Keywords

Introduction

The opp ortu nity to study abroad (SA) is a major attraction of the undergraduate degree in modern languages at Durham University. Questions about the year abroad always feature prominently in contact with prospective students and then from our own students when they first arrive in Durham. This enthusiasm for SA reflects broader trends nationally and, indeed, within Europe: in a 2015 survey of UK students, 34 per cent expressed an interest in SA (British Council, 2015), a nd European Commission (2015) data indicate that Europe-wide participation in ERASMUS + study and training exchanges continues to grow steadily each year, with 272,497 students taking part in these exchanges in 2014–15. SA is actively promoted by government bodies, academic organisations, and student networks. The UK government funds a Strategy for Outward Mobility with the aim of increasing the number of UK-domiciled students having an ‘international experience as part of their UK higher education ’ (Go International, 2016, para. 1), while the European Union has a target for 2020 of 20 per cent of all graduates completing part of their university studies abroad (European Commission, 2015). In 2012, the British Academy and the University Council of Modern Languages (UCML) , an organisation representing UK-university modern languages departments and related professional associations, published a joint report stressing ‘the importance of the year abroad as part of a degree programme for UK students’ (UCML, p. 1). This report sits within an established European tradition of presenting SA not only in terms of the development of subject-related knowledge and skills but also as a means of fostering international citizenship. It argues that:

The international experience has been shown to contribute both to students’ individual experience and employability and to their home country’s national prosperity. In addition to academic learning and deeper cultural insights, students on a year abroad develop both essential skills which help them to observe without misinterpretation or ethnocentric judgement, and interpersonal skills which allow adaptation to complex cultural milieux. They learn to show respect for local values without abandoning their own. (UCML, 2012, pp. 2–3)

Recent years have also seen the growth of numerous student-led initiatives, such as the popular thirdyearabroad.com, offering first-hand information, practical guidance, and useful tips on every aspect of the wide range of often very different year abroad experiences.

Universities have understood the value of SA in terms of its contribution to the internationalisation of higher education . Many of them in the UK have made significant efforts to integrate opportunities for student mobility into their degree programmes. By offering placements in English-speaking as well as non-English-speaking countries and by promoting language study to students across all disciplines, they have extended the take-up for SA beyond just languages students. At Durham, for example, internationalisation features prominently in the University’s ‘Principles for the development of the taught curriculum’: all students are ‘strongly encouraged to undertake credit-bearing languages as optional modules within their programme of study’ and ‘curricula will be designed to provide students with the opportunity to develop as international citizens […] so that students can make a positive contribution to an increasingly globalised society’; SA is encouraged in a number of ways, not least because ‘the University will facilitate opportunities for programmes to permit students to undertake year-long placements, or placements within individual modules’ (Durham University, 2016d, section 3).

However, this growth in interest in and access to SA, though pleasing, is also potentially problematic. As increasing numbers of students opt to complete some of their studying abroad, managing their expectations and, at the same time, ensuring the quality of experience and learning while abroad become more difficult. Students may have unrealistic expectations of SA, fed by a discourse that presents it as automatically and effortlessly transformative and necessarily the best year of your life. Faculty, on the other hand, have little direct control over the quality of learning and pastoral support available in the host country. This is especially problematic in an environment in which students in England now pay substantial tuition fees (though capped at 15 per cent of the full tuition fee during residence abroad) and increasingly see education in consumerist terms. Other problems arise through misperceptions about the nature of SA. Some UK students see it as an extended holiday or little different from the kind of gap year for travel often taken between secondary education and university. Here the priority is on having fun or participating in what, in a US context, Kinginger has described as ‘globalized infotainment ’ (Kinginger, 2008a, p. 206; see also Kinginger, 2013, p. 7; Streitwieser, 2010). Such perceptions are too often encouraged by the way SA is sold to students, with text and images in official publicity or circulating on social media that would not look out of place in a glossy travel brochure. In an analysis of the marketing of SA in the USA, Zemach-Bersin (2009, p. 303) notes the way such ‘institutionalized commercial rhetoric ’ has an impact on ‘how students approach international education’ and ‘the quality of education in which they are prepared to engage’. This rhetoric also risks reinforcing a narrative in which SA is not taken seriously by faculty, is considered time away from real academic work, and is understood as something not unlike a modern Grand Tour (Gore, 2005).

Within this context, questions of how to ensure quality learning, how to distinguish SA from tourism or a holiday, and how to establish the specificity of SA within a modern languages degree in a particular institution all have an important impact on curriculum design and development. This chapter considers efforts to ensure the quality and distinctiveness of SA within the modern languages degree at Durham University through (1) changes to the system of assessment and (2) the introduction of a programme of increased support for social and experiential learning before, during, and after the period of residence abroad. Rather than being driven by expediency or a desire simply to please an ever growing number of eager prospective SA consumers, the approach taken to curriculum review at Durham was underpinned by relevant educational, curriculum design , and SA research . Overall, it was ‘grounded in experiential/constructivist assumptions’ and was ‘holistic’ in the sense use d in Passarelli and Kolb (2012, p. 137) an d Vande Berg , Paige , and Lou (2012, p. 19). In addition, the review of year abroad assessment, more specifically, was infor med by Biggs (2003), Healey (2005), Jenkins and Healey (2009), a s w ell as b y Coleman (2005) and Coleman and Parker (2001) on S A learning objectives and by Dörnyei (2005), Ushioda (2003), a nd Willis Allen (2013) on motivation. Development of more targeted learning support dr ew on Meier (2010), an d on Coleman (2013, 2015) a nd Meier and Daniels (2011) fo r social lea rning, Kolb and Kolb (2005), Kolb (1984), an d Passarelli and Kolb (2012) fo r e xperiential learning , a n d Alred and Byram (2002), Bathurst and LaBrack (2012), Byram (1997), Byram and Zarate (1997), a nd Jackson (2010, 2013), a s well as the Intercultural Educational Resources for ERASMUS students and their Teachers (IEREST) discussed by Beaven and Borghetti in this volume, for intercultural learning. We argue that the effective integration of formal academic learning abroad into the broader undergraduate curriculum, as well as appropriate support for and acknowledgement of other forms of informal learning , are all essential in the creation of a successful SA programme.

Institutional Context

The Scho ol of Modern Language and Cultures at Durham offers a four-year undergraduate degree in modern languages in which students can study one or two languages from Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, and Spanish. Students take six modules in each year: one core-language module for each language studied with the remainder selected from a wide range of cultural options, covering literature, cultural history, cinema and visual culture, translation, and, in some languages, interpreting. Students on Combined Honours and Joint Honours degree courses (e.g., liberal arts, history and French, economics with French) also take modules in the School. There are roughly 240 to 270 students in each year of study, across the School. The students come with excellent secondary-level qualifications; they are all advanced language learners (though some begin one of their languages ab initio in first year) and tend to be independent, self-motivated, and ambitious, going on after Durham either to further study or to a variety of careers, from language-specific work in translation or teaching to work in the media, civil service, business, or finance. The year abroad is compulsory for students on the modern languages degree and is taken in the third year of study. It is considered to be central to the degree and to each student’s development linguistically and intellectually as well as in terms of intercultural competence, enterprise skills, and employability (Durham University, 2016a).

A particular attraction of the programme at Durham is the freedom given to students as to what they can do during their year abroad. Although described as a year abroad, most students in fact spend 15 months in a country or countries in which the languages they are studying are used, from the July at the end of their second year to the October at the start of the final year. Those studying two languages divide their time abroad as they please, though they must spend a minimum of four months in each host culture. There are very few limitations on which countries can be visited: the majority go to France and Belgium , Germany and Austria , Italy , and Spain , but many also take up placements in Latin America , and a limited number go to Canada , the Caribbean , or Africa . These students either: (1) complete a study placement of one or two semesters in one of our partner universities; (2) work as an English language assistant in a school; (3) undertake a paid or unpaid work placement or internship in a company or non-profit organisation; or (4) choose a combination of these options. Some students visit three or even four different locations, with different placements in each one. Whereas study placements (such as ERASMUS or most other university placements) are arranged for students by the School and assistantships are organised by the British Council , students must find their own work placement should they decide this is what they want to do. For students of Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian, the options are slightly more limited with placements normally arranged at a specific language school or university. Nevertheless, with the exception of these languages, work placements are now by far the most popular choice, in spite of the fact that they require the most organisational effort on the part of the students. Over the past five years the percentage of students completing at least one work placement has consistently been above 80 per cent of the whole cohort. The trend towards work placements is possibly due to the level of flexibility they offer and also due to the importance students now attach to employability and building an impressive CV. This trend had to be taken into account in our review of assessment and learning provision in order to integrate learning on work placements into broader learning on the degree and to mitigate what might otherwise be an interruption in academic work for a significant period of time. Although the School is keen to offer freedom and flexibility in relation to the year abroad, faculty also want to stress that it should be understood as a period of ongoing study and not as a gap in the degree curriculum.

History and Development of Assessment

Given thi s diversity, in te rms of location, languages studied, and type of placement completed (not uncommon in European or North American contexts (Coleman, 1997, 2013; Engle & Engle, 2003)), assessment of the Durham year abroad has always been problematic. The need for a single system of assessment for all students means that course credits gained in host universities abroad cannot contribute to the Durham degree. Indeed, the University insists that formal assessment of the year abroad should be in-house.

Until 2007, students produced a 2000-word target-language essay for each language studied based on an aspect of their experience abroad. Supervision of this project was minimal, effectively limited to approval of the topic and feedback on an essay plan, and there was little direct relationship between topics covered and the broader Durham curriculum. The mark for each essay was worth less than 5 per cent of the overall final degree mark and was not specifically mentioned on the degree transcript. Student and faculty dissatisfaction with this situation led to the setting up of a working party that drew on national initiatives such as the Learning and Residence Abroad (LARA) project to develop a new system of year abroad assessment in which students compiled a portfolio relating to their research into one of nine topics (e.g., ‘changing places’, ‘local media’, ‘local food’, ‘local humour’, and so forth (LARA, 2016)). The portfolio encourages students to follow an ethnographic approach to interpreting their experience and elicits reflection on the development of intercultural understanding and competence. However, the portfolio itself was not assessed; to comply with University regulations, the mark (now only 2.5 per cent per language of the final degree mark) was awarded strictly only according to performance in a 15-minute oral exam at the start of the final year where students presented their portfolio and answered questions on it. Success in this short, onetime exam was determined as much by oral language competence (on the day) as by evidence of intercultural sensitivity. Indeed, students felt, quite justifiably, that there was little relationship between the effort required to produce the portfolio and the place accorded to it in the exam and that the development of their written language skills was not being assessed at all. Moreover, collecting portfolios in hard copy from students and redistributing them to examiners proved to be a significant burden on administrative staff, with faculty also complaining that they had to spend considerable time reviewing work as preparation for the oral exams but which they could not, in fact, assess. The portfolio was eventually dropped and replaced by a 700-word reflection related to the same set of topics but, again, only forming the basis for discussion in an oral exam. Students and faculty still felt that there was insufficient relationship between these topics and learning elsewhere in the curriculum and some students even complained that the topics were simplistic, while faculty commented that because of the absence of a rigorous programme of preparation and support, the project could be unintentionally counterproductive by inviting an uncritical approach to stereotypes and generalisations.

It was in this context of general unease that a further working party was set up in 2013, this time with the specific objective of more closely aligning the year abroad with the learning aims and outcomes of the Durham modern languages degree as well as with the University’s principles for curriculum development (Durham University, 2016a, 2016d). This essentially meant aligning the year abroad with the University’s culture of research, understood in terms of learning and teaching as either: ‘research-led’ (the curriculum is focussed on content resulting from faculty research specialisms), ‘research-oriented’ (attention is given to research processes and the development of a researcher mentality), ‘research-based’ (with the focus on enquiry-based activities), or ‘research-informed’ (drawing on and contributing to research into teaching and learning), or a combination of these approaches (Durham University, 2016d; Healey, 2005; Jenkins & Healey, 2009). It was therefore decided that formal learning on the year abroad should involve work towards a substantial research project in the target language that would sit alongside a compulsory final-year dissertation, both of which forming the ‘intellectual pinnacles’ of the degree (Durham University, 2016c). The centrality of the year abroad was thus recognised and its full integration into the curriculum was achieved by closely aligning the students’ year abroad research projects with study in the second and final year (Biggs, 2003). Thus, students would not only be engaged in their own research while abroad (developing their research skills and becoming part of a community of research practice), they would also be able to draw upon and engage with the research and expertise of staff in the School (Streitwieser, 2010). Moreover, since the project requires submission of an extended essay (2500 or 5000 words), students would be encouraged to develop their academic writing skills, an aspect of linguistic development that had been neglected in the past but which research suggests could benefit significantly from targeted input (Pérez-Vidal & Barquin, 2014; Pérez-Vidal & Juan-Garau, 2009; Sasaki, 2011). Finally, the assessment was designed so as to ensure ongoing contact between students abroad and their supervisors in Durham. As well as regular informal emails, there are five formal stages towards completion of the project, each involving submission of a piece of work on which feedback is given. Students take the lead in constructing their project, set their own goals, negotiate deadlines to fit in with their other commitments, and, through the learning support resources described below, reflect on this process, thereby improving motivation (Ushioda, 2003; Willis Allen, 2013). However, unlike with the previous forms of assessment, the current project does not now contribute directly to the final degree mark but must nevertheless be passed in order for the year abroad to be validated as a year of academic study.

This new system of assessment went live in June 2014, but, from the outset, there was a sense that the focus had shifted too much towards formal lear ning and that there was a danger that other, equally valuable forms of learning abroad—especially through interaction—would be neglected. As early as 2001, Coleman and Parker had identified six different types of SA learning objectives and more recent research looked more to social and experiential learning than to formal academic study. Consequently, a project to develop learning resources and support for informal l earning abroad was set up to run alongside the new formal assessment.

Learning Support

In the co ntext of stude nts at Durham and their varied experiences abroad, social and experiential learning was understood as the whole range of things students learn simply by interacting with others and experiencing life. This included interac tions with fellow year abroad students as well as with target-language-speaking peers and friends, co-workers, other students and teachers, and other members of the host culture encountered in day-to-day activities such as shopping for food or accessing basic services. The School’s objective here was to equip students with effective strategies for maximising contact with others abroad (Coleman, 2013, 2015; Isabelli-García, 2006; Jackson, 2008; Kinginger, 2008b; Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura, & McManus, 2017), to promote realistic expectations and maintain motivation (Dörnyei, 2001; Ushioda, 2003; Willis Allen, 2013), and to encourage a reflective approach to interactions (Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Passarelli & Kolb, 2012; Vande Berg et al., 2012) not just as fun but as opportunities to learn (Benson, Barkhuizen, Bodycott, & Brown, 2013, p. 36; Gardner, Gross, & Steglitz, 2008; Kinginger, 2013, p. 7). For students to experience deep learning, it has to be ‘experiential, developmental, and holistic’ (Vande Berg et al., 2012, p. 25).

Kolb’s (1984) experie ntial learning cycle consists of four concepts: concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, reflective observation, and active experimentation; these correspond to four learning styles: experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting. That is, students learn by doing and then reflecting on the learning experience: ‘When a concrete experience is enriched by reflection, given meaning by thinking and transformed by action, the new experience created becomes richer, broader and deeper’ (Passarelli & Kolb, 2012, p. 146); the experience becomes deep learning when students develop ‘meta-awareness’ (Vande Berg et al., 2012, p. 21). However, research suggests that students often need to be taught how to reflect: ‘Teaching reflection needs to be planned and integrated into students’ individual courses of study’ (Quinton & Smallbone, 2010, p. 125).

SA offers an opportunity for students to engage in the four modes of the experiential learning cycle and allows learners to be in charge of their learning and, therefore, motivated (Passarelli & Kolb, 2012, pp. 143–5; Ushioda, 2003; Willis Allen, 2013). Potentially, it allows students to shift from one learning style to another within the learning cycle depending on the learning situation. That is, it gives them ‘learning flexibility’ and promotes deep learning (Passarelli & Kolb, 2012, p. 143). In other words, deep learning is achieved by an increased integration of the four primary learning styles, which students may have the opportunity of achieving during their residence abroad supported by the guidance of an educator (Passarelli & Kolb, 2012, p. 147).

SA also offers the experience of dealing with life in a new and unfamiliar environment. This involves milestones, such as finding accommodation, signing a work contract, opening a bank account, or completing administrative formalities; but it also involves the mundane, such as shopping, using public transport, eating out, watching television, joining clubs, or playing sports (Barro, Jordan, & Roberts, 1998). This time the School’s objective was to help students negotiate these experiences successfully, to raise awareness of their value, and, again, to get students to reflect on their learning (Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Passarelli & Kolb, 2012; Vande Berg et al., 2012).

It was important to support and recognise social and experiential learning because this learning is fundamental not only to the development of cultural knowledge (Byram & Feng, 2004; Kinginger, 2013) and linguistic ability (Adams, 2006; Kinginger, 2008a, 2008b), but also to the development of intercultural competence (Alred & Byram, 2002; Byram, 2014; Holmes, Bavieri, Ganassin, & Murphy, 2016; Jackson, 2010), enterprise skills, and employability (Brooks, Waters, & Pimlott-Wilson, 2012; Busch, 2009; Gardner et al., 2008; Jones, 2013; UKCES, 2016). Visits to sites of historical or architectural significance, museums, theatres, and the cinema, participating in festivals and cultural events, experiencing local food, or just observing a particular way of life, all help provide first-hand knowledge of specific cultures. Moreover, social interaction and real-life experience can have an important positive impact on language learning by presenting students with opportunities for regular, purposeful communicative acts (Mitchell et al., 2017). All of this informal l earning clearly feeds into the students’ formal academic work, aligned to the curriculum and assessed either through the year abroad research project or in final year. However, the School also wanted to support and capture the soft skills SA so effectively promotes. During their year abroad, students face cultural otherness daily and, for some, this experience is repeated in a number of different locations (e.g., Argentina then rural France then Spain then Paris). Thus, students get the opportunity to develop the skills necessary for successful intercultural interaction in several cultural contexts (McKinnon, 2018). Follo wing Byram’s (1997) model, in order to gain intercultural communicative competence , students need to: (1) gain sociocultural knowledge of the other culture (savoir); (2) interpret and relate to documents and texts of the receiving culture (savoir comprendre); (3) develop the ability to gain new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices, to be used in social interaction , such as strategies of politeness (savoir apprendre/faire); (4) develop critical cultural awareness to be able to critically evaluate beliefs and practices in the receiving culture as well as their own (savoir s’engager); and (5) develop respect for others by questioning their own values and beliefs (savoir être).

While abroad students also have to independently and proactively find solutions to problems that can no longer be resolved by recourse to the usual sources of help, such as family or close friends. Even in the age of social networking and cheap mobile communications, contacts in the home culture may simply not have the skillset needed to be useful in target-culture contexts. Research has shown that, while abroad, most students do develop the attributes and skills that are attractive to employers: independence, adaptability, time management, decision-making, dependability, diplomacy, creativity, resourcefulness, as well as an ability to think ahead, assess risk, prioritise, and compromise (Gardner et al., 2008, p. 4). Indeed, it is precisely the development of such soft skills that makes those who have studied abroad so employable (Larzén-Östermark, 2011, p. 455), yet feedback from students consistently revealed that this aspect of their learning and development was something they found especially difficult to articulate (McKinnon, 2018).

The School’s project aimed to provide a programme of targeted intervention before, during, and after the period of residence abroad, focussing on culture-specific and linguistic support, as well as intercultural competence, enterprise skills, and employability. Support was thus to be focussed on the whole cycle, not just the period of residence abroad and designed not just to prepare but to educate students about SA itself (Benson et al., 2013, p. 146). A guided, interventionist approach allows students to articulate, reflect, and re-examine their motives, expectations, and actual experiences during the whole cycle (Bathurst & LaBrack, 2012; Benson et al., 2013, pp. 150–5). The methodological approach drew on a number of pre-existing learning support programmes, some of which also provided materials that could be used directly or adapted. Projects such as the EU Online Linguistic Support (OLS, 2016) were already available to our students in receipt of an ERASMUS + grant; and other EU projects such as the ERASMUS Mundus Intercultural Competence (EMIC, 2016) toolkit or t he IEREST (2016) resources were both accessible and easily adaptable. By collaborating with other University departments, such as the International Office and the Careers Service, we were also able to draw on their expertise, avoid duplication, and offer a seamless experience to our students. Finally, the project was able to exploit resources that had been developed in previous iterations of the Durham year abroad, and a small grant from the University allowed us to create new materials in order to cater to our own current students’ specific learning needs.

In developing this programme of learning support, we adhered to the same holistic approach and principles of curriculum alignment as for the assessment . The intention was to provide students with a ‘meta-awareness’ of their cultural self-positioning and to scaffold their learning with ‘meaningful cultural mentoring and opportunities for reflection on meaning making’ (Vande Berg et al., 2012, p. 21). Preparation activities were to be integrated into second-year classes (principally in core-language modules); year abroad activities would be delivered through ongoing contact with teachers and lecturers and through access to the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) (e.g., Blackboard); final-year activities would again be integrated into core-language modules and through specially organised year abroad meetings. At each stage, students would be involved in the delivery of the programme, with returning students and incoming exchange students sharing their first-hand experience of SA with those preparing to go away. This was considered important not just as a means of cascading useful information and advice but also as a way of encouraging returning students to reflect on and value their own learning (Benson et al., 2013, p. 155; Kolb, 1984; Passarelli & Kolb, 2012, p. 146; Vande Berg et al., 2012, p. 21).

Pre-residence abroad activities and materials include practical, culture-specific preparation delivered either in class, via the VLE (e.g., video tutorials, student blogs, web links), or in meetings with a language-specific advisor, and include information about cultural norms, rules of behaviour, accommodation, and administrative formalities as well as information about the education system for British Council and ERASMUS placements, and help completing target-language applications for work placements. This is supplemented by a series of ten-minute, non-culture-specific activities to be integrated into classes in any language and designed to foster intercultural competence. For example, students are asked to reflect on the intercultural experiences they have already had since arriving at university (most are not from Durham, which has a strong local cultural identi ty) and to consider how they have negotiated these experiences; another activity asks students to list well-known stereotypes relating to their year abroad host culture, and then reflect on ideas of individual identi ty, the legitimacy of generalisations, and the power structures they frequently hide. A similar series of ten-minute linguistic exercises aims to encourage students to reflect on and develop their own strategies for language learning abroad.

While abroad, ongoing language learning is supported by work towards the assessed research project (vocabulary building; supervisor’s feedback on samples) and by access to in-house online language-learning exercises (essentially grammar and vocabulary) aligned to prior learning and study in final year, as well as generic resources such as the ERASMUS + OLS. Short video tutorials provide guidance on the compilation of a reflective portfolio, suggesting evidence to collect in relation to activities that help demonstrate the development of enterprise skills and intercultural competence (finding accommodation, administrative formalities, negotiating social structures and relationships, and so forth). Students are thus encouraged to become attentive to and actively conscious of their activities abroad, reflecting on their learning as it happens and then retrospectively (if they have a similar experience in a different country). The self-awareness afforded by this activity motivates students intrinsically but they are also motivated extrinsically because they know that the portfolio will form an important part of their language work in final year.

In final year, the emphasis shifts to consolidation of learning and to its recognition both by students and the institution. In the past, students had complained that they found it difficult to articulate what they had gained from SA, for example, in employment interviews. They also complained that the School did not do enough to acknowledge their learning. Under the former system of assessment , the 15-minute oral exam at the start of final year was often the only opportunity students had to discuss SA with their teachers; it was never mentioned again. An important part of the School’s project was therefore to build ongoing reflection on the year abroad into final-year teaching. This was achieved through developing ten-minute activities to be used in core-language classes (as for second year), including writing tasks and oral presentations, and exploiting materials and reflection in the portfolios compiled abroad. The focus of these activities was mainly on enterprise and intercultural ity, but employability was addressed elsewhere through closer collaboration with the University Careers Service who organise a series of meetings to help students explore the match between knowledge and skills developed abroad and what employers are looking for in future employees. Finalists are also encouraged to deploy their own expertise as SA participants by producing blogs or information booklets and by participating in year abroad meetings, all intended for second-year students. Although none of this is currently officially credited by the University, the School is looking at forms of accreditation such as a separate year abroad certificate, participation in the Durham Award (a certificate recognising the skills Durham students develop beyond their academic studies (Durham University, 2016b)), or a scheme for digital certification such as Open Badges (Mozilla, 2016).

Conclusion and Recommendations

Many of our assumptions about what and how students learn during SA are open to question (Vande Berg et al., 2012, pp. 3–4). One of these assumptions is that students will learn simply by going abroad: they will enhance not only their linguistic and intercultural competences, but they will also develop enterprise skills and acquire employability without any institutional intervention or focussed effort of their own. However, as Vande Berg et al. (2012, p. 20) po int out ‘when viewed through an experiential/constructivist lens, we see that immersion in experience abroad will not, in and of itself, lead students to learn effectively’. That is, going abroad is not in itself a guarantee of learning. Indeed, research indicates that ‘students learn and develop effectively and appropriately when educators intervene more intentionally through well-designed training programs that continue throughout the SA experience’ (Vande Berg et al., 2012, p. 21).

Our experience of designing a SA package for our own institution leads us to a number of specific recommendations. Firstly, in modern languages, SA should be central to the degree in terms of both recognition and actual learning. This will ensure that both staff and students give this aspect of their studies the seriousness it merits. This is one of the recommendations also proposed b y Meier (2010, p. 10) as well as by the UCML (2012, p. 9). I t clearly has implications for staff training and development since to develop and run a SA programme successfully within an institution, it is essential to have ongoing staff development so that all participants can understand and value the role of SA within the degree as a whole (Coleman & Parker, 2001, pp. 143–4).

A second recommendation involves the different contexts in which SA takes place. That is, variation in terms of experience and the type of students and institutions involved must be taken into account because curriculum design will differ according to the specific learning objectives of both student and institution. Moreover, SA programmes and experiences may vary not only from country to country and institution to institution but also within the same institution (Coleman, 2013, pp. 26–7). In Durham University, for example, the year abroad programme in modern languages is very different from that available in some other departments.

A third recommendation is that for SA to be integrated within any one programme, a holistic approach needs to be adopted, ensuring that it is taken seriously and supports broader student learning. Even where it is a supplementary component to the degree, such as an additional or extracurricular year, it should support and develop upon the student’s longer-term learning aims. As mentioned above, learning needs to be holistic in order to become deep learning (Vande Berg et al., 2012), and by holistic we mean that all types of learning should be recognised, not just formal, cultural learning and language acquisition; important as they are, these types of learning do not account for all of the full range of SA learning objectives (Coleman, 2015, p. 38). In other words, ‘the whole person and the whole context’ need to be taken into account when designing a programme of study (Coleman, 2013, p. 36).

As a fourth recommendation, we would propose full curriculum integration of SA with formal lear ning elsewhere in the degree. Without some form of formal lear ning clearly linked to the broader learning outcomes of the degree as a whole, the period of SA risks becoming at worst a holiday and at best a gap year. Indeed, ‘the widespread image of study abroad as dressed-up vacation time will persist as long as we allow it’ (Engle & Engle, 2003, p. 16). To combat this perception, there is a need to ‘re-educate students and their parents regarding the nobler ends and means of study abroad’ (Engle & Engle, 2003, p. 17), as well as faculty and administrators. In addition, formal lear ning motivates students intrinsically and extrinsically because it fits in with their broader learning aims (i.e., to master their subject but also to successfully graduate) (Dörnyei, 2001; Ushioda, 2003; Willis Allen, 2013). It also validates SA within the institution and helps maintain contact between students and their teachers.

A fifth recommendation relates to social and experiential learning . Both social and experiential learning must be fully integrated into the specific learning objectives for SA. Both must also be adequately supported, for example, with preparatory sessions prior to departure, a reflective portfolio while abroad, and debriefing sessions on return. They must also be recognised: ‘If our institutions are serious about reinforcing the international dimension of the experiences they offer, one would hope that they are open to implementing a system that would clearly acknowledge the kind of overseas-study experiences their students have had and reward those achievements’ (Engle & Engle, 2003, p. 16). This might be achieved either by including social and experiential learning in the assessment or validation of the degree or by means of supplementary certification.

Finally, we recommend that the preparation for SA should be ongoing so that the experience is seen as institutional and not something the students do outside of the home institution (Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Passarelli & Kolb, 2012; Vande Berg et al., 2012). As mentioned above, students need to be taught how to reflect throughout the programme, even from the first year (Bathurst & LaBrack, 2012; Benson et al., 2013; Jackson, 2013; Meier & Daniels, 2011; Quinton & Smallbone, 2010; Vande Berg, 2009).

SA can be a rewarding and enjoyable experience. It can also contribute to the development of the knowledge and skills necessary for students to achieve their learning aims and objectives, and to reach their personal and professional goals. A well-designed programme of SA needs to take all of the different kinds of learning abroad into account, supporting, capturing, and acknowledging this learning in appropriate ways. In order to be seen as at the centre of the curriculum, it needs to be fully integrated within it, reflecting the reasons students came to a particular institution and playing a role in their learning and success there. Developments in the Durham year abroad have been both challenging and rewarding to students and staff alike. The programme has evolved over a long period of time, and changes in one part of it often highlight the need to develop provision elsewhere. Much as our students learn from their experiences abroad, it is in our own experience of working towards enhancing student learning that we most effectively come to understand our students’ learning needs, and can thereby continue to develop and improve our interventions.

Summary of recommendations for positioning SA at the centre of the modern languages curriculum

• SA should be central to learning and teaching on a degree in modern languages and its importance should be recognised institutionally.

• Curriculum design must take student and institutional diversity into account. No two students or institutions are identical.

• SA should be integrated into students’ whole lives; learning should be understood broadly and holistically.

• Learning abroad should support and be supported by formal lear ning elsewhere in the modern languages curriculum.

• Learning support interventions should acknowledge the importance and value of social and experiential learning abroad.

• SA should be seen by students as part of their learning for the home institution.