Dr Ruth Whittle, University of Birmingham (Dr Sonia Gallucci, Res. Assistant to June 2012)

1. Year Abroad MattersChange Management for students going to a European country and to China / Japan Dr Ruth Whittle, University of Birmingham(Dr Sonia Gallucci, Res. Assistant to June 2012)

2. Motivation for Research • Secondary lit. indicates that year abroad is under-researched; • the Dept of Modern Languages, Univ of Birmingham has a growing number of students studying Japanese / Chinese as part of their BAML courses as well as ‘with language courses’: • Currently: 13 students in Japan / China; in 2012/13 this number will double; • 9 splitting the year (Germany, France, Spain) • Of these: 1 financial difficulties (not going), 2 medical difficulties (1 going, 1 not going), (all of these were due to split the year)

3. A wide variety of change issues to cope with over the last few years: • students found it difficult or impossible to settle in Europe after China / Japan; • students fear that they will ‘lose’ Japanese / Chinese if they go to European destination first; • depression; aborted year abroad for no tangible reasons (compare: ‘I don’t like it there’ to ‘I have had a very unpleasant experience there’); • anecdotal evidence: students feel they are just starting to make real progress at the time they leave China / Japan

4. Possible consequences • For students:- Lower academic / language achievement in both languages or one of them;- ‘hole’ in CV with consequences for employability • For UoB staff and institution- possible attrition;- dealing with complaints / mitigations: workload- NSS ratings

5. Without research, one assumes reasons for student difficulties: Students • cannot normally visit beforehand; • are all ab initio students, i.e. not proficient in language when leaving; • don’t just learn ‘the language’ but also the script, in a very different culture; • don’t have the same support from home; • do not normally have a pastoral visit; • have little access to or time for 2nd / 3rd language.

6. Need to verify tutors’ assumptions in order to provide ??? • by finding out what student feel about those areas through following cohorts from 2nd year through to final year; • comparing how students anticipate their coping whilst not yet abroad (e.g. before and following the briefing period in year 2) • comparing how students feel about their coping and progress in retrospect to expectations in yr 2 • evaluating student diaries kept during their year abroad; • evaluating academic achievement in comparison to personal satisfaction (or lack thereof)

7. Methods So far: • Online surveys using questions along the lines suggested by Bavendiek 2004; Coleman 2002 and Klapper/Rees 2011: 14 at the beginning of 2nd year and in FY • Focus group interviews homing in on deeper understanding of answers at the end of 2nd yr and in FY

8. Still to be done: Collecting ethnographic data from the cohort to go out this September; compare academic outcomes and personal satisfaction.

9. Findings Health warning: • the figures we have are not statistically valid; • I have not been able to make any conclusions re our specific institutional environment other than that our wide variety of language combinations leads to a high number of students each year going to 3 countries (2 semesters + summer course); • We have generally engaged more students for the surveys than for the focus interview; comparability therefore limited.

10. Further points to consider: • Kinginger (2009) confirms that more longitudinal studies of individual students and cohorts are needed; • this project contributes to this quest to some extent; • the results of the project are partly for research, but the visible outcome will be a revision of approaches in preparing students for, following students during and debriefing students after their year abroad and build on this.

11. Key survey results: FY (1 or 2 countries) Expected: • changed perception about living with new people; • all feel they improved their L2 and feel that they have better prospects for their final exams and future career; • all feel more independent; • of those who split the year, several would not do so again.

12. Key survey results: FY (2 countries) Surprising • Higher increase in insight into new artistic culture despite shorter sojourn; • group seems more realistic as to expectations: more resilient, open, thoughtful, reflective than the group not splitting their year.

13. Key results: FY focus group (China / Japan) • Confirms to a large extent the high motivation expressed in surveys; • having a host family crucial for access to culture and language (see also Allen 2012); • worry about accommodation not a factor in China / Japan, but a significant stress factor in Spain and for one student in Germany; • ‘integrated’ courses crucial for meeting local students and listen to and speak L2.

14. Various degrees of disappointment of not having had more contact with Japanese / Chinese people, particularly where there was no host family (majority); • however, this disappointment was by no means confined to Japan / China; • students are, to some extent, reflective on why this was and their own responsibility, but to a significant extent they make their environment responsible for this.

15. Difficulties can be seen as challenges: • “I felt like I was just dropped there” (Spain) but: in order to overcome the issue of accommodation and general organisation “I had to speak Spanish 24/7” (03). This student had a positive experience in Japan before going to Spain, reporting that she spoke Japanese nearly all the time (although she also reports not having spoken as much as she had expected!).

16. Difficulties can be offputting with lasting effect: • The same problem with accommodation and little support (in Germany) was commented on by a different student: “they dumped me in it”, “messed me around” (02); • had not expected Germany to be “hard” (02); • does not want to go back to Germany because her German is too weak; her info on lack of progress in that language is phrased as if that was the fault of the Germans, who insisted on speaking English to her. • However: this student also reported that her German experience had “strengthened” her character and she would now survive with less support than before.

17. Key findings for 2nd year cohort Oct/Nov 2011: beginning of briefing process: • students are in the majority happy to split their year; • not too sure about living with other people; • confident to increase in maturity, independence, knowledge and improve their L2 in both the European and the non-European country; • confident to gain more insight into Chinese / Japanese / European society.

18. There are also significant differences between the survey results of the ‘Chinese’ and the ‘Japanese’ cohort regarding:

19. Acceptance by host society: not sure in Japan or Europe, discrepancy of answers for China but the same students are sure about their acceptance in Europe; • Expect a reliable social network in Japan but not so much in China; • Japanese cohort not sure to improve artistic insight but Chinese cohort is sure they will.

20. Key findings at the end of the briefing period (April 2012) • Health warning: the Chinese focus group included 2 students; the Japanese focus group had 4! • Reasons for choosing a language that would take them half way round the world vary: the Japanese interviewees cited interest in language and culture whereas the Chinese interviewees said that ‘Chinese would be a challenge’ and that the student was too bad at her third language, so Chinese and Spanish remained.

21. feel they will be accepted in host community but are aware that this may be, to a certain extent, the international rather than the local community in Ch/J; • feel that they will be welcome. • Rely on some stereotypes: Japanese people are polite and keen to make foreign friends (L: “let’s pretend it’s a fact”)

22. all 4 students of Japanese have made friends with Japanese people this year; • students of Chinese had this opportunity, too, but they do not report this! • -- students going to Japan don’t report on fear of technology there, and students going to China don’t mention expectation of living in smog (see FY information) • all going to Spain dread having to find accommodation;

23. The answers to the question about motivation are varied and partly worrying: • Feeling it’s a daunting prospect to go to J / Ch as a motivating factor; • Have no choice, have to go there (unlike the European language where, if you study 2 more languages, you have a choice which country you will go to for a semester and which for 3-4 weeks); • Motivation stalls as it’s the end of term and one won’t be learning any more Japanese/Chinese until one actually gets to the country;

24. one might be less well prepared because of the gap in learning / because other international students might be better prepared (one student); concerned about following courses at Jap. University (all st); • being less well prepared can also translate into making local friends less easily; • Motivation to improve language mainly for Ch/J and not so much for the European language: one student thinks his Spanish cannot improve much

25. Emotionally • 6 mths ago the prospect of going at all seemed far away, but time has gone quickly; • some students don’t understand in retrospect why they did not think about the distance between China/Japan to home when they signed up for the course; • Great unknown, though appreciate opportunity; • Some students don’t “want the reality of it yet” (06), particularly if they go to Ch/J in sem 2.

26. despite fear of being homesick and lonely, feeling of “wanting to do stuff there” (Ch/J); • on the whole (with the exception of accommodation and organisation in Spain) feel that Europe should be easier, mainly because home is accessible / have travelled there or at least in Europe before.

27. Conclusions Review the opportunities and that are available in degree structure; address ‘negative’ choices in material given out to candidates and students; ‘change’ needs to be addressed; students show willingness and ability to reflect: use this to enhance their learning during y/a; chance to mitigate strong ‘lottery’ feelings. concept of briefing: self-briefing and risk assessment as an ongoing process driven by the student;

28. harness the strengths the students already have but don’t be afraid to address weaknesses. host families / previous contact with locals one is likely to meet again and ‘integrated courses’ play a key factor for early and more thorough socialisation;

29. Further tasks • To pursue ethnographic project both as research and as support for reflective learning; • To link findings from this research to academic outcome and career; • to raise student interest in achieving highly in all the dimensions the study of languages afford – from the start (see British Academy 2012).