• Tweet

Eric Hartman

Today’s guest post is by Eric Hartman, PhD.  I met Eric several years ago at a global service learning conference and have great respect for his work.  Eric and I are designing a webinar series that will launch in January 2012 – more information will be available soon.  Meanwhile, please enjoy Eric’s piece, which was his “spot on” response to our conversation about the need to do a lot more than journal once home.  

As educators, as students, or as travelers, when we return from experiences abroad everything around us suggests that it’s time to return to “normal living,” life as it is, and by extension life as it should be. The mismatch between these strong environmental pressures to return to normal and our own deeply felt changes can lead to varying degrees of reverse culture shock.

This process is experienced and felt viscerally. It is often gut- and heart-wrenching. My colleague Richard Kiely documented this thoroughly with his articulation of the chameleon complex. In the Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, Kiely describes how returning travelers look the same to their friends and family members, but very frequently feel so fundamentally changed that they are surprised that others cannot see their new identity. While returning travelers are typically not conscious of this contrast in such explicit terms, struggle with the process of returning is common.

Struggle is common, but thoughtful processes and resources to support that struggle are rare. Others have noticed the extraordinary potential in learning from this uncomfortable experience. In a Forum article on innovative international experiential education programs, Chip Peterson asserted international educators too frequently treat reverse culture shock “as a sort of temporary pathology that we must help students work through, rather than one of the most pregnant learning moments students” ever experience.

Indeed, what is frequently missed in dialogue about re-entry and reverse culture shock is that travelers (whether old or young) struggle because they have learned that the world as they understood it was incomplete at best, inaccurate at worst. In the global service-learning programs I have frequently worked with, these new insights have often come in the context of severe injustices.

Travelers return and desperately wish that their friends and loved ones would understand that they met wonderful and kind people in (for example) Tanzania. They wish others could know that many of those people work as hard and dream as beautifully as we do, and that – due to circumstances beyond their control – they nonetheless have far fewer options than we do. And they wish people knew that the situation can change with relatively small, carefully targeted, accountable investments in people’s lives.

Even in programs that do not have social justice at the center of the inquiry and experience, travelers commonly experience surprising growth and realize unpredicted insights. They change. And in all likelihood that change reflects a more complicated, complex, nuanced, and therefore accurate view of the world. When friends, family, and even educators suggest that returning travelers should get “back to normal” they’re asking budding lifelong learners to deny new insights. Several assignments and activities, however, can systematically target and support this important learning. Here are just a few suggestions.

Ideally these activities will come in the context of ongoing thoughtful, targeted reflective experiences before, during, and after intercultural immersion experiences. The key near the time of return, in any case, is to focus on communication capacity. Assignments that foster communication capabilities include:

1. The Elevator Speech: Ask travelers to prepare a 30 second response to the question, “How was your trip?” Prepare them for this important moment. Actually practice the speeches. This activity serves multiple purposes. It develops individuals’ communication capabilities and strengthens a skill necessary in the nonprofit and private sectors, while also supporting individuals in their efforts to reconnect upon return home. Crafting and sharing an elevator speech forces travelers to consider what was most important about their learning and what they most want to share with others. Ideally, the speech inspires listeners’ curiosity and leads to more conversation.
2. The Letter to a (Skeptical) Loved One: “Why are you going over there?” Almost everyone has at least one skeptic in their life: the person who does not understand why travel is appealing or (even more frequently) why someone would do volunteer service “with those people over there.” This letter does not need to be sent (and that should certainly not be a requirement), but a good exercise to foster and improve communication skills is asking travelers to craft a letter to the skeptic in their lives. They should be encouraged to consider the values they share in common with that person, the good and positive values that person holds, and how their travel or international service relates to those values. Then they should practice communicating in the context of those values. Almost everyone ultimately has a values basis that suggests common human dignity – the importance is often finding the right way to communicate about how international travel is in itself supporting and advancing an important process of peace by pieces.
3. The (Explicitly Public) Presentation: “What have you learned?” This is a question faculty members frequently want to ask students at the end of courses. And this is precisely the right question to ask after a study abroad immersion experience. Part of the assignment, however, should be to arrange a venue where the presentation will be shared with six or more people. This can be done by using online tools, developing a video, and posting it on Facebook or Twitter. Or it can be achieved by (still more common) organizing a group of six or more friends (on the dorm floor), family members, faith institution members, etc. Students thus have to engage in the civic act of organizing an audience as they develop an opportunity to share their learning with members of their community who are important to them. I have listed an example of what this assignment looks like in my syllabi.

These assignments are three among many opportunities for advancing individual learning and development before, during, and after international experiences. I am working with Missy Gluckmann at Melibee Global on some upcoming webinars that expand this conversation to:

• Global Service-Learning by Design
• Integrating Critical Reflection
• Advancing Common Human Dignity (aka Global Citizenship)

________________________________________________________________________________________

Sample Assignment:

Capstone Presentation: Prepare a presentation for a group in which you are involved. This could be a club or organization, a church, a class that you know you have access to or a media outlet you follow. If you’d prefer, make a YouTube video and get at least six of your friends and family members to watch it. Synthesize your own experiences and what you’ve learned in a format that is memorable and accessible and helps others see what opportunities may exist for them. The presentation should be at least 10 minutes long. You will do the presentation in the final class meeting, but you should prepare in light of the audience to whom you will eventually present it at home.

Presentation Grading Rubric

___/10             Presentation is at least 10 minutes long

___/10             Visual presentation is crisp, professional, engaging, and without error

___/10             Clearly identifies country, location, concise history, language(s)

___/30            Clearly addresses your individual experience, what you have learned, why it should be important to others, and what you and your audience can do about the social issues involved

___/30             Clearly provides the audience with next steps for addressing pressing social issues and/or learning about other cultures

___/10             Capably and professionally responds to questions

About the Author: Eric Hartman wonders about justice – and works to advance its realization. He has supported community-driven development projects around the world, ensuring the completion of classrooms in Bolivia, improving water access and women’s rights in Tanzania, and developing literacy and numeracy tutoring programs for refugees in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. All of his work came through university-community engagement and service-learning, where he continuously challenges students and faculty to act and reflect with a simultaneity that permits clear community outcomes and reflective consideration of how to work together to build a better world. He has served as Executive Director of Amizade Global Service-Learning, Lecturer in Global Studies at Arizona State University, and taught community-engaged courses in more than seven different departments at five universities. He is completing a book (with R. Kiely, J. Friedrichs, and C. Boettcher, Kumarian Press) titled “Building a Better World: The Pedagogy and Practice of Global Service-Learning.” He also contributes to popular blogs and media, including Melibee Global, Good Intentions are Not Enough, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, International Educator, and Transitions Abroad, as well as academic journals and texts, such as Community Works Journal, Public Administration Review, and several edited volumes on service-learning. He blogs regularly and is on twitter @emhartman.

• Tweet

I’m delighted to introduce you to Dr. Sam Turner, today’s guest blogger.  Sam and I met at a local SIETAR meeting and it quickly became apparent that he was a prime candidate for a guest post.  Please enjoy his informative piece;  it challenges us to think through how we resolve conflicts.

In the summer of 1954, twenty-two 11-year-old boys from Oklahoma City headed to overnight camp. Unbeknownst to them, they were taking part in one of history’s most interesting social experiments designed by psychologist Muzafer Sherif. He was interested in discovering how conflict unfolds naturally in groups. Instead of observing competition and conflict in already established groups, the boys in the Robbers Cave Experiment, as it has come to be known, were divided into two groups—the Rattlers and the Eagles.  These boys fell instantly into their assigned roles and created psychological and physical boundaries between groups.

The Rattlers and the Eagles made references to the members of the opposing groups as “those guys” and “outsiders”.  They insistently asked the camp staff (i.e. the researchers) to arrange some sort of competition against the other. Benign activities became increasingly competitive (tent pitching, baseball, tug-of-war, cabin inspections, and a rigged treasure hunt). The competition eventually led to nighttime cabin raids that resulted in broken personal belongings and stealing. The Eagles eventually won the overall competition only to find the Rattlers stole their prizes and fistfights broke out between the groups. Is this the stuff of legendary activities of boys being boys at summer camp or an ingenious depiction of how real competition can quickly become dark and ugly between groups?

People have a natural tendency to favor their own group (ethnic, national, etc.) and engage in active ways to benefit one’s own group while demonstrating an active bias against members of other groups based on arbitrary attributes such as nationality or ethnicity or even team membership. Realistic conflict theory suggests that competition becomes antagonistic when commodities are scarce or in limited supply. Conflict can occur between groups over food, territory, wealth, power, natural resources, or energy. Even kids who compete over winning games at a summer camp can devise strategies to win that not only work against liking the competitors, becomes a win-loss campaign.

We are flush with contemporary examples of conflict, unfortunately. The Palestinians and the Israelis; the Pakistanis and the Indians; and the Russians and Chechnyans. Even ethnic tensions exist within otherwise peaceful countries such as France, Canada, Ireland, and Spain. Many of these ethnic and territorial conflicts bubble below the surface, waiting for a point where tension will burst the transient peace between the sides and make headlines.

There are two modern conflicts that illustrate where harmony and coexistence have been replaced by contempt and active conflict: the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda and the Flemish and the Walloons in Belgium. Both involve deep and complex social issues; the former involved genocide and led to 800,000 deaths in only 100 days, while the other involves a dysfunctional mess that has led to hostility and disdain, and a fallen federal government. The two outcomes appear on the surface very different, but the processes that triggered these events have certain elements that are shared: scarce resources, ethnic and linguistic divides, and longstanding social traditions of isolation and resentment. What they both lack is a shared national narrative; a mental model that the collective population understands and values.

It seems hardly reasonable to draw conclusions from a summer camp experience that happened in the 1950ies as a potential guideline to settle national and international conflicts. Yet, the story of the Robbers Cave might lay the foundation to understanding how to approach modern conflict in the future.

Intuitively, the first inclination people have to solve problems is to simply bring people together to get to know one another. The contact hypothesis would suggest that just being around one another allows for connections to form from the shared values of human experience to bridge our differences. The boys should “get to know one another” and the Belgians should learn to solve “their differences”.

In Austin, Texas in the early 70ies, psychologist Elliot Aronson was asked to come in to help solve hostility between kids of different ethnic backgrounds in the newly desegregated school system. The school discovered that just putting kids together didn’t lead to them getting along—the students naturally drew social distinctions and reinforced them as frustrated educators stood by unable to cope with the situation.

A technique named the “Jigsaw Classroom” was developed as a result. It involved students taking parts of the lesson that was required to be learned, mastering it individually, and then teaching the remaining members of the group their part of the lesson. This caused something unique to happen—the autonomous individuals were suddenly reliant on one another and cooperation melted away the indignity of differences.

The Eagles and the Rattlers eventually were forced to work together in successive stages toward what are known as “superordinate goals”—goals that required collaboration. A rigged broken water line stopped the flow of water in the camp. The kids worked together to find a solution that involved everyone. Then the idea of a Movie night led the boys to pool their money to pay collectively for a movie to watch. Individually they would have been unable to accomplish what had to be done, but together they were successful.

This isn’t entirely different from the “Jigsaw Classroom” method. Collective groups are forced to work together in order to accomplish a bigger goal. As Aronson and Sherif both discovered in different groups, we quickly form boundaries that can prevent us from getting along and understanding one another. Environmental tensions cause us to “dig in our heals”; to be intractable and uncooperative.

Coexistence isn’t enough in of itself; people have to be forced to pool their efforts and work together for the greater good.

It is true that competition has created innovation in medicine, business, science, and just about every domain in contemporary society. Yet, subjugating the growth and development of others is too often a temptation. Creating categories is a natural part of the human understanding of the social world. But when we begin to foment ideas of “we are better than them” or “us versus them” competition becomes exclusionary. Our attempts at gain are accompanied by win-loss strategies—winning at the loss of all others.

How is it possible to compete and excel, yet allow for healthy competition and even cooperation? There is perhaps another way to approach gain while allowing others to flourish. Benign or enlightened self-interest allows us to strive to be the best we can while not doing so at the detriment of others.

The lessons of playing fairly seem to fade as we age, yet the value of working with others endures and is perhaps more essential later in life. The stakes are much greater than finding harmony in the sandbox. Countries or societies that are comprised of people who are multinational, multilinguisitic, and multicultural must strive to find superordinate goals to connect its citizens together.

Coexistence is difficult; yet, forced to work together, we can find unique and creative solutions that benefit all and emphasize our similarities while taking the focus away from our differences. The challenge in contemporary conflict is to find that “Jigsaw” intervention; to create obstacles to individual gain over losses to others; to create “superordinate” goals for people of various backgrounds to work together to attain.

Sam Turner, Ph.D. is a social psychologist, an educator, trainer, consultant, and interculturalist. He holds a bachelors degree in communications and French literature. He began his career in sales and management and then returned to school to pursue a masters and doctorate in social psychology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He spent a year as a youth exchange student in Belgium and has traveled in over twenty countries.

Here is a book about the Robbers Cave Experiment:

See larger image The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. [Orig. pub. as Intergroup Conflict and Group Relations] (Paperback) By (author) Muzafer Sherif List Price: $19.95 USD New From: $13.73 In Stock Used from: $43.40 In Stock

• Tweet

I am writing from the BEVI (Beliefs, Events and Values Inventory) training in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, US. I learned about the BEVI at the Forum on Education Abroad Conference earlier this year.

While I will be filming Dr. Craig Shealy, founder of the BEVI later today for a future blog posting, I thought I would give you a preview of the training so far.

By way of introduction, the BEVI is designed to assess a number of relevant processes and constructs including (but not limited to):  basic open receptivity to different cultures, religions, and social practices; the tendency (or not) to stereotype in particular ways; self and emotional awareness; and strategies for making sense of why ‘other’ people and cultures ‘do what they do’.

Dr. Shealy started our certification training by having us actually take the BEVI online.  It took about 40 minutes and we each answered, in strict confidence, a series of questions related to our demographics, personal histories and upbringing.  We were then asked 336 questions about our beliefs, life events and values that required answering with either “strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree.”  There was no room for being wishy washy – you had to dig deep and answer questions that evoked feelings and emotion, ranging from how you were raised to your opinion about the environment. The BEVI successfully hones in on thoughts we have but don’t necessarily speak to others about.

BEVI emphasizes that there are no right or wrong answers and that there is no judgment attached – it is simply a way to collect information and ultimately create a confidential report that can be used by the reader as a summary of the individual’s world view and how learning can be considered as a result of the BEVI findings. Ultimately, the BEVI looks at who learns what, under what circumstances and to what degree.

Several schools are here for the training – some, simply to explore the tool and how it can be used in a learning environment, while one university is actually having a sample of freshmen take the BEVI at orientation this summer (it is not mandated, but a volunteer request) before the students’ first semester and then having the sample population retake the BEVI at the end of their junior year or beginning of their senior year, to see if and how the group’s world view has changed.  They are also asking participants to create an electronic portfolio, where they can deposit copies of course papers and other pieces of work that related to international, global and multicultural learning.

It seems that the BEVI can be used in a variety of ways:

- looking at world view of a cohort in a class or study abroad/international program (study abroad, service learning abroad, etc)

- a tool for Multicultural and Human Resource offices

- as an assessment tool, perhaps prior to freshman year and then after an international experience/multicultural focused course

- exploring what type of experience the student may be ready to have, perhaps in an advising capacity (with the student’s permission, obviously, as the BEVI generates a confidential report)

- perhaps as a tool in re-entry workshops

As mentioned earlier, I will soon have a video interview of the BEVI’s founder, Dr. Craig Shealy, so that you can hear more about this new inventory tool.

• Tweet

Intercultural communication humor!

I am a passionate life long learner. This summer I am taking a graduate level class: The History of the South (that is, the South of the U.S.).  While I already have a Masters from the School for International Training, I am a firm believer that education is not a destination, but rather a life long journey that has ebbs and flows.  This will be my 2nd graduate level class in U.S. History – a subject that I am very curious about and one that directly relates to my work as an intercultural educator because it is important to know where the value structure of a country comes from to understand its culture.

Each summer I make a list of professional training opportunities to consider, and then I make a short list of what is “realistic” in terms of time, funding, and work/life balance. After careful consideration, I opted for the History course and the BEVI training for a variety of reasons.  However, if time and resources permitted, I would have liked to attended training at the Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication (SIIC) in Portland, Oregon, US.  In fact, I wish that the SIIC had a virtual training option for those of us who cannot easily get to the west coast!

SIIC has a 34 year history of providing professional development in intercultural communication. It is part of the Intercultural Communication Institute (ICI), a private, nonprofit foundation designed to foster an awareness and appreciation of cultural differences in both the international and domestic arenas.

Their workshops are appropriate for intercultural trainers, human resource and diversity managers, educators, international administrators and those who work across diverse teams.  In fact, it is really an appropriate training program for anyone who wants to learn more about building bridges among cultural differences as well as simply understanding why we are the way we are.

Their summer institute is offering four summer sessions this year including one, three and five day workshops.  Some of particular interest include:

New Narratives in Intercultural Education and Training - facilitated by Milton Bennett. This one excites me because I want to know what new models exist out there instead of recreating the same theories repeatedly. How can we look at the work that we do from a different lens?  And how could we miss an opportunity to learn from Milton Bennett?  He is a guru in our field!

Mapping the Intercultural Self: Using Visual Journaling to Create an Atlas of Experience – facilitated by Patricia (Patti) Digh and David Robinson.  This appeals to me because it is a unique way to explore culture.  Participants are instructed to bring art supplies – which sounds like a fabulous creative outlet when exploring your intercultural self. And I must add that one of the facilitators, Ms. Digh, sounds like an unbelievable woman! Anyone who writes a book about living with intention is a rock star in my humble opinion. Furthering her potential “rock star status” is that she lives in Asheville, North Carolina (US), one of the coolest places on our dear planet.

China: A Critical-Culture Briefing – facilitated by George Renwick. A dedicated training on China by one of the world’s leading experts on East/West cultural dialogue. What else do I need to say?  I simply will add that I met George Renwick years ago during my days at Cartus and learned more in a 20 minute conversation with him about China then I did in 4 years of college. Enough said!

While I won’t be able to attend SIIC this summer, I hope that you’ll consider doing so. And if you can’t get out to the west coast of the US this year, make sure to sit down and assess your professional development opportunities.  Whether it is traveling abroad, attending a conference, drilling down in a country specific training or making a list of books that will help you to grow as an educator and person, make sure to take the time to explore on your educational journey. Life is too short and too precious not to!

• Tweet

Will attempt to post during this session at the Forum on Education Abroad Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina (USA):

Patricia Chow presented on the IIE Open Doors report review:

262, 416 US Students studied abroad in 2007/08 (8.5% increase over the previous year.) Women outnumber men two to one in study abroad.

Bernhard Steitwieser (Northwestern University):  Discussed new theoretical model to create a diagnostic inventory for their students (student learning in International Education.)  It is in a very early phase. It should be useful for program design and assessment.  Using something called “Phenomenology Methodology” which researches different ways that students learn during a particular shared phenomenon (international experience.)  Methodology looks at concrete experience, then drilling down to specific experiences. 

So far, found 4 different areas of conception of an international experience:
1) Observing  2) Interacting  3) Participating and  4) Adopting.  These are hierarchical.

Dr. Deirdre Sato (Purchase College):  Dissertation research was on the impact of short term study at a liberal arts college in the Northeastern United States.  Programs were 5 week summer programs in China, France, Italy and Spain that took place between 2003-07.  Research was done once student were alumni. Gender was 71% female.  Largest reply from Italy – which was the largest program. Findings included a wider choice sof academic studies  – they were open to other subject areas upon return. Didn’t see a strong influence of short term programs on career development series of questions. Some students were in internationally related careers, but the numbers were small. Some referenced skills they gained abroad including interviewing skills.  Were more open to study or living abroad in the future.  Host country attitudes – how they viewed the host country values.  They had little knowledge of the host culture prior to going abroad; they did not worry about people being unfriendly toward  them. They felt that they knew the country well upon return. Tended to focus on points of similarity. Students were able to make the connection that they could negotiate their host country and could transfer that skill to other countries.  She also looked at global perspectives.  One of the strongest average agreement was “I do not judge or discount the interests of others that I don’t know, even if they’re not compatible with my own.” Students did express that they had issues upon re-entry, more so than arrival culture shock.  Appx 48% changed their opinions about the US upon re-entry.  Students were reflective of their home country upon their return. Re-entry stress did impact personal and social development – such as maturity, self confidence and appreciation of the arts. Alumni indicated the difficulty of being an American post 9/11 to a large extent. Students were compelled to review how they view themselves, especially after the start of the Iraq War. They often felt compelled to be a role model for the United States and talking about U.S. politics more than ever before.  They felt ill equipped to explain U.S. foreign policy. They could see the negative views of the U.S.  more easily while abroad. They were more reflective about what is means to be an American in a contemporary world. Recommendations for program planning include stressing the personal and social transformatoin when promoting short term programs as well as the connections with faculty can foster persistence in higher education.

Antonia Lortis/Ryan Gonzalez  (University of Minnesota):  Researched why there is a difference in the numbers who attend the “first step” (inital advising) meeting and who actually go abroad.  Looked at this as a purchase process.  If too many details are given up front, consumers will disengage. Perhaps we’re not celebrating  and nuturing the decision to come to the office for information enough. They are not statisticians, but did predecision making meeting survey (1)  and post decision meeting  survey (2).  Data shows students want application and financial questions when they arrive in the office. Fear of finances are strong barriers.

Q&A: 

One audience member commented regarding the impact of Short Term Study Abroad – seems like institutions are researching internally.  Seems that world view is changing in those cases also and appears to support Dr. Sato’s data.  Wonders if this type of study can be applied to older populations next.

Comment on a survey by IIE – research on internships for Science students.  Data on impact on the student and on the mentor.  (RISE program through DAAD).

This conference is officially over – I hope to write reflective comments once I get some sleep!

• Tweet

I must begin this post by commending the Forum on Education Abroad  for starting this conference off on the right foot.  I attended the Standards of Good Practice Institute (Beyond the Basics of Health, Safety and Security) and it easily met my expectations.  The depth of knowledge was exactly what I had hoped for while the format of a mix of roundtable discussions, panels and case studies did not let me down.

Before I go any further, I must describe the scene in Charlotte.  I arrived to a rambunctious group of Mexican soccer fans at the Westin Hotel! Apparently the Mexican soccer team is playing against a friendly game against Iceland tonight. This photo is of fans outside the hotel today, waiting for the team to leave the hotel. There were HUNDREDS of fans!

Fans of the Mexican soccer team await their heroes outside the hotel in Charlotte, North Carolina

I attended the day long Standards Institute – each session was 90 minutes with a plenary over lunch.  As much was covered, I will simply share some highlights.

Session 1:  ”You be the Judge: Case Studies in Risk, Negligence and Risk Management” was an excellent overview of legal terms and the definition of negligence. Presenter Julie Friend, JD, International Analyst for Travel, Health, Safety and Security for Michigan State University schooled us in legal terminology. She spoke about negligence (the careless performance of a legally required duty or the failure to perform a legally required act) and how a plaintiff must establish 4 elements:  duty, breach, causation and damages. She explained that if you plan not to follow a State Department travel alert suggestion, you must carefully document why you did not heed the government’s recommended standards.  If you do not do so effectively, you could be considered a breech of duty because the institution failed to conform to recommended standards. She recommended an article by Hoye (2006) :  “Legal Issues Influencing International Study Abroad Programs.” 

Session 2:  ”Where Does Student Responsibility for Student Health and Safety Begin and End?” That is the million dollar question for many of us in this field.  Of course, we all think that students should generally be more responsible than they are!  The highlight of this session was the presentation by a student, Ms. Sarah Hager.  She studied abroad in Morocco Fall 2009 and reflected on her orientation and how useful many of the tips and suggestions were.  She provided examples of using logic and following carefully doled out advice.  Then she spoke about the challenges of the rules of her program – for example, students were not permitted to surf even though there were free surfing lessons available. She could not ride a motorbike even though it was common practice in the country.  

Sarah chose to conduct research on the treatment of homosexuals in Morocco.  She and her translator traveled to Casablanca to go to an underground gay party, where she intended to conduct interviews for her research. After her first interview, the manager of the establishment kicked her and the translator out, afraid that they were investigating his property. Upon reflection, she realized that she could have been arrested and how that would have been a very difficult situation. Isn’t hindsight ALWAYS 20/20?

Her experience and perspective were refreshing – she was home, safe and sound and could articulate, diplomatically, why she felt the need to “break” some rules along the way. I smiled, and while slightly horrified at the thought of dealing with any issues related to her decisions, I was educated by hear her frank remarks, youthful perspective and solid determination to study a sensitive subject abroad.

Sarah Hager presents on her experiences in Morocco.

Keynote:  Dr. Eric Shaw. “Risk Measurement, Management and Mitigation as Best Practices Before, During and After.”  Dr. Shaw is an Associate Professor in the US Naval War College and a very engaging speaker.  He covered a lot, but I might suggest that you take a look at the GAR model, a risk assessment tool used in the US Coast Guard.

Dr. Eric Shaw (US Naval War College) and Bill Frederick (School for Field Studies)

Session 3:  ”Assessing Adequate Coverage: Case Studies in Disability Accomodations and Insurance Planning.”  This session covered some very useful gems:

 - the new health care bill does not apply to study abroad programs because it is considered a supplementary insurance plan.

- accommodation is a very fine line – it is often obligatory to provide accommodation in the classroom, but there is much more leeway with non-academic issues such as housing.  

-be creative about excursions.  Nine of out ten times, you can find a great excursion that will be more inclusive for all of your students.

Session 4:  ”Beyond the Basics: Case Studies Amidst Psychological Challenges.” 

Dina Nunziato, Director of Counseling Services at Sarah Lawrence College, spoke about the human brain and how it actually continues to develop into our early 20s.  The late adolescent brain is designed to be impulsive and respond with a “gut reaction.”  This prompted much discussion in our break out groups about how the freshman experience abroad really IS more demanding and how we can restructure orientation and communication to better support the young, developing brain!

I must digress for a moment – I hear many cars honking outside – I think Mexico won that game!  :)  Will do my best to blog tomorrow. I look forward to your questions and comments meanwhile.

• Tweet

See larger image Dreaming in Hindi (Hardcover) By (author) Katherine Russell Rich I have finally finished one of my new favorite reads, a delightful book entitled “Dreaming in Hindi: Coming Awake in Another Language” by Katherine Russell Rich.  Why do I love this book?  Probably because it would be my dream to be able to take off to India and study Hindi for a year. This is exactly what the author did and it resulted in a book that is part journal and reflection, yet loaded with recent research in second language acquisition.  Ms. Rich writes about her intensive Hindi program, politics in the region, her cultural informants, travel experiences, homestays, her classmates, and the idea of who do you become in another language/culture.  There is much to digest when reading this book, but she writes with intent, seriousness and a dash of witty humor. There was so much that struck a chord with me in this book.  Ms. Rich writes about her early days in India, when she is living with a large family of Jains. (Jainism is an ancient religion in India that emphasizes non-violence to all beings in the world.) She writes about her early days of speaking in Hindi and how the family all sits down for dinner and asks her very simple, polite questions about the food, night after night.  Rich writes: “Dinners go like this till one day, playing badminton in the drive, I give an automatic high-five.  The gesture startles everyone, shuts down the action. From then on, I high-five often. Did I like the soup? High-five! Did I like the lentils? High-five me more! They laugh so hard when they slap my palm, it ends all further discussion.” This had me in tears, as I can completely relate to the American automatic need to high-five occasionally.  I recall an experience recently, despite all  of my years in the field of International Education, where I attempted to high-five a student who had recently arrived in the US  for university study.  I put my hand up, awaiting an enthusiastic hand slap in return, only to have the student continue with her remarks as if nothing was happening.  I caught myself quickly and instead moved my hand into my hair, as if to move it out of my eyes or something rather unnecessary. Ms. Rich’s description of the automatic American high-five had me in stitches, especially because it became a bonding moment for her and her Jain family, one that eventually allowed them to move past the basic “how is your dinner” kind of questions that we all get when we’re abroad and attempting to practice another language. Ms. Rich’s humor shines through when she writes about her orientation to the language school which took place in Hindi – with the occasional warning coming through in English. Ms. Rich writes: “The orientation leader, Vidhu, states: ‘If you see a group of sacred cows, we ask that you not disturb or frighten them as that can make them rush this way and that and possibly brush you. Last year cows strained a girl’s leg. She was a dancer.’ Vidhu warned, and then I was desperate to know what else they’d said.” This had me laughing out loud and seriously wondering what I’ve covered in orientation to the US that has had my students mystified, horrified or hysterical!  (I’m guessing that the US health care system is the section of orientation that sends most of my students over the edge – it seems so very ridiculous to them when I describe how much a visit to the hospital can cost.  Come to think of it, it seems most ridiculous to me also!) Much of this book with Ms. Rich’s personal experience as an intensive language student with fascinating research on language acquisition.  One simple statement that deeply resonated with me referred to the landmark of progress in language acquisition.  Ms. Rich writes: “Some people say you’ve turned a corner when you can make jokes,” the linguist Ellen Bailystok says.’Some say it’s once they’re translating , others when they dream in the language. People put up landmarks of progress.’ “ While I am not fluent in another language, I have studied Spanish, Italian and French and have taught ESL for several years.  I have seen my students’ joy when something “connects.”  And as a language student, I recall those landmarks of progress.  While living in Switzerland during graduate school, I had to navigate through the local food market every few days. I really wanted to order turkey from the deli counter, but didn’t know how.  After several weeks, a friend taught me the phrase in Italian and I practiced it daily, awaiting my big moment at the market.  One of those landmark moments, for me in Italian, was successfully ordering some turkey at the market. Today, I pose the question:  What are YOUR landmarks of progress? Take a moment to enjoy this playful video by Ms. Rich.  Note the high-five at the end! Click here to view the embedded video. List Price: $26.00 USD New From: $1.50 In Stock Used from: $0.02 In Stock

]]> http://melibeeglobal.com/2010/01/dreaming-in-hindi-landmarks-in-progress/feed/ 1 http://melibeeglobal.com/2009/11/deciding-factors-in-study-abroad-women-vs-men/ http://melibeeglobal.com/2009/11/deciding-factors-in-study-abroad-women-vs-men/#comments Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:21:32 +0000 Missy Gluckmann http://melibeeglobal.com/?p=147

• Tweet

The article below was printed in the Chronicle of Higher Education on November 6th, 2009.  I found this new research regarding why women tend to study abroad more than men to be particularly interesting, yet I am not completely convinced by these findings.

Women have dominated educational travel abroad for decades -  in the earliest tradition as a way to teach girls to be “young ladies” who were well versed in foreign languages and the arts. The vast majority of study abroad programs still reside in Western European countries and require language and culture study.

This article does not clarify whether men are less likely to go abroad due to more stringent academic requirements in fields of study that are more traditionally populated by men (i.e. engineering/sciences/math that require sequential coursework with less flexibility for study). It also does not reference the quality or method of academic advising that led students to decide to participate in study abroad.

I find the commentary about women following faculty advising to be particularly interesting.  Does this mean that women latch on to a positive faculty influence more readily than men do and therefore elevate the possibility of receiving direct advice about the value of study abroad? Does this hold true for other academic experiences such as internships or co-op experiences?

I want to know more about the data collection and what other factors were considered before feeling confident in this research.  The research references data from 19 colleges  – 4 year and 2 years institutions.  But what is the split – were there 17 four year schools and  2 community colleges? Were the four year colleges private or public institutions? What is the break down of the majors of the 2800 students?  Were they primarily humanities/social science students?  What percentage were in the hard sciences?

What are your initial thoughts on this research?  Are women and men significantly different in factors that lead to decisions about study abroad? What questions or affirmations does this research raise for you?  I’m curious to hear your feedback and equally curious to see if there will be expanded research on this subject.  The topic is a vital question for international educators and certainly one that will be of great interest to those in the field that are responsible for marketing programs to their own students and those on other campuses.

• Tweet

Click here to view the embedded video.