Home:
Work
And Study Abroad
Summary of HEFCE Quality Assessment Reports for Russian
Preparation for, and Utilisation of, the Year Abroad
Introduction
The present report is based on a review of 20 Teaching Quality Assessment reports relating to the preparation and role of the year abroad in Higher Education establishments in England and Wales. It is divided into the following sections:
Provision Reviewed by the Reports
The Purpose of the Year Abroad: student activity
and curricular integration
Subject-specific Preparation for the Year Abroad
Assessment and Accreditation
Support and monitoring
After the Year Abroad
NB: The brackets within the text (Q.../..) refer to the reference
number of the original institutional report.
Provision Reviewed by the Reports
Although one of the reports includes postgraduate as well as undergraduate provision (Q171/96 offers diploma and MPhil courses for inspection), the TQA reports concentrate on undergraduate language provision. In 12 out of the 20 reports comments on the provision for Russian were included as part of a general set of comments on the provision for modern languages as a whole. The remaining 8 reports were specific to provision in Russian and East European languages alone. This reflects the fact that Russian often forms part of diet of modern language provision where students may be studying Russian alongside other languages. Students therefore may spend half of their year abroad in Russia and the other half in the country of their second language. In some institutions where single honours degrees in Russian are available, the whole year abroad may be spent in Russia, often broken up into attendance at two separate semester courses.
The reports indicate that students reading Russian at those departments, which were assessed, for the most part go to Russia to attend an intensive language learning course. In many cases, such courses are available through RLUS Ltd. (Russian Language Undergraduate Study).This is an organisation formed by a large number of British University Russian departments who came together to pool their resources and hence maximise the choice of course provision and support for students in Russia. Courses are provided by a number of Russian educational institutions both private and state in a variety of Russian locations and are vetted and monitored by RLUS. Several institutions also have direct relations with Russian educational establishments which they have developed independently e.g. Q170/96 refers to
"effective collaboration with Russian institutions of higher education in the provision of opportunities for students to study abroad" as a positive feature of the provision of Russian language studies. Certain other possibilities exist for students of Russian at selected institutions: Q199/96 describes the opportunity for students of other disciplines such as engineering to gain experience of Russian as well as subject-specialist knowledge, where possible; Q34/96 refers to the possibility certain students have to study Russian and teach English in Russia in the second semester of their third year, as well as the possibility of work placements in the future. Additionally, where students are unable to spend either one or two semesters in Russia as part of their programme, support is given by certain establishments for students to attend a vacation course (e.g. Q240/96). Such vacation courses are also offered by some universities at the end of an ab initio course in the first year to improve language and other skills and to prepare students for the year abroad (e.g. Q251/95).
The Purpose of the Year Abroad: student activity
and curricular integration
In most cases the outcomes and aims of the year abroad are articulated in terms of improved language awareness and ability. Q21/96 draws attention to collaboration between the British and host institution "to provide a full language course for its students whilst they are in Russia". In some reports reference to the development of knowledge of the culture, history, society and politics of Russia is more explicit: Q66/96 refers to the development of "associated knowledge"; whereas Q117/96 sees the year abroad as playing a major role in acquiring advanced ability in the language and appreciation of its social and cultural contexts.
The year abroad is clearly identified by the assessors as an important and relevant part of the curriculum, where it contributes towards the attainment of learning aims: in Q37/96 the assessors conclude that "the placement year abroad is well integrated into student programmes and contributes substantially to the achievement of the aims and objectives". However, there are reports in which the assessors recommend much stronger and clearer integration of the year abroad into the curriculum. Q171/96 points out that the year abroad arrangement as it stands is not fully integrated because it does not represent a prerequisite for further study. The assessors suggest that fuller integration would signify an improvement in the quality of education. Similarly, the assessors recommend in Q240/96 that the function of the year abroad in the curriculum be more clearly addressed.
The place of study abroad in the curriculum sometimes varies according to the needs of the students, particularly in relation to their previous experience of Russian language learning. Q105/96 mentions that ab initio students spend a shorter period in Russia in year two and not the integrated year abroad followed by other students, due to the fact that they have an intensive preliminary year of Russian. This is not seen as disadvantaging the students. In Q135/96 the length of time spent in Russia varies according to the type of degree course followed and the level of language skill on entry. The periods range from one year to one semester or to the duration of a vacation course. Q236/96 states that the duration and timing of study abroad depends on major-minor combinations. Russian major option students undertake a year abroad, whereas minor option students undertake a 6-week study trip in the summer vacation at a foreign language centre. Generally the reports indicated that difference in pre-entry experience of Russian was not reflected in a difference in students' ability in the language after spending a year abroad in the target environment (see Q170/96, Q66/96). In addition Q251/95 states that "final year achievement in language is influenced by the extent to which the year spent abroad has been put to good use."
Subject-specific Preparation for the Year Abroad
The nature of the students’ preparation should adhere to the aims and objectives of the degree programme. However, these vary from institution to institution: some departments set great store by the year abroad as a contributor to their aims of providing "contemporary, practical and vocationally-oriented courses" (Q37/96) and/or as part of the study of practical language and progression from foundation courses in literature and related studies to more advanced options (Q20/96). The period abroad gives the student the opportunity to apply or further develop what s/he has already learned but in a Russian native environment.
When talking of modern languages in general some of the reports demonstrate that the skills individual institutions try to develop may be initially directly relevant to the nature of the year abroad: Q45/96 refers to better preparation in IT skills required by some placement employers. This, however, is a demand which is not typical of the language and culture-based courses offered during the year abroad in Russian universities and supported by most UK universities.
Pre-year abroad preparation often takes the form of language instruction for two years in parallel with the study of options in literature, culture, history and current affairs (see, for example, Q20/96; Q162/96 refers to language studied with "nation studies"). In some cases this associated knowledge (such as history, culture, politics) is seen as providing "contextual awareness" for linguists (Q90/96). Often language and socio-cultural awareness courses are combined: report Q219/96 refers to an integrative approach in a Russia Today option, where classes in social issues are conducted through the medium of the language. Indeed, the benefit of combining well-structured and considered language instruction at level two with awareness of socio-political issues is underlined by assessors (Q99/96).
Also of great benefit in preparation for study abroad are classes in the development of oral skills, as are the oral presentation courses referred to in Q117/96 and Q135/96. The value of such classes was strongly appreciated by students in Q117/96 insofar as it helped them to prepare linguistically for the year abroad and allowed them to develop a number of marketable and vocationally oriented transferable skills. In some departments such classes involved the integration of incoming native-speaking students into bilingual oral-aural classes (Q90/96).
Assessment and Accreditation
Reports indicate that, whilst the year abroad is assessed in most institutions, this is not a universal arrangement. Where there is no assessment of the year abroad, the assessors encourage the department in question to introduce "some uniform system of assessment for work done during that period" (Q135/96). One report (Q251/95) also acknowledges difficulties linked to the lack of credit rating for the period spent abroad.
Where there is assessment for the year abroad, the assessors see the submission of work during that time to be of value: Q66/96 details "thoughtful organisation", where "incorporation of the assessed assignment during the year abroad provides a valuable educational objective". However, the assessors underline that there should not only be consistency regarding the approach of some institutions to assessed work during the year abroad (across departmental sections), but also to the nature, status and weighting of types of assessment (Q240/96; see also Q236/96 for concerns regarding comparability of achievement and assessment, especially of year abroad projects).
Assessment for work completed during the year abroad tends to take the shape of three exercises: (i) written work, to be completed during the trip; (ii) dissertation or other project work, a final version of which is often submitted after the year abroad; and (iii) oral assessment (upon return to the UK). The arrangements for written work (such as essays) vary: this may be sent back to the UK for marking by home-based staff, who return it to the student (Q99/96). Alternatively, students undertaking a dissertation or project may use the year abroad to collect information, with the project completed upon return (in the fourth year) to the UK (Q170/96, Q21/96, Q117/96). Written assignments may be written in the target language (Q105/96; many of the reports do not specify the language used in the assessed essays).
In many instances, assessment takes the form of a combination of criteria: Q90/96 refers to a combination of year abroad project work with the presentation of an oral report upon return. Such combinations, and the accreditation system concerned, were viewed favourably by assessors: Q162/96 details how attendance at a course in Russia provides 50% of year three credits, with the other 50% taking the shape of an oral exam based on the student's project preparations and conducted by a visiting member of staff. The writing-up of the project (under controlled conditions) in the fourth year "ensures continuity of academic progression".
It should be noted, however, that where the year abroad is a credited part of the overall degree and assessed as such, and where the assessment arrangements allow for assessment by Russian partner institutions (with scales comparable to those used at the UK University), the assessors suggest careful consideration be given to ways of securing parity of assessment between the UK and host institutions (Q34/96).
Support and monitoring
Student support for the year abroad encompasses not only guidance and assistance rendered to students during the year abroad, but also measures taken by UK institutions to brief and inform students in advance of their studies abroad. In this connection, the majority of departments offering study trips or other placements in Russia provide briefing meetings and documentation on the organisation of the year abroad and life in Russia. For those departments using RLUS much of this documentation is provided by that organisation. A number of universities offer students going out to Russia the chance to meet those students who have returned from their own year abroad (certain TQA reports document the requirement that students compile reports for the relevant department and/or for subsequent study groups' information e.g. Q34/96, Q236/96, Q45/96). Few institutions appear to carry out research into the nature of the year abroad, one exception being a reference in report Q219/96 to a study of language skills and the year abroad as part of an ongoing language project's needs analysis. In some cases assessors suggested the need for more systematic evaluation of the year abroad e.g. Q105/96.
Various methods of maintaining contact between home institutions and students during the year abroad are employed. Some institutions believe that the need for students to provide written (often project) work for assessment and return by tutors is a way of keeping UK-based staff aware not only of academic needs, but of other student requirements (e.g. Q105/96). Others appoint placement officers, who maintain contacts with students throughout their stay (Q236/96). In addition, several universities rely on local pastoral care in addition to staff visits as a means of monitoring student progress and problems (e.g. Q34/96). The precise nature of staff visits is not entirely clear from the reports, although one (Q20/96) states that staff visit the host institutions, attend classes, speak privately with students and negotiate teaching programmes, an arrangement which the assessors believe to be "thorough". Typically staff visits are undertaken by the UK department individually or by representatives of RLUS (see Q219/96). The latter also organises liaison officers in Russia to look after students and provide pastoral care.
The assessors' reports particularly underline the requirement for the year abroad not only to be supervised, but systematically monitored, and for there to be effective communication between the student and the UK institution during this year. One report recognises that the year abroad provision for modern languages generally could be improved by providing a well-organised programme of contact and a timetable of staff visits to avoid student isolation (Q15/97); whilst others recommend systematic monitoring as a means of improving provision (Q105/96, Q171/96). This is complemented by other measures which are regarded as beneficial for modern languages in general: Q34/96 points to the speedy resolution of problems by arranging a regular visiting schedule, with visits early in the semester preferred by students; Q20/96 also suggests that appointed staff members help to deal with problems swiftly; whilst Q162/96 states that students "appreciated the trouble taken to match their special needs and interests to an appropriate continental institution" (for provision in Modern Languages). Q34/96 gives an example of what the assessors saw as "comprehensive and conscientious arrangements for students during their period of study in Russia": after extensive briefing (see next paragraph), certain members of academic staff in the host institution, some of whom have taught in the UK University, agree to provide pastoral support, and a student ‘leader’ is appointed for liaison with Russian staff; additionally, UK staff regularly visit students.
No less systematic should be the preparation for the year abroad: whilst Q251/95 highlights students' support for a three-week placement in Russia as good preparation for the year abroad, students complained that there was inadequate briefing for the year abroad. This criticism is echoed in report Q37/96, in which it is stated that certain students complained about inadequate preparation for and poor communication during the year abroad, despite the "positive impression given by staff in discussion with the assessors". The models of year abroad preparation most appreciated by assessors tended to involve a series of briefings, including meetings with students recently returned from the year abroad and access to the latter students’ year abroad reports. The meetings should occur well before departure. These are supported by up-to-date documentation either provided by the individual university and/or provided by RLUS to help students with possible administrative obstacles and cultural changes. In addition, guidance is given relative to individual countries, with individual needs considered, where possible (see Q105/96). In addition, Q251/95 suggests that special guidance for mature students on the importance of the year abroad forms part of a valued pastoral system.
After the Year Abroad
The way in which the year abroad is integrated in terms of accreditation and assessment in the overall degree programme is discussed in section (iv). The academic benefits of study abroad as a means of applying and developing skills, and of preparing for the final year, are discussed in the reports. Q162/96, for example, refers to the added value of the year abroad as it was demonstrated in final year and concomitant project performance. Q117/96 underlines the high quality of "extended essays and work produced during, and as a result of, the year abroad".
The assessors also note that the year abroad allows for more than the development of academic skills: report Q99/96 indicates that provision in the department offered could be improved by addressing "the need to build more fully on the value gained by students during their year abroad" in the fourth year. This value suggests a variety of skills such as those associated with independent learning and research.
In addition, the assessors' reports noted that some institutions are taking steps to develop further the other, more transferable, skills associated with the year abroad: Q251/97 positively describes how careers advice is given on how to market year abroad skills, and how the department concerned has contributed to the design of a transferable skills module. Other reports refer to the development of transferable skills as part of an overall programme of study, including the year abroad, which may or may not involve a work placement (Q37/96). Q15/97 also indicates that the department concerned offers a lecture on career options for linguists in the first semester of the final year, and arranges other seminars, workshops, interviews and visits from prospective employers. Such provision is available to students of a variety of languages, and only after the year abroad. On the whole, however, there is little information provided in the reports in general on how the experience of the year abroad can be further developed in terms of marketable and transferable skills. This may be related to the nature of the study abroad, which tends to be language and culture course-based and to the degree of collaboration between UK and host-establishment, which varies.