Study Abroad and the Second Language Learner

Expectations, Experiences and Development

Martin Howard

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781350104211
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Teaching Language Arts
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Situated at the interface between study abroad and second language acquisition research, this book adopts a threefold thematic focus to study abroad and the language learner, investigating learner beliefs about study abroad, learner experiences of study abroad in relation to a range of individual, cultural and social factors, and the nature of learner development while abroad at an intercultural, personal and linguistic level. Chapters present studies of learners in different geographical contexts, with different first and second language combinations. The studies draw on different methodologies, incorporating quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method approaches. Presenting findings with implications for learner preparation, expectations and support during study abroad, and highlighting developmental issues within second language acquisition, Study Abroad and the Second Language Learner will be of interest to all study abroad and second language acquisition researchers, as well as programme organisers, language instructors and other stake holders.

1

The legal framework of student mobility: How public law makes the Erasmus programme possible

Luca Galli

Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca

Introduction

The Erasmus programme is mainly considered an educational phenomenon, but as a tool of internationalization, it cannot be forgotten that it is, first of all, the result of political will and legislative choices. Its creation naturally passed through the introduction of its legislative framework, which reflected the recognition of education as a key factor for the progress of the European juridical system. On the other hand, the survival and improvement of the Erasmus programme depend on the evolution of this legislation and on the efforts of national public administrations to implement and enhance it. In addition, the courts, both national and European, play a key role in ensuring that all the public institutions involved in the Erasmus process act properly and in accordance with the spirit of cohesion, equality and mutual exchange that has underpinned the programme since its inception.

The aim of this chapter is to reveal how public law has allowed the circulation of millions of students through the Erasmus programme, playing a key role not only in student mobility but also in their ability to integrate in the local communities. In order to address this aim, the research is based on an analysis of how three main factors influenced, and still influence, the creation and the existence of the Erasmus programme: (i) legislative power; (ii) executive power and public administrations; and (iii) judicial power.

The following two sections will deal with the Erasmus legislative framework, from its birth to its latest evolution. Then, a section will be dedicated to the systems of public authorities that, operating on both European and national levels, carry out the implementation of the legislative framework. The final section before the conclusion will analyse some legal cases in order to clarify which other public actions, collateral to the Erasmus programme, might be undertaken to ensure a better integration of foreign students in the national context. Naturally, the starting point of this work must be the European legislation, administrative system and case law. Moving to the national level, the Italian legal system has been chosen as a research context, because recent debate has been brewing in Italian society regarding the possibility for foreigners to access public services on par with national citizens. The consequences of this debate have the potential to affect all kinds of foreigners’ (including Erasmus students’) rights and ability to integrate.

Teaching internationalism: The birth of an idea

According to tradition, Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European Union (who was called to build a new international reality from the ashes of the Second World War), said: ‘If I were to start again, I would start with education’ (Corbett, 2005; Grimonprez, 2014).¹ It is precisely to the immediate post-war period that the roots of understanding the relevance of educating youth about internationalism can be traced, along with the aim of making them better citizens of individual nations, Europe and the whole world (Corradi, 2015). Focusing our attention on the European context, first we should note that the topic of education was not explicitly included in the Treaties of Rome,² but it was left to the discretion of the Member States. Nonetheless, this did not preclude the spread of the need for a more European education, especially for university students, with the aim of completely forming the individual – both as a student and as a person – in order to implement the rise of a new supranational reality.

Against this background, mobility, border crossing and studying abroad in another European country were conceived as unique elements of personal growth. During this first phase (1950s–1960s), universities were the main promoters of international cooperation in higher education, drawing up agreements to allow the execution and recognition of studies abroad. To this end, several meetings between the rectors of European universities (especially Italian, French and German universities) took place reflecting the autonomy of universities to first determine and then implement equivalences between university courses in different nations (Corradi, 2015).

Nevertheless, the path towards Erasmus was not an easy one: not all European states were persuaded by the opportunity to share a common policy in the educational field. The immediate political challenge was to demonstrate that educational cooperation would not imply the standardization of different educational systems, leading to a complete loss of national competence and autonomy (Jones, 2017). In order to overcome resistance based on this opposition, the European Community clearly rejected the possibility of applying the harmonization principle, recognizing multiple times that the variety of educational systems constituted a precious resource that was essential for intercultural education (see the studies commissioned by the EEC [European Economic Community] in the 1970s, Dahrendorf, 1974; Masclet, 1975).

The political and academic communities’ efforts finally led to an important result. Through the Resolution of the Council and of the Ministers of Education of 9 February 1976, there was a first, informal recognition that education fell within the remit of the European Community. The European education ministers agreed for the first time to establish a programme of close cooperation between the educational systems of the EEC. As one of their agreed priorities, the ministers decided to promote joint courses of study between universities and higher education institutions. Therefore, this act revealed the European Community’s willingness to encourage the development of links between universities and to eliminate obstacles to the mobility of students, university teachers and research staff.

The Erasmus programme: Legal framework and evolution

The Resolution of the Council and of the Ministers of Education of 9 February 1976 was followed by ten years of practice and tests in order to demonstrate that the scheme could work despite the diversity of educational systems in the different Member States. During this period, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was called upon to express its view on student mobility and the internationalization of education. In 1985, the Gravier case took place, concerning a French student who wished to pursue a course at a Belgian art school.³ Gravier took the Belgian authority, the City of Liège, to court on the grounds that, as a European national, she should have been given a place on the same terms as Belgian students and not charged a higher fee as a foreign student. The court ruled that the imposition of a charge on students who are nationals of other Member States as a condition of access to university education, where the same fee is not imposed on students who are nationals of the host Member State, constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality, contrary to the non-discrimination principle recognized by the Treaty of Rome. The free movement of students, which facilitates their education and preparation for a particular profession, can indeed be seen as a premise for the free movement of workers (Teichler and Jhar, 2001).⁴

The result of this case was to have a profound effect on the political discussions concerning the legal basis for the EU to promote and finance educational cooperation, highlighting the idea that the free movement of students was closely linked to the central pillars of the growing European system: the free movement of services, goods, capital and persons.

This long and tortuous path finally led to a defining moment for educational internationalization in the form of the Council decision of 15 June 1987. Through this act, the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students, better known as the Erasmus programme, was adopted with the aim of achieving a significant increase in the number of university students spending an integrated period of study in another Member State. The Erasmus programme aimed to promote broad and intensive cooperation among universities in all Member States and, as a result, strengthen the interaction between the citizens of the different Member States, thus consolidating the concept of a People’s Europe.⁵

Articles 128 and 235 of the Treaty establishing the EEC were recalled as the legal basis for this new programme. Looking at them closely, these rules did not directly concern education, but they allowed the Council to lay down general principles for implementing a common vocational training policy that would be able to support the development of the European economy and to take the appropriate measures to attain one of the objectives of the Community, even if the Treaty itself had not explicitly provided it with the powers necessary (Feyen and Krzaklewska, 2013).

Several complaints were lodged against the broad interpretation of the above-mentioned articles legitimizing the intervention of the Community in the educational field (Field, 1998; Lonbay, 1989; Murphy, 2003). Nevertheless, this interpretation was definitively confirmed by the ECJ, which was favourable to the extension of the supranational sphere of competence, anticipating the subsequent evolution of the Treaties. In this sense, Commission v Council upheld the legitimacy of the Council’s decision of 15 June 1987:

It must be held that the measures envisaged under the Erasmus programme do not exceed the limits of the powers conferred on the Council by Article 128 of the Treaty in the area of vocational training. […] It follows that inasmuch as the contested decision concerns not only the sphere of vocational training but also that of scientific research, the Council did not have the power to adopt it pursuant to Article 128 alone and thus was bound, before the Single European Act entered into force, to base the decision on Article 235 as well. The Commission’s first submission that the legal basis chosen was unlawful must therefore be rejected.⁶

In effect, it was only through the Treaty of Maastricht (art. 126, which is today art. 165 TFEU) that the topic of education finally found its place in the Community’s core laws. According to the subsidiarity principle, Member States are responsible for curricula and the organization of education systems, while the Union should play a supporting, supplementary and coordination role. Overall, it explicitly stated that Union action shall be aimed at encouraging the mobility of students and teachers, inter alia by encouraging the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study abroad (SA) (for a critique of the unused potential of art. 165 TFEU, see Grimonprez, 2014). Thus began one of the best-known European programmes, a programme that, according to certain researchers, can be considered the closest to citizens, offering concrete European experiences to students (Fenner and Lanzilotta, 2012).⁷

In the thirty years since its inception, the Erasmus programme has allowed more than three million students to cross national borders and receive grants while they study abroad.⁸ However, the Erasmus programme does not solely have a didactic purpose and it is not only connected to the right to study; it also aims to expand the exchange of people to include the exchange of knowledge, cultures and experiences (for more about the benefits of the Erasmus programme beyond education, see Jacobone and Moro, 2015; Martínez-Usarraldea, Murillo Pausáb and García-López, 2017; Teichler, 2004a). The programme’s success has also helped to shape higher education in Europe, alongside other projects, such as the launch of the Bologna Process in 1999 (ex pluribus, Corbett, 2006), which introduced comparable and compatible study degrees, and the establishment of the European Credit Accumulation and Transfer System (ECTS), which allows students to earn credits when studying abroad that can be applied to their degree at their home institution.⁹

Meanwhile, the programme has evolved and become an element of wider programmes. In the 1990s, it became part of the Socrates programme¹⁰ (which not only aimed at promoting cooperation and mobility in the education field but also aimed at strengthening the European dimension of education at all levels, enhancing the knowledge of foreign languages, encouraging the use of new technologies and promoting equality), and in 2007, it merged into the Lifelong Learning Programme¹¹ (still aiming to improve education and supranational mobility at all levels, so as to enable people, at any stage of their life, to take part in stimulating learning experiences, as well as to develop education and training across Europe).

Therefore, European institutions have continued to promote mobility, which is understood as the principal tool for building a European area of education based on greater employment opportunities, lower poverty levels and, above all, the free movement of people and ideas: ‘Mobility is important for personal development and employability; it fosters respect for diversity and a capacity to deal with other cultures. It encourages linguistic pluralism, thus underpinning the multilingual tradition of the European Higher Education Area and it increases cooperation and competition between higher education institutions.’¹² According to this logic, the last step was the creation of the Erasmus+ programme,¹³ aiming to bring together all the previous European schemes in the fields of education, training, youth and sport, including the international aspects of higher education.¹⁴ The programme features a strong international dimension in order not only to enhance the quality of European higher education but also to promote understanding between people and contribute to the sustainable development of higher education in th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle Page
• Title Page
• Contents 
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Study abroad and the second language learner: An introduction
• 1 The legal framework of student mobility: How public law makes the Erasmus programme possible
• 2 Should I stay or should I go? Factors that influence one’s decision to participate in a student mobility programme
• 3 Study abroad marketing and L2 self-efficacy beliefs
• 4 Close encounters of the third kind: Quantity, type and quality of language contact during study abroad
• 5 Study abroad for secondary and higher education students: Differences and similarities in their interaction with the learning environment
• 6 Assessing the impact of educational support abroad on sojourners’ interactional contacts, L2 acquisition and intercultural development
• 7 The complex challenges of delivering a university-wide intercultural mentoring programme for study abroad students
• 8 Tapping into self-regulation in study abroad contexts: A pilot study
• 9 Structure and agency in the development of plurilingual identities in study abroad
• 10 Learning multiword expressions in a second language during study abroad: The role of individual differences
• 11 When in one’s new country: Examining native-like selections in English at home and abroad
• 12 The role of transparency in grammatical gender marking among stay abroad learners of Spanish and French
• Index
• Imprint