Jeremy Geller
Director, Student International Academic Affairs
 An Illinois student teaches Ecuadorian school children the Hokey Pokey. | The Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program1 calls for a million students from the U.S. studying abroad by 2017 (from 206,000 in 2005), nearly doubling the rate of growth in the field from its current levels of 7 to 9 percent per year, to over 14 percent per year, with the difference to be funded by direct federal scholarships and federal subsidy of institutional capacity building.
Many study abroad professionals describe a desired outcome of study abroad as “global competence.” |
| Few define it succinctly. Global competence is a special kind of empathy. It is multicultural competence. It is self-awareness, which is expressed in part through the recognition that personal and consumer decisions are global decisions, whether made in central Illinois or abroad. It is an ability to shift perspective, to imagine oneself in another’s shoes, and to hold up a mirror and view oneself, and one’s community and nation, as others might. In this respect a new paradigm in study abroad—or more broadly put, education abroad—should be to promote ideas embedded in sites, rather than sites where one might study, and to blur national boundaries in favor of a truly global ethos in which students are reminded that they are global players, that their homes are on the global playing field, that their perceived rules of play reflect those of a minority population in the world, that the global game—life—is interactive, and that played well, everybody wins.
The University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign has long been a leader in study abroad, whether expressed in terms of the number of students sent abroad, the variety of programs and venues made available to students, or the effectiveness and quality of programs, systems, and practices. Presently, Illinois sends about two thousand students to about fifty countries each year. In the Institute for International Education’s often-cited Open Doors report,2 Illinois is ranked eighth in the nation. What else do the numbers tell us? We exceed national percentages in minority student participation, and in the case of Asian, Latino, and Native Americans, study abroad participation exceeds the proportion of each group in the total student body. Men are another minority in study abroad, and at 35.5 percent, we’re a point ahead of the national percentage. Agriculture and engineering students each comprise about 11 percent of our total students abroad, versus national rates of only 1 percent and 3 percent, respectively, and at 22 percent business and management student participation is 5 percent ahead of the national rate. Nearly a quarter of a typical senior class studies abroad, which is quite respectable for an institution of Illinois’ size. Four of its colleges (ACES, Business, Communications, and Fine and Applied Arts) exceed that proportion. There are lots of ways to look at the data, and most of them are testament to lots of people doing many things very well. Specific Illinois data cited here reflect the 2004-2005 Academic Year, the last year for which national Open Doors data are complete for comparison. The top five destinations for Illinois students are: Spain first, then UK, Italy, France, and Australia. This is similar to the national ranking, in which UK is first and Spain third. China is sixth for Illinois and in light of tied rankings, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Brazil appear in the top ten as well, with Austria, Germany, and Ireland. At Illinois, about twice the proportion of students study abroad in Asia as the national percentage—16 percent versus 8). Illinois leads the national average by two points in Latin America (16 percent), is normative in Europe and the Middle East (60 percent and 1 percent respectively) and a bit behind in sub-Saharan Africa (2 percent) but gaining in the current year. Illinois mirrors national trends in destinations, as Europe and Australia are losing ground in proportion to Africa, Asia, and Latin America, while at the same time overall numbers rise to all of these regions (although rates of change differ). Nationally, the proportion of students participating in full academic year study abroad has dropped sharply in recent years, and semester study abroad has dropped as well, both in favor of summer and short-term programs. The same is true of Illinois, although the university exceeds the national average in full-year programs, many of which are language-intensive, and ranks second in the Big Ten in both full year and summer programs. Summer, Winter Break, and other short-term programming has proven a boon to students whose semester curricula are packed with required courses in prescribed sequence; to those for whom the expense and the lost income of a semester or a year away is prohibitive; and to those who are simply timid regarding a sojourn abroad. Many short-term programs are led by Illinois faculty, which affords them an opportunity to teach “outside the box,” and gains for students an intensity of intellectual and personal interaction with faculty rarely attained by undergraduates at such a large research institution. Clearly, programs come in many “shapes and sizes.” In some, students are fully integrated in a host-country university, taking courses in the host language; in other they take courses designed for foreign students, taught in English. Some programs are built and offered by Illinois; others by other university and non-university entities. Graduate student data have been difficult to collect, so they comprise only 9 percent of Illinois’ reported total, probably a significant under-count. We have devised a better means to collect graduate student data for the coming year, and better means of generalizing the study abroad “concept” associated by most faculty with undergraduates, to graduate and professional student study, research, and engagement abroad. For the past several Winter Breaks, “LAS 199” courses abroad have given priority to freshman students, but still the greatest number of undergraduates study abroad during the junior year (45 percent), followed by seniors (24 percent), and sophomores (16 percent). Variety in program design and duration accommodates diverse learning styles and objectives. Longer duration or integrated classes do not necessarily assure greater cultural or linguistic immersion, although they might. The right student will “get it” with nearly any model of study abroad done well. But what will s/he get? What are the objectives of study abroad? In decades past, either language acquisition or the Victorian notion of “finishing,” were the goals of studying abroad. Many ascribe to the latter goal women’s high participation and, conversely, men’s low participation in study abroad. But gender differences in participation probably reflect gendered differences in tolerance for social and cultural risk (in which men trail women) and gendered differences in peer group conformity. Surely, language acquisition remains central to many students, as does acquisition of area knowledge, and then there is simply the study of something unavailable close to home. If one’s interest is the ethology of aardvarks or Egyptian archaeology, there’s only so far you can get in Illinois. Study abroad is, in many respects, an extractive, consumer-driven industry, where success is measured more in quantitative metrics than in qualitative outcomes. The latter are simply assumed. On an industrial model we are compelled to multiply the ranks of students sent abroad. This can only be accomplished through robust subvention of student costs and concerted curricular review so that international experience may become an integral part of the on-campus curriculum, rather than an elective add-on that is differentially accessible. Increase in study abroad done right is not only important, it also serves the individual, local, national, and international good. Nearly all students (and parents and professors) report advances in self-confidence, “can-do,” and adaptability following a student’s sojourn abroad. It is nearly a given that personal growth occurs through negotiating unfamiliar social, bureaucratic, and educational challenges. There will always be study abroad participants who are motivated by intellectual curiosity and a desire to share something of themselves and to contribute something to their hosts. Increasingly, opportunities for volunteerism are built into programs abroad and students are answering the call. Innovative models of service learning and community-based learning that were evolved separately in the Colleges of ACES, Engineering, and LAS each have manifestations abroad, as do non-credit service projects such as “Alternative Spring Break” and the explicitly international “Engineers Without Borders.” Still, a significant portion of students (e.g., those who call academic programs “trips”) study abroad to satisfy consumerist desire and to meet perceived instrumental needs. Study abroad is, indeed, a line on a student resume that might distinguish one good candidate from many other similar candidates. The challenge is to engage students to a point where they recognize the coincidence of instrumental and consumerist gain with intellectual and personal growth coupled with civic and public good, and ultimately to temper the former with the latter. In this sense, study abroad professionals (and all educators) are agents of change. A related challenge is to engage the current research on outcomes assessment and to measure that change. 1 Lincoln Commission Web site | |