Work And Study Abroad

Ten Commandments for Staff Responsible for Residence Abroad (RA)

Having consulted more than 50 members of staff, including the residence abroad consortium and the staff on the residence abroad mailbase, there seems to be overall agreement with most of the statements below. The main objections were with statements 2 and 3, concerning assessment; these objections, together with other comments, are given in full after the 10 commandments.

1. The objectives of RA should be clearly stated for each period of RA, and should be communicated to all students concerned.
2. These objectives should form the basis for assessment of the period of RA (although some may be difficult to assess).
3. A selected range of objectives should be assessed using a variety of methods in order to obtain as reliable and valid an assessment as possible (this would probably mean using subjective, more objective, formative and summative methods).
4. Students should be monitored throughout their RA to check on progress and identify any students in difficulty at an early stage.
5. Students should be able to consult staff for advice and information throughout their period of RA.
6. The period of RA should be well integrated into the degree studies.
7. Students should be adequately prepared for their RA prior to departure, and debriefed on return.
8. This preparation should cover all aspects of RA: linguistic, cultural, academic, personal and practical.
9. Student preparatory courses should be appropriate to the students in question, their type of RA (assistantship, work placement, studentship ...), and their location abroad.
10. Students should be given tasks abroad which encourage them to learn about the target culture and to interact with native speakers in the target language.

Most staff agreed with all the statements in their entirety. Mark Bannister, from the LARA Project, Oxford Brookes University, summed up the views of the majority:

"I doubt whether anyone would want to disagree seriously with the ten commandments proposed by Mike Freeman. What is outlined there ought to be basic practice in any self-respecting HEI." (Mark Bannister, 16 September 1999)

Mark went on to point out the problem of interpretation:

"The problems arise when considering how some of them are to be interpreted. No. 6, for instance, says 'The period of RA should be well integrated into the degree studies'. It is not so very long ago since many HEIs treated RA as an 'intercalated year', a break in the course during which it was hoped the students would improve their linguistic skills. Much development work has gone on since then: most places now have properly constructed programmes to ensure that linguistic progress does in fact take place and it is assumed that the language courses in the year following RA will start at a higher level than the end of the year preceding RA. The same cannot be said about the academic work involved in the degree. There are always plenty of reasons, many of them plausible, why it is not possible to expect real progress in the discipline concerned (lack of suitable courses abroad, no control over quality, students on assistantships not able to follow them, etc., etc.). None the less, the problem needs to be faced." (Mark Bannister, 16 September 1999)

Celia Roberts, from Thames Valley University, was also in general agreement:

"Sounds like a solid list to me. I think the 'tasks' in no. ten would need to be strengthened and made more systematic, coherent and leading to a unified and specific goal." (Celia Roberts, 13 September 1999)

Students from different study abroad programmes (see Teichler & Steube, 1991) and from different disciplines are likely to have different objectives for their RA. My guidelines are mainly directed at staff from British universities who are responsible for students on degree courses with a language component, hence the tasks concerning culture and native speakers.

"I have deliberately couched these statements in a way that we may be able to agree on the "basics". I have not said how these should be carried out, as I feel that each university will want to use practices appropriate to their own situation." (Mike Freeman, 20 August 1999)

I agree that the tasks abroad should be clarified and related to the overall aims and objectives of the RA. However, I consider learning about the target culture and interacting with native speakers as being so important (especially for language specialists) that they should be singled out and mentioned separately ( see Naiman et al, 1978; Monshi Tousi et al, 1980; Reiss, 1981 and 1985; Huang & Van Naerssen, 1987; Meara, 1993 and 1994; Freeman, 1996)

Lesley Twomey, from the University of Northumbria at Newcastle, also agreed with most statements, but made some good points about numbers 2, 3 and 4:

"2. Yes, although the objectives may include unassessables like personal development."

"3. We accept the assessment undertaken by our partners so don't have much control over how they assess."

"4. Yes, though it is not always easy to identify those in difficulty from the 'whingers'."

Lis Lillie, from the University of Ulster, was in favour of most statements; she made some long and detailed comments and certainly voiced the concerns of many practitioners concerning the problems of assessment:

" Some quick reactions to your principles for the year abroad:

1. Yes: the students should know why they are going abroad;

2. No: it sounds logical of course but it doesn't work like that because the residence abroad, will cover a number of objectives which will go on to affect the remainder of their degree in ways such as enhanced knowledge and feel for languages but which may not necessarily be tested immediately (the student may just bring back marks or a dissertation which will show some of what they have gained but not necessarily the full picture). Then what about transferable skills; knowledge of intercultural interaction which will certainly enhance employability but again may not be specifically tested;

3. Range of objectives: I don't think that I really agree with this. Again it is theoretically very laudable but we can overtest to the detriment of the learning process when the students get back and what about staff time in the pressurised world in which most of us operate? I do think that the two points on testing should be toned down a bit. They're too prescriptive and do not leave enough openness for different practices and development in ideas on the ways in which various components of a degree may or may not be assessed. I have just talked about this to someone else and they certainly think that there should be some sort of test or viva when the students get back which should certainly test a range of skills (and I do agree with this) but I would still urge against being too exclusive in the language used and demanding too heavy a diet of testing. I still consider that some of the gains may be long term. On reflection I also think that it would be possible to ask students to bring back some sort of portfolio but it is essential that we also remember the situation of the staff in the home institution and what they may be feasibly asked to do. Some testing is motivating but too much becomes a burden to all concerned;

4. Monitoring of students: yes, tabs should be kept on them. Is 'monitor' the right word. Sometimes the onus has to be to some extent placed on the student - to make regular progress reports etc. Also not all institutions have the money for a visit but I suppose 'monitor' can cover a multitude of practices. I am also keen on the idea that the students should assume some responsibility so that the commandments do not simply relate to what is done for the student but should somehow indicate that the framework (set up by staff) includes scope for student responsibility;

5. Consultation: yes of course but one should bear in mind that the sending institution is not actually in control of conditions in the host institution and while there may be a nominated person there we cannot control how they behave. But yes I do agree that they should have access to advice;

6. Integration: there are of course different types of integration and differing levels of it and a multiplicity of valid practices;

7. Preparation and debriefing: - Yes;

8. Yes, but remove 'all' and replace by something like 'the various aspects'. It is always impossible to cover everything within the categories so, legally, a slightly less categorical formulation might be safer;

9. Appropriacy of preparation - Yes;

10. Tasks encouraging interaction and learning about the target culture: depends what this means. Many places are hooked into ECTS which means that the students are doing modules and taking exams so there may not be that much time for the traditional dissertation or indeed other tasks. Obviously I do agree with this but within Erasmus the system is often that the students do the bulk of their work within traditional courses as distinct from trotting round undertaking a variety of other tasks. The logic of Erasmus/Socrates is to assume that most of the teaching and academic work is undertaken through the host university system in exchange implicitly for what we do for their students. This does not mean that we do not set our students some sort of tasks or keep an eye on their academic development: merely that we may be setting less actual tasks.

A further general point which links to what I said in 4: we have to set up appropriate structures and look after our students properly but our training and preparation is in a sense to enable them to cope; to know what to do and where to turn for advice and help in the event of problems; to make them more independent ultimately. Where I would differ from the old-fashioned laissez-faire attitude is that I think that adequate briefing and support and proper academic and pastoral systems are essential so that students know how to behave and have been helped to understand the purpose of the experience and shown how to learn from it and make the most of it. The whole must not become so regimented that all initiative and independence is stifled. In a sense education for the year abroad has to be education for independence but you cannot be properly and successfully independent without a great deal of training towards it." (Lis Lillie, 8 September 1999)

Karel Thomas, from Loughborough University, was also in agreement with most statements, and like Lesley and Lis, thought that some objectives would be difficult to assess and that, in any case, the ECTS made other types of assessment less important:

"Although some of the objectives will be linked to the bases of assessment, there will be objectives which are not, and cannot be objectively assessed. I fully agree with Lis Lillie's comments on this. As we try to embrace ECTS, as a mechanism for making the year abroad less onerous to assess, using the objectives (which may be in themselves subjective) could defeat what we are trying to achieve with ECTS." (Karel Thomas, 21 September 1999)

My own opinion about assessment of a period of residence abroad is that ECTS should be used appropriately. If the marking schemes, norm referencing, tests and evaluation procedures of ECTS and a particular university abroad are appropriate to your students and the agreed objectives, then they should be used. If, however, the objectives of the RA are much broader, and include improvements in language proficiency and intercultural competence, then it would seem logical that ECTS could be used as part of the assessment, probably as an academic component. The system used by the University of Portsmouth, for example, allocates 10 credits for improved oral fluency, 10 credits for improved written competence, 60 credits for increased academic knowledge, 20 credits for increased cultural awareness, 10 credits for increased awareness of the world of work, and 10 credits for personal development. Thus, each student is able to obtain a total of 120 credits for his or her year abroad. It is true that some of these objectives are difficult to measure, but they should not be avoided just because of this difficulty. If we do not assess our objectives, how do we know how successful we have been?

Dr Michael Freeman

9/11/99

Home Staff Students Site Map Contact us Glossary Search

Residence Abroad Project Interculture Project LARA