as fluent speakers of the host language but host nationals frequently ask them to repeat what they have said and then ask where they are from. Unsettling experiences like this can lead to a questioning of their positioning and self-efficacy (Block Reference Block2007; Jackson Reference Jackson2008, Reference Jackson2010).
Student sojourners who never feel comfortable or respected in the host environment may develop a strengthened national or regional identity, whereas individuals who adjust well to the new environment may experience identity expansion. For example, they may embrace both local and global identities that provide them with a sense of attachment to their home environment and the wider world. Some may acquire hybrid or mélanged identities that integrate diverse linguistic and cultural elements (Bhabha Reference Bhabha1994; Kramsch Reference Kramsch2012; Risager & Dervin Reference Risager, Dervin, Risager and Dervin2015). As noted by poststructuralists, some elements of self-identities are relational and context-dependent and may change over time.
Experiential learning and individual transformation
Experiential learning is based on the notion that experience without reflection is insufficient to propel learners to a higher level of knowledge and understanding (Dewey Reference Dewey1938; Kolb Reference Kolb1984). In the experiential learning cycle, the learner gains concrete experience, reflects on this experience, engages in abstract thinking, and then actively experiments, putting into practice new understandings (Kolb Reference Kolb1984). Hence, experiential learning encompasses ‘a dynamic view of learning based on a learning cycle driven by the resolution of the dual dialectics of action-reflection and experience-conceptualization’ (Passarelli & Kolb Reference Passarelli, Kolb, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012: 138). Put another way, knowledge is derived from ‘the combination of grasping and transforming experience’ (Kolb Reference Kolb1984: 41). This ‘holistic approach to student learning’ (Passarelli & Kolb Reference Passarelli, Kolb, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012) resonates with the work of Jack Mezirow and other scholars, who regard experience as a potential trigger for individual transformation.
Mezirow's (Reference Mezirow1994, Reference Mezirow2000) transformational learning theory posits that individuals who engage in critical self-analysis may experience profound personal change during pivotal life events, such as moving to an unfamiliar linguistic and cultural environment. When newcomers observe and interact with people who have been socialized in a different cultural environment, they may naturally come across unfamiliar actions and worldviews. Individuals who feel under threat may retreat to the safety of their in-group (e.g., co-nationals). In contrast, those who engage in deep, critical reflection may refrain from making snap judgments and develop new understandings that problematize their initial reactions. Further, as they negotiate their identities in intercultural interactions, these sojourners may gradually learn to appreciate and respect diverse perceptions and practices.
Experiential learning and the transformational theory are in line with poststructuralist notions of identity as dynamic, complex, and multiple (Block Reference Block2007; Kramsch Reference Kramsch2012; Norton Reference Norton2013; Baxter Reference Baxter and Preece2016). Scholars who embrace these theories maintain that the experiential-reflective process has the potential to evoke life-altering transformation, including identity expansion (Kolb Reference Kolb1984; Mezirow Reference Mezirow1994; Block Reference Block2007). For example, study abroad students who embrace an open, intercultural mindset may develop a more broadened sense of self, integrating elements from diverse cultures.
Intercultural competence and guided critical reflection
There are many definitions and conceptualizations of intercultural competence (Deardorff & Jones Reference Deardorff, Jones, Deardorff, de Wit, Heyl and Adams2012). For this course, it is defined simply as the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately with individuals who have a different linguistic and cultural background (Byram Reference Byram and Jackson2012). To propel students to higher levels of intercultural competence, interculturalists (e.g., Bennett Reference Bennett and Savicki2008; Guilherme Reference Guilherme and Jackson2012; Hammer Reference Hammer, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012, Reference Hammer2013; Jackson Reference Jackson and Jackson2012) recommend intercultural education coupled with experiential learning (Kolb Reference Kolb1984), with critical reflection as a core ingredient (Brockington & Wiedenheft Reference Brockington, Wiedenhoeft and Lewin2009; Passarelli & Kolb Reference Passarelli, Kolb, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012). Thus, these elements underpin the Intercultural Transitions course.
5.1.3 Desired learning outcomes
By the end of the course, I expect that the participants will be able to:
• articulate how their international/intercultural experiences are impacting (have affected) their sense of self and worldview;
• describe theories and models of culture shock, identity (re)construction, intercultural competence, and global citizenship and test these theories and models, using their own international/intercultural experiences;
• assess their language and cultural self-awareness, and set realistic goals for further enhancement of their intercultural competence and global competencies; and
• interact more effectively and appropriately with people who have been socialized in a different linguistic and cultural environment.
5.1.4 Core content and concepts
To help the students achieve the learning outcomes, in the course the students explore the following topics and issues: intercultural adjustment and adaptation, differing cultures of learning, intercultural competence in interpersonal relationships, intercultural interaction and identity change, re-entry/reverse culture shock, cultural marginality, intercultural (communicative) competence, L2 use in academic and social situations, global citizenship, and the marketing of international experience/intercultural/L2 communication skills.
5.1.5 Pedagogical approach
In this blended course, which is supported by an e-learning platform, I strive to create an open, supportive environment to encourage meaningful interaction between local and international participants. Following experiential learning pedagogy (Kolb Reference Kolb1984; Passareli & Kolb Reference Passarelli, Kolb, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012), in addition to personal sojourner accounts (e.g., study abroad essays, case studies, YouTube clips), they are introduced to intercultural communication readings and research reports, which are more objective in nature. During the semester, the participants are encouraged to share their international stories in class and online. Through guided, structured reflection, they are prompted to connect personal experience with relevant theories and incorporate critical elements into their online and in-class discussions, essays, and peer reviews. Drawing on theory and research findings, this pedagogical approach helps the participants make sense of sojourn/re-entry experience. The course also encourages them to apply new understandings in intercultural encounters and set realistic goals for further language and intercultural learning.
At the end of the semester, groups of students (ideally a mix of local and international students) give a presentation on issues related to intercultural transitions (e.g., re-entry, advice for making the most of stays abroad, identity reconstruction, global citizenship). These presentations are open to all students interested in study abroad as well as exchange program administrators. Students are also encouraged to submit an essay to the university's Study Abroad Writing Contest, which I initiated in 2011 with the support of a Teaching Development Grant. Winning essays are posted on the university website so that others can benefit. (See: www.oal.cuhk.edu.hk/index.php/intlegt/promotecuhk/15-study-abroad-a-exchanges-for-cuhk-students/156-cuhks-2011-study-abroad-writing-contest-winners).
5.1.6 Participants
To date, I have offered the ‘Intercultural transitions course’ three times and have taught 55 local and international students. In the first cohort, there were 18 (17 locals and 1 incoming international exchange student from Canada); in the second, 12 (9 locals and 3 incoming international exchange students from Denmark, Japan, and the U.S.), and in the latest one, 25 (10 locals and 15 incoming international exchange students from China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Sweden, the U.K., and the U.S.). The students have represented a range of disciplines, with most nearing the end of their undergraduate studies. Most have been proficient in at least two languages; the majority spoke English as an additional language, with an advanced level of proficiency. Interestingly, the course has become increasingly diverse in terms of ethnicity, nationality, and depth of international/intercultural experience. This is likely due to the active promotion of the course among incoming international exchange students by the university's Office of Academic Links.
5.1.7 Outcomes from three offerings
Near the end of each offering, the students were asked if they would allow me to investigate and report on their learning. They were also invited to participate in a post-course interview that was conducted by a bilingual (Chinese-English) research assistant in the language of their choice. Following my university's ethical guidelines, the students were assured that their decision would not have any impact on their grades; anonymity was guaranteed and they were free to withdraw at any time. Nearly all agreed to participate and were interviewed. Their candid comments afforded insight into their L2 and intercultural learning and their evolving perceptions of their international experience.
All of the data related to each offering of the course was entered into an NVivo database, a software program that facilitates the analysis of hypermedia data (Bazeley & Jackson Reference Bazeley and Jackson2013). The database for each cohort consisted of all online postings including Forum chats with digital images, longer hypermedia posts (written postings with digital images and/or video images embedded), questionnaire survey responses; three reflective essays and peer reviews, oral presentation handouts, my field notes. As well as developing full-group profiles, I gathered together all of the material related to each student to track their individual developmental trajectories.
An analysis of the students’ first essay and Forum chats revealed a tendency to overestimate their level of intercultural sensitivity. I also noted that many of the oral and written narratives were characterized by ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ discourse (e.g., either overly critical of the host culture or the home environment). Early in the course, much of their writing contained stereotypes of host nationals. In class discussions, as well as in their writings, many course participants revealed that they had been having difficulty making friends with people who have a different cultural background. Consequently, they had been spending much of their free time with co-nationals. As we examined theories of intercultural adjustment and identity expansion, they revisited their experiences and the choices they made (or were making) in intercultural situations. They were guided to more critically look at how their language use and attitudes were affecting their interactions with people from a different background. We also discussed external or environmental factors (e.g., host receptivity) that impacted their access to local activities. Sharing experiences (in class and online) helped them to realize that there were more constructive ways to cope with cultural difference and the natural ups and downs of cross-cultural adjustment.
A review of student-generated material (e.g., Forum posts, reflective essays) and the post-course interview and questionnaire surveys revealed that most students gradually assumed more responsibility for their own intercultural attitudes and actions. A comparison of pre- and post-course administrations of the IDI showed that the cohort as a whole experienced gains in intercultural competence (Hammer Reference Hammer, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012, Reference Hammer2013). A content analysis of the oral and written narratives also suggested that this intervention had helped propel them towards a more open, intercultural perspective. The post-course interview and feedback forms offered valuable insight into the impact of various course elements, the process of guided, critical reflection (Moon Reference Moon2000, Reference Moon2004), and the benefits of sharing experiences with their peers, both local and international. Many had developed intercultural friendships with course participants; some had concrete plans in place for excursions together both locally and in neighboring countries.
By the end of the course, most realized that stays abroad do not necessarily lead to higher levels of intercultural competence as agency and host receptivity play key roles in determining sojourn outcomes. The Forum comments and final essays suggested that many were beginning to more fully understand how their attitudes and actions affect intercultural learning and identity expansion.
The most important thing I learnt is how I should adjust my attitude – to be open-minded to differences in culture, beliefs, and personality. Attitude is the major element in deciding how I feel and think towards a certain incident. It can also greatly influence the enjoyment level of my international experience. (female, year-long sojourner, Canada, post-course survey)
In the post-course survey and interview, some also revealed that they had become more aware of gaps in their intercultural competence and resolved to develop themselves further in this area. Many stated that they were determined to take a more active role in intercultural interactions whether in their home environment or in an international setting.
5.1.8 Lessons learned
A systematic review of the material produced in three offerings of the course and the analysis of student comments pointed to the importance of clearly explaining the roles and responsibilities of participants and the unique nature of the course. For example, as critical reflection is a core element it is essential for the students to have a common understanding of what this means. To facilitate this, early on, I show them two study abroad essays written by students who participated in an international exchange program in Madrid and then distribute a review sheet that prompts them to focus on the writing style and depth of reflection. The students quickly see that one essay provides practical advice (e.g., what to pack, what to see, what to avoid), whereas the other one describes several language learning experiences in detail and demonstrates how she developed a relationship with her hosts. A guided discussion of the two essays helps students better understand the nature of the course and what is expected of them in their own writing.
The evaluations of three offerings of the ‘Intercultural transitions course’ suggest that students benefit from guided, critical reflection (online and in face-to-face sessions). This process can heighten their language and cultural self-awareness, optimize their international experience, and extend their learning once they are back on home soil. Courses like this also have the potential to create a safe space for meaningful interaction between local and international students.
5.2 Intercultural communication and engagement abroad
5.2.1 Rationale
I had been teaching the ‘Intercultural transitions course’ for several years when the director of general education at my institution invited me to create a fully online intercultural communication course for our international exchange students to take while they are in the host country. As my investigations of the language and intercultural learning of student sojourners pointed to less than satisfactory outcomes, I decided to take up this challenge.
5.2.2 Theoretical underpinning
When developing ‘Intercultural communication and engagement abroad’, I drew on a number of theories and related methodologies. Similar to the earlier ‘Intercultural transitions course’, I was guided by poststructuralist perspectives of identity (Norton Reference Norton2013; Baxter Reference Baxter and Preece2016), the experiential cycle (Kolb Reference Kolb1984; Passarelli & Kolb Reference Passarelli, Kolb, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012), transformational learning theory (Mezirow Reference Mezirow1994, Reference Mezirow2000), and current understandings of the development of intercultural competence (Bennett Reference Bennett, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012; Byram Reference Byram and Jackson2012; Deardorff & Jones Reference Deardorff, Jones, Deardorff, de Wit, Heyl and Adams2012; Hammer Reference Hammer, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012, Reference Hammer2013).
In this new, fully online course, I adopted a social constructivist orientation to online pedagogy. This approach centers on the belief that learning can be enriched through collaborative scaffolding and guided critical reflection (Lee Reference Lee2009; Harasim Reference Harasim2012; Bryant & Bates Reference Bryant and Bates2015). Social constructivists maintain that comments from peers can spur intercultural development and engagement. Accordingly, as students share ideas and ‘unpack’ experiences online, they are expected to learn from each other as well as the course facilitator or mentor, who provides feedback and challenges them to go deeper in their analysis.
5.2.3 Desired learning outcomes
To help the participants optimize their international exchange experience and make the most of the L2 environment, as the title suggests, the course aims to ease their adjustment and propel them to a higher level of intercultural competence and engagement in the host environment. By the end of the 13-week course, I expected that participants would be able to:
• identify and explain key concepts in intercultural communication;
• describe theories and models of transitions/adjustment, identity expansion, and intercultural competence, and test these ideas using their own and others’ international/intercultural experiences;
• demonstrate more understanding and appreciation of diversity;
• interact more effectively and appropriately with people who have been socialized in a different linguistic and cultural environment; and
• set realistic goals for further intercultural experience and the enhancement of their L2/intercultural competence.
5.2.4 Core content and concepts
Drawing on my research and a review of the literature, the course explores core elements in intercultural communication/transitions, namely: notions of culture, enculturation, transition shock and adaptation, adjusting to differing cultures of teaching and learning, intercultural relationship-building, L2 use in academic and social situations, intercultural conflict resolution, intercultural interaction and identity change, stereotyping and otherization, re-entry/reverse culture shock, intercultural (communicative) competence, global identity/citizenship, and the marketing of international experience/intercultural/L2 communication skills.
5.2.5 Pedagogical approach
With Blackboard as the e-learning platform, when developing the online course, I drew on a core text (Jackson Reference Jackson2014) to develop PowerPoint files and select YouTube links to enhance student understanding of the weekly themes. I also accessed my research database (e.g., selected excerpts from interviews with study abroad students) to design learning material and activities. I then formulated prompts for the weekly Forum and related fieldwork tasks (e.g., observations of verbal and nonverbal communication in local scenes, informal chats with other international students about identity issues), and prepared guidelines for the writing of the reflective essays. So that students would have a good understanding of what was expected, I also prepared reflective rubrics for all components (e.g., Forum, fieldwork, essays) (Stevens & Levi Reference Stevens and Levi2012) and provided feedback online using these forms.
Similar to the ‘Intercultural transitions course’, structured reflection is pivotal in the online course and throughout the semester, I serve as a mentor and motivator rather than a sage on the stage as in didactic forms of education. In this intercultural pedagogy, the mentor provides ‘ongoing support for and facilitation of intercultural learning and development’ (Paige Reference Paige2013: 6). Throughout the course, I raise questions and prompt the participants to think more deeply and critically about their intercultural attitudes and actions, and set realistic goals for future intercultural, L2 interactions. As Lou, Vande Berg & Paige (Reference Lou, Vande Berg, Paige, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012: 415) explain, in this approach, facilitators ‘support students through intentional mentoring and guidance that is designed to help them learn to reflect on themselves as cultural beings, and to become aware of the ways that they characteristically respond to and make meaning within different cultural contexts’. To assist the mentoring process and formative assessment, I draw on the analysis of multiple types of qualitative data (e.g., reflective essays, intercultural journals, sojourn diaries, interviews transcripts portfolios) (Bleistein & Wong Reference Bleistein, Wong, Savicki and Brewer2015; Deardorff Reference Deardorff2015) as well as questionnaire survey responses.
5.2.6 Participants
Three offerings of the course have taken place so far, with an average class size of 21.5. In total, 64 international exchange students have participated: 17 (26.6%) males and 47 (73.4%) females. All of them spoke English as an additional language. They represented diverse faculties and disciplines; nearly 85% were in their third year of undergraduate studies. Forty-six (71.9%) had prior travel abroad experience, while 18 (28.1%) had no such experience. Only 11 (17.2%) had previous study abroad experience (e.g., a summer language immersion program).
Among the participants, 29 (45.3%) were taking part in a year-long international exchange program, while 35 (54.7%) were abroad for a semester. During the course, they studied in the following host countries: the U.S., 16 (25.0%); the U.K., 11 (17.2%), Canada, 9 (14.1%); Australia, 5 (7.8%); Japan, 5 (7.8%); Finland, 4 (6.3%); Germany, 2 (3.1%); Italy, 2 (3.1%); Singapore, 2 (3.1%); and Belgium, Chile, France, Ireland, Korea, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Sweden, 1 each (4.5%). The primary language of instruction in nearly all of their courses was English. Some of the participants also studied an additional language (e.g., Finnish, German, Japanese).
5.2.7 Outcomes from three offerings
With the written permission of the course participants, after the course ended, all of the qualitative data that was amassed during the semester was entered into the NVivo database, along with the post-course interview transcripts and questionnaire survey responses. The data was then subjected to open, thematic coding (Grbich Reference Grbich2012; Creswell Reference Creswell2013) and triangulated with quantitative data. For example, after the qualitative data was coded it was linked to the results of pre- and post-course administrations of the IDI, which measured their intercultural competence (Hammer Reference Hammer, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012, Reference Hammer2013). The qualitative data helped to make sense of the quantitative findings.
The content analysis suggested that the course participants, in general, had become more knowledgeable about core elements in intercultural communication and more sensitive to the use of their L2 in social situations. Most claimed that they had become more willing to initiate intercultural interactions and use the host language in informal contexts. A review of their narratives revealed more detailed descriptions of intercultural encounters, lending support to their assertions. By the end of the course, in their writing and interview, most displayed more awareness of how enculturation had shaped their communication styles and self-identities. Most also demonstrated growing familiarity with strategies to employ to enhance intercultural communication, manage intercultural conflict situations, and build intercultural friendships in an L2. While it is challenging to accurately measure the impact of pedagogical interventions, the findings were encouraging.
By the end of the semester, there was less ‘us vs. them’ discourse. Over time, the participants believed that they had become more adept in communicating with individuals who have a different linguistic and cultural background. Instead of making snap judgments, with online mentoring and peer support, most made more of an effort to discover what lay behind unfamiliar custom. As they became more willing to try new practices and use their L2 in informal, social situations, most appeared to develop a higher level of self-awareness and self-regulation, which many L2 educators and interculturalists maintain are essential for competent intercultural communicators (Bennett Reference Bennett and Savicki2008; Allen Reference Allen and Kinginger2013; Jackson Reference Jackson2014, Reference Jackson2015b, forthcoming).
Significantly, a review of the participants’ oral and written narratives revealed that most had become more mindful of the impact of their own attitudes and behavior in L2/intercultural interactions (Jackson Reference Jackson2016b). By the end of the semester, drawing strength from their online sharing, most were making an effort to be more positive and optimistic in their new surroundings. In their estimation, the online sharing helped to enhance their intercultural relationships as indicated in the following comments:
Through sharing and reading others’ posts, I thought more about my own situation. I would think of applying others’ experiences and actions to improve myself, such as changing ways of getting along and communicating with international friends. I learned from my classmates’ experiences and improved myself. (female, semester-long international exchange student in Australia, interview)
I liked the discussion board and group function as it formed a small community. It provided me a sense of belonging and every week I knew that I needed to visit there, and be involved in the community. I also liked to read other classmates’ posts. It's good to know that many people have similar experiences as you at the same time even though we are on different parts of the planet. By reading others’ posts, it reminded me that it's not so special to encounter difficulties or hardship when living in a foreign land. It helped me to be less moody and to go on. (female, year-long international exchange student in the Netherlands, questionnaire survey)
A discourse analysis of the sixth Forum, which focused on stereotyping and otherization, furnished more evidence of a shift in perspective and the cultivation of a more informed, empathetic mindset conducive to the development of meaningful intercultural relationships (Jackson, forthcoming). The post-course interview transcripts, reflective essays, hypermedia Forum and fieldwork posts, and course evaluation forms provided additional evidence of student learning and offered insight into their perceptions and attitudes towards specific course elements (e.g., cultural mentoring, fieldwork, Forum posts, reflective essays). Most concerns centered on the heavy workload, technical difficulties, and, in some cases, a preference for face-to-face or synchronous discussions. Although many participants expressed the view that the full-class forum was time-consuming and challenging, nearly all believed that they had benefited from the course in numerous ways (e.g., socioemotional support, exposure to divergent views, growth in language and intercultural awareness, increased incentive to initiate and sustain intercultural interactions, a deeper level of engagement in the host environment) (Jackson Reference Jackson2016b). This information is helping to inform revisions of the course.
5.2.8 Lessons learned
The careful selection and sequencing of multimodal learning materials and the development of a supportive online community helped to propel the participants to higher levels of intercultural sensitivity and engagement as evidenced in the analysis of the rich qualitative data. Although some participants complained about the amount of time they had had to spend online, most recognized and appreciated multiple gains from the course (e.g., heightened language awareness, the sharing of both positive and negative international experiences, enhanced critical self-awareness, more sensitivity to the harmful consequences of stereotyping, more willingness to initiate L2 interactions in social situations, more familiarity with diverse language and culture learning strategies). The findings suggest that interventions of this nature can help international exchange students develop a deeper awareness and understanding of elements that can impact the quality of their intercultural, L2 communication.
6. Conclusions
While it is certainly encouraging that HE institutions are creating more opportunities for students to gain international educational experience, in this paper I have argued that much more attention needs to be paid to what is actually happening on stays abroad. Recent investigations have debunked the ‘immersion myth’ and raised serious questions about the quality of sojourn learning (Kinginger Reference Kinginger2009, Reference Kinginger2013; Jackson Reference Jackson and Jackson2012; Coleman Reference Coleman and Kinginger2013, Reference Coleman, Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura and McManus2015). Accordingly, echoing the voices of a growing number of study abroad specialists (e.g., Engle & Engle Reference Engle, Engle, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012; Paige & Vande Berg Reference Paige, Vande Berg, Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012; Vande Berg et al. Reference Vande Berg, Paige and Lou2012), I am calling for research-based interventions to enrich study abroad experience and encourage meaningful interactions between local and international students. As I have illustrated, bridging the research–teaching nexus can benefit study abroad students in numerous ways and, ultimately, help institutions achieve the aims of internationalization. It is also important to acknowledge the challenges involved in accurately assessing the impact of interventions. For this reason, it is incumbent on educators to systematically collect and analyze a variety of indirect and direct measures of student learning.
I would like to conclude this plenary by stressing the vital role that applied linguists and intercultural educators can play in helping students optimize their language and intercultural learning before, during, and after study abroad. While the interventions that I have described in this paper were largely conceived with Asian students in mind, many of the elements (e.g., pedagogy, activities) may be adapted for other languages and populations. It is imperative that professionals in other contexts bridge the research–teaching divide to design, document, and share other schemes that may bolster study abroad learning. We can all benefit by sharing our findings and learning from each other.
Acknowledgements
The development and evaluations of the intercultural communication courses were supported by Teaching Development Grants (#4170356; #4170416) from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Both courses drew on new understandings of intercultural transitions and data generated through General Research Fund project #4440713, which was funded by the University Research Grants Council of Hong Kong.
Jane Jackson is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the English Department at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She is a recipient of the university's 2013 Education Award and the 2016/2017 Hong Kong Research Grants Council's Prestigious Humanities and Social Sciences Fellowship. She serves on the editorial boards of a range of international journals and has authored or edited numerous books, and written many articles and book chapters. She is currently working on two volumes for Routledge that focus on interculturality and study abroad.
