De la tensión de las dictaduras y la situación irregular a la protección

The 2013 annual conference of the Forum on Education Abroad was organised around the theme, ‘Moving beyond it was great’, which was seen as a call for the international study community to carefully consider what students are learning and how their learning might be supported. The call was to find deeper meanings of student learning beyond ‘it was great’ (Wong 2015).

3.5.1 Interrogating the ‘beyond it was great’ argument

Wong (2015) acknowledges that students often say ‘it was great’ when asked about their international experiences. He proposes, though, that it is “reasonable that we can tentatively believe, rather than be sceptical, that students’ experiences were, in fact, ‘great’” (Wong 2015, p. 123) therefore there must be some weight attached to such claims. If this belief underpins the debate on student learning from international study, then Wong (2015) suggests that we interrogate whether (i) students in fact have nothing to say, or it is just that they are unable to say it, (ii) there is a delayed effect from international study rather than no effect, (iii) the issue may be with assessment used to measure learning rather than with the students themselves, and (iv) expectations of learning from international study are too high.

Nothing to say or unable to say it?

It may be incorrect to assume that student inarticulateness about their international study experience, or lack of substance to claims of learning, equates with no impact (Vande Berg, Paige & Lou 2012; Wong 2015). We need to examine the claims of student learning from international study, but we also need to acknowledge the challenges that students may face in determining exactly what was ‘great’ about their time abroad (Wong 2015). When describing their learning, participants may be relating what was deeply meaningful to them (Vande Berg, Paige & Lou 2012), even if this learning does not meet stakeholder expectations. Conceptualising learning from such a lengthy and complex experience such as international study may be difficult. Something to consider is the limitation on individual capabilities to reflect and make meaning from experiences. Relying on participants to articulate learning from international study assumes a capacity for deep approaches to learning, self-awareness, self-regulation and metacognition that are not inherent in everyone (Coulson & Harvey 2013; Moon 2004). This may be particularly relevant to international study, given the stage of development and maturity of the usual age of participants. A study by Gardner and colleagues (2008) recognised the severity and universality of the problem of inarticulateness when they saw the challenges international study participants faced in articulating the impact of their experience to employers.

48

Delayed rather than no effect

As noted by Potts (2016) in the IEAA report on international study outcomes, one issue with measuring change in participants is that studies are usually conducted soon after students return home. It may be difficult for students to articulate the effect of their experiences at this point. Adult learning theory tells us that learning is an ongoing process, where one experience is connected to another (Dewey 1963). The lens with which we make meaning also develops as we interpret each new experience (Mezirow 2000). ‘Great’ experiences may not be fully realised until they are considered along with subsequent or related experiences (Wong 2015).

Limitations on the assessments rather than the students

There are a large number of available instruments and methods for assessing learning from international study, particularly intercultural competence, but there is still no agreement from experts on the use of these instruments or indeed on what is meant by intercultural competence (Wong 2015). The questions that students are asked about their international study experiences may also be part of the problem. As an example, an Australian study asked participants ‘what did you learn from your experiences while studying abroad?’ Many found it hard to explain their experience and fell back on platitudes such as “seizing the day” (Forsey, Broomhall & Davis 2012, p. 132). The study participants were also asked, “what was the best thing you learnt?” (Forsey, Broomhall & Davis 2012, p. 132). In response, students referenced fun, seeing the seasons change, and going to events (Forsey, Broomhall & Davis 2012). One student commented that “you do learn stuff about yourself, but it is more about having fun” (Forsey, Broomhall & Davis 2012, p. 135). These responses are more indicative of ‘doing’ than of learning; they explain what students did, not how the experience contributed to their personal growth.

When using ‘great’ to describe international study experiences, participants may be referencing the nature of the experience (i.e. that it was intense or engaging) rather than learning from it (Wong 2015). How students are supported to articulate the meaning of their experiences in terms of personal growth is vital if we are to move beyond surface understandings. Importantly, reliance on any given instrument is risky; Wong (2015, p. 126) notes that “what study abroad students call ‘great’ may or may not be visible through this limited view”. We need to take seriously participants’ claims that international study has changed them in some way and consider how we are trying to uncover those claims.

49

High expectations

In Wong’s (2015) critique of the ‘beyond it was great’ argument, he explains that the argument is premised around the claim that results of learning from international study are disappointing. As noted in this chapter, while there are limitations on the extant international study research findings, generally studies have found positive effects on participants (Potts 2016; Wong 2015). The claim that results are disappointing may stem from “an implicit expectation that gains should be greater, more rapid, or more consistent” (Wong 2015, p. 123).

According to Vande Berg, Paige and Lou (2012), claims about international student learning generally proceed using the following logic: (i) students are learning effectively during international study experiences through exposure to, and immersion in, new and different experiences, (ii) student self-reports of ‘transformation’ are sufficient evidence of the first claim, and (iii) because the first two claims are true, the focus should be on increasing participation rather than on improvements to pedagogic practices and program design. These claims seem to suggest “an almost unquestioned assumption that study abroad is good” even though there is no assurance that students will immerse themselves in their host culture, learn the language of their host country, or interact in any meaningful way with the host country people or the culture (Katula & Threnhauser 1999, pp. 246-7). Intercultural competence, as a key outcome of international study, is not an automatic result of studying abroad, just as cross-cultural contact does not equate with intercultural learning (Vande Berg, Paige & Lou 2012). Moreover, only a small number of students study in countries where they are likely to develop language skills (Curran 2007) and, as one study found, half the participants interacted less with people from their host country than anticipated (Forsey, Broomhall & Davis 2012). Perhaps expectations are too high.

The ’beyond it was great’ argument provides a solid platform to this research, which examines what is significant about international study to participants and how students can understand and articulate the significance of their experiences.