Education Abroad and the Undergraduate Experience

Critical Perspectives and Approaches to Integration with Student Learning and Development

Elizabeth Brewer, Anthony C. Ogden

• Publisher: Stylus Publishing
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781620368299
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

Co-published with This volume focuses on two questions. First, how can education abroad be embedded into undergraduate education so that students experience it as an integral component of their education and something they help shape, rather than as time away from their education and as a commodity to be consumed? Second, how can colleges and universities maximize the educational value of education abroad by forging stronger connections between it and other undergraduate experiences? The volume argues that learning abroad be positioned within the work of the larger institution and students' overall education.Organized within three sections, this volume makes the case that learning abroad must be positioned within the work of the larger institution and students' overall education. In doing so, it questions many current assumptions and stimulates thinking about the power of an integrative approach to education abroad to lead to lasting educative value. An integrative approach requires that students be afforded multiple opportunities and ongoing support to draw connections with their learning abroad with other dimensions of their undergraduate education.Chapters cover topics such as the additive value of integrating multiple HIPs with education abroad to span disciplinary boundaries and promote an array of soft or operational skills; the importance of maintaining the disruptive quality of the encounter with the foreign to enrich study at home; issues of commodification and reciprocity; increasing access to study abroad to community college--particularly adult--populations; facilitating students' social and intellectual development, identity formation, and reflective practice; rethinking orientation programming to emphasize the continuity of learning pre-, during- and post-education abroad; asking fundamental questions about the purpose of education abroad to rethink assessment and its purposes; the faculty role in the internationalization of the curriculum; and developing more intentional relationships with in-field partners and international educational organizations to more effectively connect leaning abroad with other dimensions of undergraduate education.For everyone involved in international education – whether SIOs, faculty, department chairs or deans – the critical questions and new perspectives offered here will inform and shape the growing movement to integrate education abroad with the overall undergraduate experience.

1

U.S. EDUCATION ABROAD

Historical Perspectives, Emerging Trends, and Changing Narratives

Anthony C. Ogden and Elizabeth Brewer

Over time, education abroad has gradually moved from the margins of undergraduate education where only the most privileged students participated, toward becoming a recognized and increasingly valued educational practice that resonates with students of all backgrounds and disciplines. This chapter provides a concise overview of this development, beginning with a brief discussion of the growth and expansion of U.S. education abroad programming, followed by an outline of the distinct periods and notable milestones in its evolution since the nineteenth century. Because U.S. education abroad programming has grown and evolved, the chapter reflects on the changing rationale for why U.S. institutions have invested in education abroad and the key political, economic, cultural and social, and academic drivers that have shaped its direction and scope. The chapter concludes with a forward-looking perspective of the major issues and challenges ahead for the further development and evolution of education abroad programming and practice.

Brief Overview of the Growth and Expansion of U.S. Education Abroad

Education abroad participation is increasingly understood as an essential feature of higher education and along with international student enrollment is often cited as evidence of an institution’s commitment to internationalization. Worldwide, there has been unprecedented growth in the number of students traveling abroad for academic study; according to United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the number of internationally mobile students now exceeds over 4.6 million annually and is expected to continue growing (Institute for International Education, 2018). The United States has long been considered the premiere destination for higher education in the world. Far surpassing that of other host nations, the enrollment of international students in the United States now tops 1,000,000 (Farrugia & Bhandari, 2017). By comparison, only about 46,000 U.S. students studied abroad to obtain degrees from foreign institutions (Institute for International Education, 2018). The outbound movement of U.S. students abroad as part of their home degrees, however, has experienced steady growth in recent decades and has become the mainstay for student mobility from the United States. In 2015–2016, 329,339 U.S. students received academic credit for education abroad, which is up dramatically from the mere 84,403 students in 1994–1995. Despite the growth, the number indicates that only 10% of all U.S. undergraduate students (15% for bachelor’s degree students) will study abroad before they graduate (Farrugia & Bhandari, 2017).

With more than 25 years of sustained enrollment growth, the once traditional junior year abroad (JYA) is largely a phenomenon of the past, and its decline signals a shift in the perceived value of education abroad in regard to the educational continuum. The JYA once formed a critical bridge between students’ general education requirements as first- and second-year students with their more specialized studies in the third and final years. In fact, those who participate in full academic year programs abroad today account for just 2.3% of the total today, while 63% of students chose programs of less than eight weeks in duration and most often during the summer months (Farrugia & Bhandari, 2017). The popularity of shorter durations may suggest that students and their home institutions see a more diminished role for education abroad in fulfilling a significant portion of a student’s education. As discussed in chapter 2, this may also point to why students are increasingly encouraged to engage in multiple high-impact practices, in addition to education abroad.

Whereas international students are primarily drawn to the United States to earn degrees (de Wit, 2008), U.S. students have long been motivated by the idea of seeing the world and experiencing other cultures. U.S. students have been encouraged to learn languages in context, experience world cultures firsthand, develop marketable skills for career enhancement, and expand their worldviews. As international perspectives have increasingly been embedded into the undergraduate curricula, however, students are increasingly being encouraged to leverage education abroad to either supplement or complement their academic studies. While once the majority of students studied the social sciences, humanities, and foreign languages, students who study engineering, business and management, mathematics, and computer science now collectively account for 44% of the total study abroad population In fact, over 60% of the total enrollment represents just three disciplines: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (25%); business and management (21%); and the social sciences (17%). It can be argued that U.S. students today can study virtually any subject in most any part of the world and for nearly any length of time.

The growth and expansion of education abroad over the years has also led to the diversification of the primary modes of student mobility. The most popular modes today include reciprocal student exchanges, consortia programming, provider programs, and faculty-directed programs. Reciprocal student exchange programs have a long history in U.S. higher education, reaching back to 1909 when the Association for the International Interchange of Students was formed to promote exchanges of students among England, Canada, and the United States (Hoffa, 2007). Bilateral and multilateral exchanges continue to offer a relatively affordable way for students to spend a semester or academic year abroad. Also well regarded are interinstitutional consortia programs, or those programs wherein institutions “share one or more education abroad programs within a membership group in order to provide greater access, quality control, and/or cost efficiency in education abroad programs to students” (Peterson et al., 2007). Today, consortia are relatively commonplace with region-specific consortia such as the Kentucky Institute for International Studies (KIIS) and nationwide consortia such as the Institute for the International Education of Students (IES Abroad) and the Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE), both of which work with over 200 public and private U.S. colleges and universities. Similar to consortia, there has been a proliferation of for-profit and nonprofit organizations that offer education abroad programs and services to students. Often referred to as “providers,” these organizations offer a wide range of programs, from island programming to direct enrollment. Many institutions selectively include provider programs in their portfolios of education abroad options. A rapidly growing mode of student mobility in the United States today are faculty-directed programs, with home-campus faculty accompanying cohorts of students abroad and teaching home institution courses. Although these programs are typically discipline specific, short term, and offered during the summer months (Chieffo & Spaeth, 2017), variations are emerging (e.g., semester-length faculty-directed programs, residential courses that have an embedded international travel component). Faculty-directed programs allow faculty to experiment pedagogically and to broaden their international knowledge and experience while giving students an intensive learning experience around a particular topic.

Just as the modes of student mobility have expanded over time, so too have the variety of program experience types. While once study abroad was the catchall term for outbound mobility, the term education abroad is increasingly preferred as a broader category to better encompass the distinct experience types of outbound study that have emerged over time. These in turn serve different purposes within the educational continuum. Today, study abroad more often refers specifically to taking courses abroad that will count toward the home school degree. Depending on student choice and institutional culture and policy, courses may count toward general education requirements and electives or toward majors and minors. Other common experience types include undergraduate research abroad, global service-learning, and international internships. Undergraduate research abroad programming allows students to conduct supervised research in their target disciplines. Global service-learning has long been an interest of U.S. students, reaching back to the latter half of the nineteenth century when American students began to pursue overseas missionary and volunteer service programs (Hoffa, 2007). Today, global service-learning programs generally offer structured service-learning in host communities for academic credit. Similarly, international internships have proliferated in response to growing student demand to develop internationally oriented skills and knowledge to potentially enhance their effectiveness in navigating the globalizing workforce (Farrugia & Bhandari, 2017). Moreover, there are a number of other emerging experience types, such as teach abroad programs that allow students to fulfill student teaching requirements abroad. Students in the health-care professions are increasingly conducting rotations and clerkships abroad in local healthcare contexts that fulfill academic requirements back at home. Global entrepreneurship programs are also emerging as a means to enable students to pursue an entrepreneurial initiative in an international context.

While much attention has been given to tracking overall enrollment growth and the expansion of new modes of student mobility and experience types, there has also been consistent attention placed on understanding the education abroad participant profile and on developing strategies to ensure broader student access and inclusion. For years, the typical education abroad student profile has been a White female majoring in the humanities, social sciences, or business, and studying in Europe. Female students account for roughly 66.6% of the total education abroad enrollment (Farrugia & Bhandari, 2017), a percentage that has scarcely changed over decades, despite efforts to increase male participation. The fact that female students account for only 57% of the total enrollment in U.S. degree-granting institutions (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], n.d.-a) illustrates just how disproportionate these enrollment patterns actually are. Similarly, White students represented 72.9% of education abroad participants, while accounting for only 57.6% of U.S. undergraduate enrollment (Farrugia & Bhandari, 2017; NCES, n.d.-b). Beyond race, ethnicity, and gender, attention has begun to focus on other populations that have traditionally been underrepresented in education abroad programming, namely students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, first-generation students, learning or physically disabled students, community college students, student athletes, veterans, transfer students, and students whose gender identities do not fit traditional categorization. Despite this expanded focus and related efforts to develop strategies to boost participation of underrepresented populations, the general student profile has only modestly changed over the decades.

Overview of the Evolution of Education Abroad Programming in the United States

International student and scholar mobility has been an important element of U.S. higher education since the nineteenth century (de Wit & Rumbley, 2008). The flow of students and scholars into the United States has a long history reaching back to the sons of the early English colonial governors and other administrators. The earliest forms of outbound student mobility from the United States usually resembled the European Grand Tour of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, through which elite Americans traveled abroad to make acquaintances with important families and prepare themselves for eventual leadership roles back at home. From this influential beginning, a high degree of asymmetry in student flows has existed, with many more degree-seeking foreign students coming to the United States than American students studying abroad. As enrollment has grown over time and as mobility patterns have shifted, distinct periods and notable milestones in the evolution of U.S. education abroad programming have emerged.

Early Beginnings, 1910s–1930s

According to Hoffa (2007), the earliest forms of U.S. education involved grand tours for cultural enlightenment, graduate study, and missionary activities. Formal education abroad programming began in the 1870s when faculty at Indiana University encouraged students to enroll in summer courses taught in Europe. Nondegree institutes for international students began to be established in Europe in 1910, some of which continue to this day. The U.S. liberal education tradition of training citizens rather than specialists helped justify overseas study, although as an add-on to the home degree. With the influx of international students onto U.S. campuses post–World War I, the internationalization of U.S. colleges and universities gained momentum. In turn, faculty and administrators who had benefited from enrollment in international institutes initiated the credit-bearing JYA for language acquisition and country-specific learning, as well as issue-focused study tours that crossed borders. Although the number of such programs was small, a precedent had been set for approaching education abroad as combining serious academic study with out-of-classroom cultural engagement. Disruption of the home school educational continuum was avoided by having home school faculty accompany and supervise the students and their studies and arranging for selected instruction by host country nationals.

Post-WWII Internationalization, 1940s–1950s

The period immediately following World War II followed a similar pattern to the period following World War I, with an influx of international students into U.S. colleges and universities, and an outflow of U.S. students, particularly to Europe. As after WWI, education abroad was linked to a desire to develop peaceful relationships with other countries. The scale of student mobility, however, was considerably larger, and new organizations were needed to help manage it. The Institute of International Education (IIE), established in 1919, continued to support international students in coming to the United States and to conduct applied research and policy analysis. To support the outward flow of American students, the Council on Student Travel was founded in 1947 to assist agencies taking U.S. students abroad. By the mid-1950s, it was also bringing international students to the United States and convening stakeholders for international education strategy and policy discussions. A 1967 name change to CIEE would reflect this broader commitment (CIEE, n.d.). In 1948, efforts on the part of colleges and universities, government agencies, and private organizations led to the establishment of the National Association of Foreign Student Advisers (NAFSA: Association of International Educators, n.d.). With an initial mandate to train college and university personnel to assist and advise international students, the term “Affairs” replaced “Advisers” in 1964 to reflect the diversity of actors and efforts within and beyond campuses supporting international students. A reinterpretation of NAFSA’s funding on the part of the U.S. State Department in 1976 allowed NAFSA to include study abroad in its scope of activities.

Beginning after 1945, a number of U.S. federal government initiatives had indirect impacts on education abroad. The 1946 Fulbright Act, which funded inbound-outbound graduate student and faculty mobility, impacted campuses by normalizing educational exchange. If the Fulbright Act deliberately decoupled foreign policy from educational exchange, the 1958 National Defense Education Act (NDEA), passed in response to the Soviet Union’s early superiority in the space race and the launch of the Sputnik satellite, saw education as a matter of national security. Funding addressed weakness in U.S. education, including in basic education, science and math, and modern foreign languages (U.S. House of Representatives, n.d.). Matching funding from the Ford Foundation led to the establishment of over 100 Areas Studies Centers by 1972, when funds could also support undergraduate programs (Hoffa, 2007). The emphasis on language acquisition and country knowledge was consistent with e...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Introduction: The Case for Integrating Education Abroad Into Undergraduate Education
• 1 U.S. Education Abroad: Historical Perspectives, Emerging Trends, and Changing Narratives
• Part One: Critical Perspectives on Education Abroad and its Integration into Undergraduate Education
• Part Two: Supporting Student Learning along the Educational Continuum
• Part Three: Partnerships in Education Abroad Integration
• Contributors
• Index
• Also available from Stylus
• Backcover