Reentry: Maximizing Student Learning
- Aug 31, 2011
Reentry: Maximizing Student Learning
By Jessica Fankhauser
Introduction
“Unless today’s students develop the competence to function effectively in a global environment, they are unlikely to succeed in the 21st century” (The American Council on Education, 1995, p. 6). This claim has set the precedent for study abroad programs in higher education across the country. The perceived need for Americans to possess a thorough understanding of global issues and to emerge from college with an intercultural competency is not only emphasized by educators. A recent survey of over 300 U.S executives found that 72% desired for students to emerge from college able to understand and succeed in the growing global society (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007). To meet this desired emphasis on global engagement, colleges and universities have experienced the influx of study abroad programs in the last decade. As these programs continue to meet the growing demand for more students to study abroad, the question becomes not, “How do we create programs,” but rather, “How do we ensure their effectiveness aiding to students’ development?” The purpose of this article is to examine reentry practices in an effort to maximize the learning outcomes of study abroad experiences in the lives of students.
Goals and Current Trends of Study Abroad
The foundation of higher education centers on the goal of developing whole students (D. Braskamp, L.Braskamp & Merrill, 2009). There is an understanding that learning occurs beyond the classroom and therefore personal development includes not only intellectual learning, but also the moral, social, physical and spiritual development of students. With the growing trend of travel and the ease to which technology has connected the world, intercultural competency and global development are now viewed by virtually all higher education leaders as a necessary component of college student development (American Council on Education, 1995).
In an effort to allow more students the opportunity to study abroad, trips now vary greatly in length. Ranging from a week to a year, these trips offer students the ability to engage with other cultures. However, simply traveling does not lead to intercultural competence. Programs which allow for immersion into the host culture, home stays and language acquisition are most beneficial for student learning. Significant research shows semester and year-long programs to be the best time frames for accomplishing these characteristics (Dwyer, 2004; Kehl & Morris, 2007). The drawback to these programs though is the inability for many students to miss a semester or year on-campus of their academic program.
The Institute of International Education (2009) reports 262, 416 students studied abroad in 2007/08. These experiences varied widely in length ranging from a week to an academic year. Study abroad programs are generally divided into two categories: short-term (typically less than eight weeks) and long-term (generally a semester or year-long programs). Despite the research favoring long-term programs, short-term trips have increased significantly, mostly due to the flexibility of students’ four-year plans only allowing them to be gone for a few weeks. The most recent numbers show 56.3% of students who study abroad do so short-term, 39.5% are abroad for a semester and only 4.2% study for an academic or calendar year (Institute of International Education, 2009).
Regardless of program length research still emphasizes the positive effects of study abroad programs on US college students (Braskamp et al., 2009; Hadis, 2005). The Lincoln Commission (2005) has also outlined a goal of sending 1 million students abroad annually by 2016/17 which is adding to the push for study abroad programs across all disciplines in higher education. A limitation of this goal is that although assessment of study abroad programs has indicated students gain knowledge, there were no signs of significant progress in critically thinking and applying their experiences (Braskamp et al., 2009) which are both needed for long-term growth and personal development of students. If there is an emphasis on whole person education and employers are seeking intercultural competency then simply studying abroad, especially short-term is rarely adequate.
Reverse Culture Shock
These problems demonstrate a need for effective reentry programs. Returning home, regardless of the amount of time away, is steeped with emotions. Sadness, nervousness, a sense of loss, excitement, confusion and the list goes on are ally symptoms of a phenomenon known as reverse culture shock (Christofi & Thompson, 2007; Levy, 2000). And, while the goal is creating effective study abroad programs, the “best” programs based on length, cultural immersion and language acquisition tend to result in the most severe reverse culture shock (Johnstone, 2006). Students comment on being frustrated that no one wants to hear their story. They are appalled at the materialism of Americans and they generally are unprepared to jump back into the busyness of American culture. The idealized view they had of home has been shaken and they find they are more confused than ever. Because of all this, many students find that "... the pain of reentry is often much greater than the initial culture shock" of leaving (Austin, 1986, xxiii; Elmer, 2002; Kauffmann, Martin, & Weaver (with J. Weaver), 1992, Sussman, 2000).
As with any form of pain or suffering, reverse culture shock does not have to be a negative consequence of studying abroad. Actually, it can be quite the opposite: an opportunity for substantial growth (Adler, 1981; Johnstone, 2006). Experiential learning, like traditional classroom learning, is most effective if students are guided through the learning process (Johnstone, 2006). Due to the intense emotions experienced upon returning, students often file the memories of the trip away and attempt to jump back into life at home in a phenomenon referred to as the “shoebox effect” (LaBrack, 1993). Unfortunately, this diminishes the potential for students to grow personally or gain intercultural competence from their time abroad.
Culture shock has historically been an emphasis in orientation for those studying abroad but only in recent decades has the idea of reverse culture shock been identified. While the U-curve model explains initial culture shock upon entering a new culture; the W-curve has been offered as an explanation of reverse culture shock by mirroring the culture shock process upon returning home (see figure 1). The model identifies specific stages in the reentry process: preparation for the return home (saying goodbye), the honeymoon, disintegration (reverse culture shock), reintegration, autonomy and independence (the final three are categorized as readjustment) (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963). The expectations model also helps in understanding why students struggle reentering into their own country. The main reason is that reverse culture shock is unexpected (Kauffmnn et al., 1992; Martin & Harrell, 1996).
Reentry
Research shows there is a need for reentry programs that will help students through this reverse culture shock process but few have studied it extensively (Christofi & Thompson, 2007; Doyle, 2009). Primarily, there is a need to connect pre-trip orientation to the reentry process (LaBrack, 1993). By showing students how their trip fits within a larger process, they are less likely to “shoebox” it. Pre-trip orientation and reentry programs should never occur independently of one another. By bringing the trip full circle, reentry will aid in developing the whole person. The W-curve highlights reentry programs occurring before students reenter their home country (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963). Although there is a need for reentry few students actually participate in formal programming stating they were either too busy or did not find the workshops interesting (Chappell, Inaldo, White, & Pirani, 2008; Gaw, 2000). Cox (2006) also found that reentry workshops are great but students do not typically see the need to attend them before returning home. Storti (2003) suggests conducting reentry workshops in two phases: one prior to returning home and the other a month after reentry is most beneficial. Chappell, et al. (2008) also highlights the best time for reentry programming is at the one month mark and again at the three month mark.
Upon returning home, much can be done by the institution to help support students as they adjust to life on-campus again. Allowing them a place to continue to share their story is huge. Whether in their place of residence, presenting to groups about their experience or just talking to prospective study abroad students (Kauffmann et al., 1992); sharing their experience allows students to continue to reflect on their trip. Donnelly-Smith (2009) found that creating student advisors or peer counselor groups made up of returning students to discuss their experience with prospective study abroad students was helpful. Giving them the opportunity to volunteer in an off-campus office or work study abroad fairs could also give students a chance to continue sharing their experience with others.
Beyond working and allowing students to share their stories; simply the availability of resources can be a support to students during reentry. Having resources available online is most helpful for students so they can be accessed any time of day or night when students find themselves struggling with being home. These resources include everything from common feelings of reverse culture shock, to help with scheduling, career and academic advising and even counseling resources (Kauffmann et al., 1992). One study showed positive benefits to having faculty reunite with groups of students to read the news and discuss current events from the host country (Donnelly-Smith, 2009). This helps students continue to stay connected to the culture they just left. Ideally, one credit courses would be required before and after a trip in which students would prepare a final paper or presentation about their experience (Donnelly-Smith, 2009), but little has been done to implement this idea.
An aspect of all international experiences and reentry practices should be continued reflection (Donnelly-Smith, 2009; Levy, 2000; Williams, 2009) both individually and as a group (if applicable). Kolb (1984) as well, accounts for the importance of reflection within his theory of experiential learning. The general reflection practice for students is journaling, but it is not without limitations. Meeting specific learning goals or getting students to think critically can be difficult due to the nature of reflection resting heavily on the student’s own understanding of the experiences they have encountered.
To actually teach critically thinking skills (one of the components of intercultural competency and a skill employers seek in employees), Pagano & Roselle (2009) propose a move towards refraction. They define refraction as “the transformative knowledge that occurs which validates the use of critical analysis and problem solving providing interpretation and conclusions of important issues and situations considering course content and the international context” (p. 221). Labeled the Refraction Knowledge Development Cycle, the idea is for faculty to use guided questions that take students from reflecting (looking at the experience) to critically thinking (evaluating the experience) to refraction (where they are able to interpret the experience and draw conclusions). This process should begin throughout the trip but for most, the critical thinking and refraction steps will not occur until they return home, hence the need for faculty guidance in the reentry process.
Implications
Above all, is the need to understand that reentry is not a one day event. The better a program is at providing students the tools and experiences to gain intercultural competence; the harder it will be for them to transition home. On average this process takes six months to a year and sometimes longer (Storti, 2003; Chappell et al., 2008). While there are many ways an off-campus programs office can assist in this transition; it is impossible for them to personally walk each student through the entire process. This is where I would suggest communication with other offices on-campus is important to make the process smoother for students. Having an advisor who can communicate with students during their trip and upon return ensuring that class scheduling, credit transfer and tuition questions are worked out, is a great help in the transition process. Using residence halls as an opportunity for students to share their story with the men and women they live with can also be a great opportunity.
Specifically within an off-campus program office, packets of information should be available to students upon return and the materials made available on-line. Peer advising programs should be implemented as they can serve multiple purposes. They allow for returning students to share their experiences, which helps them in their transition home; while also encouraging students who might want to study abroad by answering their questions. This then frees up office staff to work on ensuring the quality of the programs. Perhaps there are also other opportunities for students to get involved in the off-campus programs office. Serving as a student ambassador, writing for program brochures or newsletters, etc. are other suggestions for continued student involvement.
The understanding in emphasizing the need for carefully designed reentry programs is that students need guidance as they return home from study abroad experiences. The balance of determining what resources are most beneficial and which programs students will attend still needs to be researched further as Cox (2006) identified. However, educators must take seriously this process if students are actually going to gain and retain their intercultural competence long-term.
Jessica Fankhauser is a graduate student in the MAHE Program at Taylor University and serves as the Assistant Resident Director to English Hall.
References
Adler, N. J. (1981). Re-entry: Managing cross-cultural transitions. Group & Organizational
Studies, 6(3), 341-356.
Austin, C. N. (1986). Cross-cultural reentry: A book of readings. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian
University Press.
American Council on Education. (1995). Educating Americans for a world in flux: Ten ground
rules for internationalizing higher education. Washington, DC: Author.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). Global learning for the new global
century: Executive summary with findings from employer survey. Washington, DC: Author.
Braskamp, L. A., Braskamp, D. C. & Merrill, K. C. (2009). Assessing progress in global
learning and development of students with education abroad experiences. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18,101-118.
Chappell, L., Inaldo, J., White, M., & Pirani, C. (2008, May). Providing post-study abroad
support: It's easier than you think. Presented at NAFSA National Conference,
Washington D.C. Retrieved on October 14, 2010 from
http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/ac08sessions/GS191.pdf
Christofi, V., & Thompson, C. L. (2007). You cannot go home again: A phenomenological
investigation of returning to the sojourn country after studying abroad. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 85, 53-63.
Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program. (2005). Global
competence & emotional needs: One million Americans studying abroad. Retrieved
October 9, 2010 from http://www.nafsa.org
Cox, L. K. (2006). Going home: Perceptions of international students on the efficacy of a reentry
workshop. Ed.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, United States -- California. Retrieved October 1, 2010 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (PublicationNo. AAT 3237190).
Donnelly-Smith, L. (2009). Global learning through short-term study abroad. Peer Review, 11
(4), 12-15.
Doyle, D. (2009). Holistic assessment and study abroad. Frontiers: the Interdisciplinary Journal
of Study Abroad, 18, 143-156.
Dwyer, M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad duration. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 151-164.
Elmer, D. (2002). Cross-cultural connections. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Gaw, K. F. (2000). Reverse culture shock in students returning from overseas. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 83-104
Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). An extension of the u-curve hypothesis. Journal of
Social Issues, 19, 33-47.
Hadis, B. F. (2005). Gauging the impact of study abroad: How to overcome the limitations of a
single-cell design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 3-19.
Institute of International Education. (2009). Open doors 2009 fast facts. Washington, DC:
Institute of International Education.
Johnstone, D. M. (2006). Closing the loop: Debriefing and the short-term college missions team.
Missiology, 34, 523-532. Norcross, GA: American Society of Missiology.
Kauffmann, N. L., Martin, J. N., & Weaver, H. D (with Weaver, J.). (1992). Students abroad:
Strangers at home. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Kehl, K. and Morris, J. (2007). Differences in global-mindedness between short-
term and semester-long study abroad participants at selected universities. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 67–79.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
Development. Englewood Cliffs, : Prentice Hall.
LaBrack, B. (1993). The missing linkage: The process of integrating orientation and reentry. In
Education for the intercultural experience, ed. R.M. Paige, 2nd ed., 245–70. Yarmouth,
MA: Intercultural Press.
Levy, D. (2000). The shock of the strange, the shock of the familiar: Learning from study
abroad. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 1,75-83.
Martin, J. N., & Harrell, T. (1996). Reentry training for intercultural sojourners. In D. Landis &
R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., 307-326). Thousand
Oaks,CA: Sage.
Pagano, M., & Roselle, L. (2009). Beyond reflection through an academic lens: Refraction and
international experiential education. Frontiers: the Interdisciplinary Journal of Study
Abroad, 18,217-229.
Storti, C. (1997). The art of coming home. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Sussman, N. M. (2000). The dynamic nature of cultural identity throughout cultural transitions:
Why home is not so sweet. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 355-373.
Williams, T. R. (2009). The reflective model of intercultural competency: A multidimensional,
qualitative approach to study abroad assessment. Frontiers: the Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 289-306.
Comments
Login to post comments