Mandatory Training for Faculty-Lead Study Abroad: Imperative or Inessential?

• In Event: Faculty members and doctoral students abroad

Proposal

The number of United States students participating in study abroad programs is at an all-time high. During the 2015 – 2016 academic year, 325,339 U. S. students studied abroad for academic credit, an increase of 3.8% over the previous year (Institute of International Education, 2017).  The momentum can be partially attributed to the growing number of research studies focused on measuring study abroad student learning outcomes (Tarrant, Rubin, & Stoner, 2013; Braskamp, Braskamp, & Merrill, 2009; Paige, Stallman, & Josić, 2008; Tarrant, 2010; Wynveen, Kyle, & Tarrant, 2012; McLeod, & Wainwright, 2009; Morais, & Ogden, 2011).  These studies demonstrate the value of study abroad and its contributions to global competency skills. Consequently, many institutions view study abroad as an essential element of an undergraduate education, incorporating study abroad into curriculum and assessment plans (Bolen, 2006, p. 7-10). However, institutional training for faculty—the most frequent leaders of study abroad—may be either inadequate or non-existent, potentially exposing study abroad leaders and their institutions to significant liability.

This study examined institutional policies and training opportunities for faculty study abroad leaders at a large Midwestern U. S. research university system. The study utilized an intrinsic case study design that included interviews, focus groups, and document analysis. For interviews and focus groups, criterion sampling was used to select participants; only individuals with critical knowledge related to faculty-lead study abroad were selected (Patton, 1990). Participants included a balance of faculty and study abroad coordinators with both extensive and minimal experience related to study abroad, as well as a balance of gender representation and academic disciplines from colleges across the university. Twelve individuals participated in either an interview or a focus group. Interviews and focus groups lasted approximately one hour each, and were conducted using a semi-structured protocol. They were recorded and then transcribed. The transcripts were coded by the researchers using open and axial coding. Document analysis included analysis of documents and web-sites related to study abroad at the case study institution and at both peer and aspirational institutions.

The study used Transformative Learning Theory (TLT) as the theoretical framework (Mezirow, 2009). TLT argues that when an adult faces a “disorienting dilemma” they are challenged to adjust their values and perceptions of the world to fit the new experience into their frame of reference. In addition, individuals have a tendency to move away from activities that do not align with their preconceived perspectives, labeling such activities as irrelevant, nonsense, weird, etc.

Five research questions guided this study: (1) What do study abroad leaders perceive as potential risk management and university liability issues that could occur during study abroad programs? (2) What institutional policies, if any, are in place related to mandatory training for faculty who lead study abroad programs? (3) What best practices, if any, are observed by the university’s peer and aspirational institutions? (4) What training opportunities, if any, are desired by university faculty who lead study abroad? and (5) What modalities are preferred by faculty for the training of study abroad leaders?

The findings revealed a clear distinction among the participants with regard to the first research question. Whereas study abroad coordinators were conversant about both risk management and university liability issues, faculty did not identify concerns with either. In response to the second research question, no institutional policies related to training for faculty study abroad leaders were found at the case study site. Conversely, with regard to research question three, the findings revealed that training at peer institutions is offered and often required for study abroad leaders; this is typically done on an annual basis through face-to-face instruction. Among peer institutions, training is required at seven of the nine institutions. In response to research question four, participants overwhelmingly indicated that training—or at least orientation—should be required for faculty study abroad leaders. They identified four topics for such training: (1) the expectations, role, and responsibilities of leaders, (2) education regarding risk management and liability issues, (3) available resources, and (4) procedures for addressing issues and/or emergencies that may arise while abroad. And responding to research question five, participants strongly preferred face-to-face instruction, supplemented by additional resources made available on-line.

The findings demonstrated that the current preparation of faculty study abroad leaders at the case study institution is deficient, especially when compared to the best practices of peer institutions. This lack of training is a vulnerability for the institution because it potentially both compromises the safety of students and exposes the institution to various liability issues. In keeping with Transformative Learning Theory, we found that faculty who had experienced a disorienting dilemma while leading a study abroad program were both more cognizant of the need for training and desirous of mandatory institutional training. Conversely, those who had not experienced a disorienting dilemma saw mandatory training as unnecessary. Our full paper more fully discusses these and other implications.

The findings of this research study are not generalizable to other institutions, due to the intrinsic case study design. However, the study highlights heightened opportunities, challenges, and responsibilities—for both individuals and institutions—associated with the growing number of American students studying abroad. The study accordingly contributes to the literature related to study abroad risk management.

Authors

• Stephen P. Wanger, Oklahoma State University

• Aleigha Mariott, Oklahoma State University

• Megan Pitt, Oklahoma State University

• Jeff Simpson, Oklahoma State University