This article was downloaded by: University College London

On: 04 Jul 2020

Access details: subscription number 11237
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural

Communication

Jane Jackson

The language and intercultural

dimension of education abroad

Publication details
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781003036210-34
Jane Jackson
Published online on: 14 May 2020

How to cite :- Jane Jackson. 14 May 2020, The language and intercultural
dimension of education abroad from: The Routledge Handbook of Language and
Intercultural Communication Routledge
Accessed on: 04 Jul 2020
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781003036210-34

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or
accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210

27
The language and intercultural
dimension of education abroad
Jane Jackson

Introduction/terminology
In the last few decades we have witnessed a dramatic rise in the number of young people
who are gaining some form of educational experience outside their country of citizenship,
and the participants are becoming more diverse in terms of ethnicity, area of study, country of
origin, and socioeconomic status. According to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, in 2018
there were over five million higher education students being educated transnationally and this
number is expected to surpass eight million by 2025 (UNESCO 2018). A broader range of goals
(e.g., second language (L2) enhancement, exposure to other cultures, disciplinary learning) is
inspiring students to seek international educational experience, and education abroad options
have become more varied (e.g., study abroad, internships, work placements, field research, service
learning, volunteering, directed travel linked to learning goals).
The field of education abroad is complicated by the use of different terminology in different
parts of the world. Several terms may represent the same concept and, in some cases, a single
term may have multiple meanings. To reduce semantic ambiguity and facilitate comparisons of
programmes and research findings, the Forum on Education Abroad (2011) published a glossary
for American education abroad professionals, which is now in its second edition (see https://
forumea.org/resources/glossary/). Coleman (1997) and Europa, the European Commission of
Education, Training and Youth (European Commission 2017) offer insight into the education
abroad nomenclature that is prevalent in European contexts (e.g., ‘international credit mobility’,
‘academic mobility’).
While the term ‘study abroad’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘education abroad’,
most international education scholars distinguish between them. For the Forum on Education
Abroad (2011), study abroad refers to ‘a subtype of education abroad that results in progress
toward an academic degree at a student’s home institution’, excluding ‘the pursuit of a full aca-
demic degree at a foreign institution’ (p. 12). In European contexts this form of education abroad
is generally referred to as ‘credit mobility’ (European Commission 2017).
In this chapter I begin by briefly discussing historical trends in education abroad, with an
emphasis on programmes that have been designed with language and (inter)cultural learning in
mind. After identifying critical issues and topics that have emerged in the literature, attention is

442
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Education abroad

drawn to several influential studies, highlighting variations in their theoretical underpinnings,

methodologies, and findings. I then discuss practical implications of the research for education
abroad programming and, more specifically, the language and (inter)cultural development of L2
speakers. The chapter concludes with suggestions to enhance research and practice in education
abroad.

Historical perspectives
Education abroad is not new. For centuries, students have left their home country to gain
exposure to other languages and cultures and acquire the knowledge and credentials that were
not available in their home institution. A review of historic records reveals that ancient centres
of learning (e.g., Alexandria, Athens, Rome) were attracting students from other countries as
early as 500 BC . By the eighteenth century, the ‘European Grand Tour’ had become popular in
Europe, whereby elite students (e.g., affluent offspring of British aristocrats) travelled to western
European countries in search of cultural and social sophistication (Hoffa 2007; Medina 2008).
After World War II, the ‘Junior Year Abroad’ emerged as an option for American students (e.g.,
females who were majoring in the Arts and Humanities). Programmes of this nature generally
aimed to enhance knowledge of another language and culture in the host speech community
(Dietrich 2018; Hoffa 2007). Since the 1960s, what was once an experience largely reserved
for the privileged has become more accessible, varied, and increasingly focused on disciplinary
learning (Hoffa and DePaul 2010; Ogden and Brewer 2019; Sanz and Morales-Front 2018).
With accelerating globalisation, more and more educational institutions across the globe are
embedding an international dimension into their teaching and research, and providing more
education abroad options. This process is referred to as internationalisation, which de Wit and
colleagues (2015) define as ‘the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural
or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in
order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff , and to make a
meaningful contribution to society’ (p. 33). Education abroad programming is incorporated in
this definition.
In many parts of the world, internationalisation policies and plans, whether formal or
informal, shape the scope and direction of education abroad or academic mobility. In Europe,
for example, since 1987, the European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University
Students (ERASMUS) seeks to cultivate ‘European citizenship’ and an international outlook. By
2020, it is expected that more than 4 million European students and educators will have taken
part in the expanded Erasmus+ programme, which includes opportunities to gain international
experience through volunteer work, study abroad, and training (European Commission 2017).
While in the host environment, education abroad students may elect to take language or sub-
ject matter courses at a tertiary institution, serve as a teaching assistant, join a work placement
scheme in the private sector, do volunteer work, or undertake a combination of these options.
On site, with the support of a mentor from their home or host institution, they may carry out
small-scale research projects (e.g., ethnographic studies) or participate in other experiential activ-
ities to bring them into closer contact with local communities of practice (Jackson 2006; 2008;
2010; 2018; Roberts et al. 2001; Schaefer and Lynch 2017).
Secondary and tertiary students are increasingly choosing to enhance their L2 proficiency
and intercultural communication skills by taking part in a short-term education abroad pro-
gramme, that is, one that is eight weeks or less (Hoffa and DePaul 2010; Institute of International
Education 2018). Some young people go abroad on their own, while others travel in a group.
In the host environment, they may take courses in the host language at a commercial language

443
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Jane Jackson

centre or other educational institution. Some participants study alongside L2 speakers from other
countries, whereas others remain in intact groups, taking specially designed courses (e.g., litera-
ture, cultural studies, business English) with peers from their home institution. Coursework may
be credit bearing, allowing the transfer of credits back to the home institution.
Many short-term education abroad programmes are faculty led, with a teacher or pro-
fessor from the home institution accompanying the group. A  secondary school teacher of
English in Japan, for example, may travel to Australia with her students for a 10-day intensive
language and cultural enhancement programme. The programme may include a homestay,
language and cultural lessons with host teachers, cultural site visits, and informal activities
with Australian peers. Informed by research and innovations in technology and pedagogy,
programme variations in short-term education abroad programmes continue to evolve
(Chieffo and Spaeth 2017).
Exchange agreements with foreign counterparts are also making it possible for more students
at the secondary and tertiary levels to join an international exchange programme and stay abroad
for a longer period of time (e.g., a 14-week semester, an academic year). Participants with an
advanced level of proficiency in the host language may take courses alongside host nationals and
other international students and possibly transfer some credits to their home institution. With
this arrangement, the participants have the potential to simultaneously enhance their L2 profi-
ciency, intercultural communication skills, and academic knowledge in other areas of study (e.g.,
architecture, engineering). While abroad, they may also develop their professional skills (e.g.,
business, health care) through coursework, service learning, and/or a work placement.
With the emergence of English as the global language of internationalisation, many non-
English speaking countries now offer English-medium courses and exposure to local (and
global) perspectives in a range of disciplines. Hong Kong Chinese business majors, for example,
can travel to Sweden, Finland, or the Netherlands to take courses in English in their area of spe-
cialisation (e.g., marketing, management). Some participants may also choose to take language
enhancement courses in the local language (e.g., Swedish, Finnish, Dutch) to gain more exposure
to the host culture.Within these exchange programmes, as in the short-term, faculty-led options,
the quality and degree of contact with the host language and culture varies considerably.
Another element that can affect the language and (inter)cultural learning of education abroad
participants is the housing arrangement, which can take many forms (e.g., independent accom-
modation; living with a host family; residence in a boarding house, youth hostel, or dormitory on
campus; sharing an apartment off-campus with host nationals, other international students, or L1
speakers from the home country). Some options may be more effective in facilitating relation-
ship building with people from other cultural/linguistic backgrounds but there is no guarantee
that one is better than another. Homestays, for example, are not necessarily better at fostering
language and intercultural enhancement as much depends on the availability, commitment,
and open-mindedness of the hosts (e.g., degree of host receptivity) and the investment of the
newcomers (e.g., time and energy invested in L2/intercultural learning, willingness to commu-
nicate) (Iwasaki 2019; Jackson 2008; 2018).
Besides variations in aims, duration, content, and housing, there are other elements within
programmes that can play an influential role in the language and intercultural development of
education abroad participants. The quality and amount of pre-departure preparation, support
in the host country, and re-entry debriefings differ greatly, ranging from no support to credit-
bearing coursework at all stages that is designed to facilitate, deepen, and extend education abroad
learning (Jackson 2018; Jackson and Oguro 2018a).Technological advances are also changing the
shape of pedagogical interventions (e.g., mixed-mode intercultural pre-departure orientations,
fully online intercultural transition courses for education abroad students) (Jackson 2019a). It

444
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Education abroad

is therefore important to be mindful of contextual elements when digesting publications that

centre on language and intercultural communication in relation to education abroad.

Critical issues and topics

In past decades, it was widely assumed that formal L2 learning and immersion in the native
speech community offer the best opportunity to enhance intercultural sensitivity and profi-
ciency in the host language (Freed 1995; Jackson et al. 2020; Kinginger 2009). Today, there is far
more awareness of the manifold, complex variables that can affect developmental trajectories and
result in differing learning outcomes.
Education abroad researchers have been examining the ways in which language and
intercultural development is impacted by programme features (e.g., duration; mode of housing;
guided cultural/experiential project work; degree of cultural immersion; quality and extent of
pre-departure orientation/ongoing support/debriefings), and elements in the host environ-
ment (e.g., host receptivity; quality and amount of exposure to the host language and culture).
A number of scholars are scrutinising the ways in which technology and social media (e.g., the
use of email, Skype, WeChat, Facebook, and other electronic means) are affecting the language
and intercultural development and social networks of education abroad participants (e.g., Jackson
2019a; Iwasaki 2019; Mitchell et al. 2018).
In addition to programme features, education abroad researchers have found that language
and intercultural learning is impacted by the characteristics and choices of individual participants
(e.g., agency, personality, L2 competence, degree of openness to new experience, attitude toward
cultural difference, motivation and investment in L2 enhancement, level of intercultural sensi-
tivity/competence, previous intercultural/international experience, adaptive stress management)
(Iwasaki 2019; Jackson and Schwieter 2019; Llanes et al. 2012).
Even if students enter an education abroad programme with an advanced level of pro-
ficiency in the host language (an L2) this does not mean that they possess a high level of
sociopragmatic awareness (e.g., the ability to use language appropriately in social contexts
in the host environment), intercultural sensitivity and/or a strong desire to make the most
of their stay abroad (Jackson 2018; 2019b; Taguchi 2018). The relationship between L2 pro-
ficiency, intercultural communicative competence, and intercultural engagement is far from
straightforward. Researchers have discovered that simply being present in the host speech
community does not guarantee the enhancement of a student’s L2 fluency or intercultural
sensitivity.
Within our field there is also growing recognition of the complex connection between edu-
cation abroad learning and such variables as power, privilege, and access to local communities
of practice (Hoult 2018; Jackson 2018; Chapter 23, this volume). To more fully comprehend the
‘whole person’ development of education abroad participants, more researchers are adopting a
critical lens, paying more heed to the status and positioning of newcomers (and host nationals)
in the host environment (e.g., Hoult 2018; Mas-Alcolea 2019). In a homestay situation, for
example, on a daily basis, ‘novices’ may be pressed to convey their thoughts and emotions in a
foreign language, in what may be for them, a rather intimidating and confusing setting, at least
initially. By contrast, their hosts are at home in their own surroundings and typically positioned
as ‘experts’ in both the host language and culture (e.g., local communities of practice).
Empathetic host families that are mindful of the challenges facing the new arrivals may make
more of an effort to understand the adjustment process (e.g., psychological stress due to increased
use of an L2, homesickness, and cultural confusion) and actively encourage participation in
family and community activities. Other hosts, however, may fail to comprehend the concerns,

445
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Jane Jackson

needs, and insecurities of the newcomers; the absence of empathy, patience, and understanding
may then have a detrimental effect on relationship building and student learning.
Agency has been found to play a key role in the language and intercultural development
of education abroad participants (Iwasaki 2019; Jackson 2018). Students are individuals (‘social
agents’) with their own aims, needs, and concerns. Their mindset (e.g., degree of positivity and
openness to other cultures) and the actions they take in the host environment can profoundly
influence education abroad learning and outcomes. Some participants aspire to enhance their
L2 social skills and actively seek out opportunities to cultivate friendships with host nationals.
With resilience and an optimistic mindset, they may take full advantage of linguistic and cultural
affordances in the local speech community (e.g., frequently initiate conversations in the host lan-
guage, make an effort to include host nationals in their social networks). By contrast, newcomers
with a fear of cultural difference and a more rigid mindset may limit themselves to formal, aca-
demic contexts and shy away from intercultural interactions, thereby curtailing exposure to the
host language and culture. They may even return home with heightened xenophobia (Jackson
2008; 2010; 2017; 2018). As mentioned above, the mindset and agency of hosts (e.g., degree of
receptivity towards newcomers) also plays a critical role in the adjustment process. The learning
situation of education abroad participants is variable and complex.
Identity-related issues also play an important role in international educational experience.
A review of the literature on education abroad reveals that students who are open to the process
of personal expansion (identity reconstruction) and find their hosts welcoming may develop a
broader, more cosmopolitan sense of Self and revel in the acquisition of a more inclusive, global
identity (Jackson 2008; 2010; 2018; Mitchell et al. 2018). For some students, however, feelings
of inbetweenness or cultural marginality (Bennett 1993) may ensue if they reject their first lan-
guage (L1), local Self, and the values that are promoted in their home environment. Other edu-
cation abroad participants acquire an appreciation of both local and global identities and diverse
ways of being. Recognising the benefits of bilingual or multilingual selfhood, they may enhance
their intercultural communicative competence, grow in self-confidence, and take steps towards
intercultural citizenship (Bennett 2008; Tullock 2018; see also Chapters 4, 17, 19, 21, and 23,
this volume).
If the preferred self-identities of newcomers are contested in the host environment, researchers
observe that psychological distress may create barriers between them and their hosts. In her
identity negotiation theory, Ting-Toomey (2018) posits that newcomers who find that their
identities are continuously misunderstood may remain disconnected from the host culture (and
language) and become less willing to engage. Surrounded by L1 speakers of the host language,
some newcomers may lose confidence in their L2 ability and find it difficult to develop a sense
of belonging or attachment in the host environment, especially if they are racially different from
the majority for the first time in their life. Under threat, they may cling more tightly to their L1,
‘local Self ’, and friends from their home country (co-nationals) who share the same ethnicity. As
more L2 students from different parts of the world join education abroad programmes, issues of
agency, power, positioning, environmental affordances/constraints, and identity will continue to
be of interest to researchers and practioners.

Current contributions and research

Drawing on a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches, researchers from multiple
disciplines have been investigating the language and intercultural development of education
abroad participants in various contexts. Much of the early work of applied linguists measured
linguistic gains in formal classroom situations, sometimes comparing language study at home and

446
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Education abroad

abroad (Jackson et al. 2020; Kinginger 2009). In Freed’s (1995) seminal volume on SLA research
in a study abroad context, the majority of studies examined individual and group differences
in terms of fluency, lexical and grammatical development, and use of communication strategies.
Although the results were mixed, most supported the notion that study abroad can help learners
become more fluent, confident speakers of the host language.
More recently, large-scale, product-oriented studies of education abroad experience have
been criticised for ignoring the sociocultural, political, linguistic, and historical context of the
learning situation. In line with the ‘social turn’ in second language acquisition research (Block
2003), Collentine and Freed (2004) advised education abroad researchers to pay close attention
to the sociocultural dimensions of international educational experience, including contextual
elements and out-of-class, informal language learning. Heeding this call, a growing number
of applied linguists have been studying the ‘whole-person’ development of education abroad
participants, including the processes involved in language and (inter)cultural learning (Coleman
2013; Jackson et al. 2020).
In their work, education abroad researchers now employ introspective techniques (e.g., diaries,
first-person narratives/blogs, in-depth interviews, photo elicitation) and such approaches as case
studies, (critical) ethnographies, narrative inquiry, and mixed-method studies (Iwasaki 2019;
Jackson 2008; 2018; Mitchell et al. 2015; 2018). The examination of the storied experiences of
education abroad participants within particular sociocultural, linguistic contexts is helping us to
better understand the internal and external factors that are resulting in divergent developmental
trajectories. This, in turn, is providing direction for innovative pedagogical interventions (e.g.,
curricular changes in study abroad programmes) (Jackson 2018; Jackson and Oguro 2018a; Plews
and Misfeldt 2018).
In the first in-depth qualitative investigation of student migration within Europe, Murphy-
Lejeune (2002) investigated the experiences of ‘year abroad’ students in three different
programmes: Erasmus, bilateral language assistantships, and a French business school programme.
Interview data revealed that multiple variables influenced their learning (e.g., motives for
going abroad, agency, duration of stay, type and degree of intercultural contact, L2 competence,
attitudes, home links, personality). Building on this work, Mas-Alcolea (2019) conducted mul-
tiple case studies of Erasmus experience through a critical lens. She found that intercultural
interactions in the host environment impacted her participants ‘stereotypical thinking or
discourses of Othering’; over time they began to ‘emphasise the similarities – not so much the
differences – with other students from different countries whom they had met abroad’ (p. 68).
Some also began to recognise diversity among their co-national peers, moving further along ‘the
essentialist–non-essentialist continuum view of (national) “culture”’ (p. 69).
Following an ethnographic approach, Jackson (2008; 2010) investigated the language and
(inter)cultural development and self-identities of Hong Kong Chinese university students who
participated in a faculty-led, short-term study abroad programme in England. Data consisted of
semi-structured interviews, surveys (e.g., a modified version of the Language Contact Profile
(Freed et  al. 2004), weekly sojourn surveys), a pre-sojourn intercultural reflections journal,
sojourn diary, a language use log, and field notes. Interesting differences were found in their
homestay situations (e.g., degree of contact with hosts, the quality of the host–sojourner rela-
tionship) and this impacted the students’ language and intercultural development.
More recently, in a series of mixed-method studies, Jackson (e.g., 2017; 2019c) tracked the
language and intercultural development of semester and year-long international exchange
students who studied in an L2 during their stay abroad. Their trajectories were found to differ
due to a complex mix of internal and environmental factors (e.g., host receptivity, investment in
language and culture enhancement, degree of acculturative stress, agency, personality attributes,

447
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Jane Jackson

social networks, quality of socioemotional support). Advanced knowledge of the grammar and
vocabulary of the host language did not ensure intercultural communicative competence, a
high degree of sociopragmatic awareness, or satisfying intercultural interactions. Interesting
differences were found in the participants’ L2 socialisation, that is, their adjustment to the use of
the host language in both academic and social situations.Variations in their intercultural attitudes
and willingness to engage in intercultural interactions also affected their sojourn learning. The
findings underscored the idiosyncratic nature of education abroad and pointed to the need for
pedagogical interventions to enhance learning outcomes.
With substantial growth in the volume and quality of education abroad research, the field con-
tinues to be enriched by the publication of journal articles, monographs, and edited collections,
including handbooks (e.g., Lewin 2009; Sanz and Morales-Front 2018; Velliaris and Coleman-
George 2016). Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad has been publishing refereed
articles since 1995, and in 2016 the journal Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition
and International Education began to showcase work that centres on the role of study abroad in
language learning and educational development.

Main research methods

Researchers are using an array of methods to investigate the language and intercultural learning
of education abroad participants in diverse programmes (DeCosta et  al. 2017; Iwaski 2019;
Jackson 2018). The research design and methods are influenced by many factors, including the
aims of the study, the research questions, programme characteristics (e.g., duration, objectives,
organisation, components), available time and resources, the degree of access to the participants
(e.g., students, host families), and the host environment. The disciplinary roots of the researchers
also influence the paradigms or worldviews (e.g., postpositivism, interpretivism, critical) and
theoretical frameworks (e.g., transformative learning theory, sociocultural theory, the develop-
mental model of intercultural sensitivity, the identity negotiation theory) that underpin their
work (Jackson 2018; Zhu 2016). In interdisciplinary studies, researchers from different fields of
study may work together to develop theoretical frameworks and methodologies that address
their research questions and accommodate their worldviews.
Investigations of student perceptions of international educational experience (e.g., language
and intercultural learning) typically rely on questionnaire surveys and interviews. Research of
this nature may be large scale, involving hundreds of participants in several education abroad
programmes in different parts of the world or the scope of the study may be limited to individ-
uals in a single programme in one setting. Internationally recognised instruments may be used
to provide measures of intercultural competence (e.g., the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale, the
Intercultural Development Inventory) or language use/proficiency (e.g., the Language Contact
Profile, Oral Proficiency Interview) and facilitate comparisons with studies in other contexts.
Alternatively, researchers may develop their own instruments (e.g., interview protocols). (See
Deardorff 2015; Fantini 2019; Savicki and Brewer 2015; see also Chapter 24, this volume, for
more on innovative ways to assess intercultural language learning.)
Intercultural, sociopragmatics research in education abroad contexts is becoming more
prevalent as applied linguists recognise the challenge of developing and maintaining multicul-
tural relationships on stays abroad (e.g., Shively 2013; Taguchi 2015; 2018). Increased attention
centres on the effects of intercultural contact and social networks on sociopragmatic awareness,
intercultural communicative competence, and identities in relation to Self and Others (e.g.,
Mitchell et  al. 2018). Researchers are conducting (critical) discourse analyses, ethnographic
studies, or focused case studies that examine host–sojourner interactions including speech

448
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Education abroad

behaviour (e.g., the use of humor and other discursive strategies in informal conversations in
homestays) (e.g., Jackson 2008; 2019c; Iwasaki 2019). The findings are helping to identify and
make sense of factors that appear to facilitate or hinder intercultural communication and rela-
tionship building in education abroad contexts. In-depth analyses of the quality and degree
of social contact and linguistic interaction are also providing much-needed direction for pre-
departure programming and onsite support.
Richly contextualised qualitative studies are helping us to identify and better understand
the many internal and external factors that can affect language and intercultural learning (e.g.,
Jackson 2018; Kinginger 2009). Qualitative research can raise questions that can be investigated
in quantitative studies and vice versa. Mixed-method studies, which combine the collection
and analyses of qualitative and quantitative data, are also becoming more frequent. For example,
transcripts of semi-structured interviews may be triangulated with questionnaire survey data and
education abroad blog entries to help track language and intercultural development over time
and space.
Some researchers are conducting longitudinal studies to gain deeper insight into the lin-
guistic, affective, and/or cognitive development of participants and the long-term impact of
international educational experience. For example, Alred and Byram (2002) and Paige et  al.
(2009) investigated the prolonged effect of education abroad in relation to such aspects as L2
use, career choice, global engagement, and social networks (e.g., degree of intercultural contact).
More studies of this nature are needed to inform current and future practice.

Recommendations for practice

The information gleaned from systematic education abroad investigations can help students
make more informed decisions about the type of programme that will best meet their needs
and expectations. Further, with more awareness of the factors that can enhance or impede lan-
guage and (inter)cultural development on stays abroad, education abroad professionals are better
positioned to set realistic learning targets and tailor programmes to help participants achieve
these aims.
International experience alone does not guarantee interculturality. Scholars have discovered
that it is vital to nurture intercultural communicative competence before, during, and after a stay
abroad. When students are well prepared for education abroad, they are better positioned to set
realistic goals for their sojourn. They may also cope better with the natural ups and downs of
adjustment, employ more effective language- and culture-learning strategies, be more willing to
interact with host nationals and, ultimately, reap the benefits of more satisfactory intercultural
interaction. With support and encouragement during their stay abroad (e.g., guided, critical
reflection), the newcomers may more successfully mediate intercultural interactions, significantly
enhance their sociopragmatic awareness, and develop a higher degree of intercultural sensitivity
(Jackson 2018; Jackson and Oguro 2018b;Taguchi 2015). As they take steps towards a more open,
inclusive mindset, they may meld local and global elements into a broadened sense of Self.
Drawing on recent studies, some institutions have created intensive, credit-bearing pre-
departure courses to better equip students for education/life abroad. Coursework typically
addresses such issues as language/culture shock (confusion) and coping mechanisms, language
and culture learning strategies, cultural difference, sociopragmatic norms in the host language,
and unfamiliar teaching styles, among others (Jackson 2008; 2010; 2017; 2019b; Shively 2010).
Through pedagogical interventions, students may be prompted to critically reflect on their
cultural background, language use, communication style, and preferred self-identities as well
as their intercultural experiences and attitudes towards people who have a different linguistic

449
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Jane Jackson

and cultural background. Guided reflection and introspective writing can lead to more critical
awareness of intercultural behaviour or what Byram (1997) refers to as critical s’engager. Viewing
oneself and others as complex, multifaceted human beings is a crucial element in the path to
intercultural communicative competence and responsible intercultural citizenship. (See Jackson
and Oguro 2018a; 2018b; Chapters 4, 17, and 21, this volume.)
In the pre-departure phase, educators can provide students with a framework to help them
process and make sense of intercultural encounters and cultural difference (e.g., values, beliefs,
communication styles). By developing the skills of observation, description, interpretation,
and analysis students can be encouraged to resist the temptation to quickly label unfamiliar
behaviours as ‘weird’ or ‘rude’. As intercultural awareness and sensitivity are vital components
of intercultural communicative competence, education abroad practitioners are well advised to
incorporate language/culture learning strategies and sociopragmatic elements into pre-departure
programming (e.g., Jackson 2018; Shively 2010;Taguchi 2015). Explicit instruction in these areas
can help education abroad participants develop the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to
deal with cultural confusion, form meaningful multicultural relationships, and make the most of
their stay in the host environment. Some materials may be culture general, focusing broadly on
the intercultural knowledge, skills, and mindset that can enhance adjustment and communication
in an unfamiliar setting (e.g., Mikk et al. 2019). If a group will go to the same host speech com-
munity, educators may incorporate a context-specific dimension into the pre-education abroad
curriculum (Jackson 2008; 2010).
Education abroad scholars increasingly recognise the value of (inter)cultural and linguistic
mentoring in the host environment (Jackson and Oguro 2018b; Paige 2015). In faculty-led
programmes, for example, educators may facilitate regular onsite debriefing sessions to pro-
vide a safe haven for students to openly discuss their observations, concerns, and intercultural/
L2 experience. The facilitator may field questions about the host language and culture, and
encourage the participants to view critical incidents from multiple perspectives. These group
sharing sessions can empower students to become more mindful and active in the host envir-
onment. Students may also be prompted to describe, interpret, and evaluate their international
experiences in diary entries, open-ended surveys, and e-journals or blogs (web logs) (Jackson
2010; 2018; Tullock 2018). This reflective process can heighten students’ awareness of their
environs and positioning as well as the potential effects of their own mindset and behaviour
on intercultural relations. By becoming more attuned to their development (e.g., academic,
intercultural, linguistic, interpersonal) and the affordances and constraints in their environment,
education abroad participants are better positioned to adjust their learning goals, attitudes, and
behaviour to take fuller advantage of affordances in the host environment. Some intercultural
communication courses or workshops may also be offered to both local and non-locals to foster
meaningful integration and the intercultural sensitivity enhancement of both mobile and non-
mobile students (Jackson 2018).
In some education abroad programmes, it may be possible to build in experiential activities
that require sustained intercultural contact and critical reflection.With adequate preparation, even
participants in a short-term education abroad programme can carry out tasks (e.g., family inter-
action journal) or small-scale projects (e.g., ethnographic) that require them to closely observe
a cultural scene and initiate informal conversations with host nationals (Jackson 2006; 2008;
Knight and Schmidt-Rinehart 2010). As they negotiate relationships with people who have been
socialised in a different cultural environment, the students can apply their intercultural commu-
nication skills and evolving knowledge of local sociopragmatic conventions (e.g., routines for
greetings, apologies, refusals) (Shively 2010; Taguchi 2015). With well-thought-out scaffolding,
ongoing support, and skillful debriefings, projects of this nature can help newcomers to make

450
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Education abroad

sense of their new surroundings and develop a sense of belonging in the host environment,
thereby facilitating both language and intercultural learning and adjustment.
Education abroad studies also point to the need to pay more attention to the re-entry phase
(Jackson 2018; Iwasaka 2019). Near the end of their stay abroad, students may be encouraged to
take stock of their learning and prepare for their return home (e.g., contemplate readjustment
issues). In some programmes, debriefing sessions in the host environment prompt participants to
divulge their re-entry expectations and concerns. Returnees may also write diary or blog entries,
create v-logs, or respond to open-ended survey questions that induce them to look back over
their education abroad experiences and take stock of their language and intercultural learning.
For students in exchange programmes in different parts of the world, the home institution
may prompt them to complete online reflective surveys at strategic intervals (shortly after their
arrival, in the middle of their stay abroad, prior to their return home).
Whatever the programme’s duration or format, once the students have returned to their
home campus, educators may facilitate debriefings to stimulate deeper reflection on inter-
national experience and re-entry. This process can facilitate the setting of realistic goals
for further self-enhancement (e.g., language and culture learning). All too often, however,
returnees receive no support and quickly ‘shoebox’ their international experience as they
become re-immersed in their home environment.Valuable opportunities for further language
and intercultural enhancement are then lost. By contrast, some institutions have developed
re-entry workshops or courses for returning students, which may be credit bearing (e.g.,
Jackson 2015; 2018). Interventions of this nature may ease the participants’ re-integration into
their home culture and campus, deepen and extend their learning, and prompt reflection on
ways to gain additional international/L2 experience. They may also provide the encourage-
ment needed for returnees to continue to diversify their social networks. With or without
these initiatives, institutions can encourage returnees to serve as a resource for other students
who are planning to venture abroad or be ‘buddies’ or language partners for inbound non-
local students. In this way, their language and intercultural learning and nurturing of a global
mindset can continue in meaningful ways.
While many initiatives centre on a specific phase of an individual education abroad pro-
gramme, drawing on recent research findings, several contemporary schemes have a broader
audience in view and encompass all stages. For example, the Intercultural Education Resources for
Erasmus Students and Their Teachers (IEREST) project produced a set of intercultural teaching
modules for European institutions to use to deepen the language and intercultural learning
of participants in various ERAMUS programmes from the pre-departure phase to re-entry
(IEREST 2015). Modern language educators in Europe have also worked together to develop
activities and materials to ‘support the plurilingual and intercultural learning of students for the
phases before, during, and after a mobility activity’ (https://plurimobil.ecml.at/). (See Cuenat
2018 and the PluriMobil website for more information about this scheme.)
Further, with continuous advances in communications technology (e.g., eLearning platforms,
social media), educators can bridge the gap between research and practice by developing online
pedagogical interventions for all stages of the study abroad cycle (e.g., pre-sojourn web-based
orientations, online intercultural transitions courses for students to take while they are in the
host country, re-entry debriefings) (Jackson 2015; 2018; 2019a; Jackson and Oguro 2018a).
Educators can gain inspiration from open-access websites that have been created to scaffold
and deepen the intercultural learning of student sojourners, such as What’s Up with Culture?
(https://www2.pacific.edu/sis/culture/) and the Global Scholar (http://globalscholar.us/). (See
also Chapter 22, this volume, for a discussion of virtual exchange in relation to language and
intercultural learning.)

451
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Jane Jackson

Future directions
Education abroad has the potential to enhance the language proficiency, intercultural sensitivity,
and ‘whole person’ development of participants. To more fully understand the conditions that
nurture intercultural communicative competence and global-mindedness, more research in a
variety of education abroad contexts is necessary. In particular, we would benefit from further
studies that adopt a critical and/or interpretive stance to explore the L2/intercultural learning
and identity reconstruction of students in a range of education abroad situations (e.g., ser-
vice learning, study abroad, teaching assistantships) in diverse host destinations. The systematic
collection of both qualitative and quantitative data can help us to make sense of divergent devel-
opmental trajectories and provide valuable direction for pedagogical interventions.
It would be helpful for more researchers to investigate the international educational experi-
ence and learning of both male and female participants of varying proficiency levels and ethnic/
linguistic backgrounds in diverse education abroad programmes, housing situations, and locations.
As the majority of research on education abroad has focused on the experiences of American,
East Asians, and European sojourners, more attention should be devoted to the learning of L2
participants from other parts of the world. Further studies are needed that focus on impediments
to the participation of minority members in education abroad.The field would also benefit from
more investigations of heritage study abroad students, that is, individuals who have a linguistic or
cultural connection to the host environment (e.g., Jing-Schmidt et al. 2016).The findings would
enrich our understanding of the multifarious factors that can result in differing learning paths
and outcomes.
In particular, studies should seek to elucidate the ways in which individual attributes and
characteristics influence language and intercultural learning in the host environment. More
attention should also be paid to programme characteristics and environmental factors (e.g.,
the power dimension) that can impact language and intercultural learning and the cultivation
of intercultural relationships (Iwasaki 2019; Jackson 2018; Jackson and Schwieter 2019). As
there are many types of education abroad options available today, studies are needed that docu-
ment how these variations influence learning processes and sojourn outcomes. The findings
could provide further insight into how best to prepare participants, support their learning
and engagement in the host environment, and extend their learning once they are back on
home soil.
More longitudinal studies are needed that track participants from the selection process until
at least a year after their return home from an education abroad experience (e.g., an internship,
a short-term stay abroad, an international exchange programme). In particular, researchers could
examine the long-term effects of stays abroad on the linguistic, (inter)cultural, and cognitive
development of education abroad participants as well as global-mindedness and identity recon-
struction. Retrospective studies of education abroad alumni are a must to better understand the
prolonged impact of the experience on such aspects as L2 usage, intercultural friendships, iden-
tity, social networks, sociopragmatic awareness, intercultural sensitivity, intercultural communica-
tive competence, and career choice.
Systematic, in-depth investigations of intercultural discourse in the host environment could
help us to better understand:  the types of interactions education abroad participants rou-
tinely engage in, learner speech act behaviour in various situations, the nature of intercultural
misunderstandings, and the negotiation strategies, if any, that participants employ to repair
and build multicultural relationships (e.g., interpersonal ties with host family members).
While intrusive, audio- or video-recordings of intercultural interaction in naturalistic settings
(e.g., conversations in homestays) and stimulated-recall sessions with the interlocutors could

452
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Education abroad

enrich our knowledge of factors that influence intercultural relations. Data of this nature
could supplement insights gained through participant observation, diaries, interviews, blogs,
vlogs, photo elicitation, and surveys. With permission, smart phones could be used to record
intercultural interactions (e.g., meal time conversations) or student interviews with host family
members.The use of software such as NVivo could facilitate the coding of multimodal data, the
creation of sociograms (illustrations of social networks), and theory building.The analysis of the
data could then provide direction for both the pre-education abroad preparation and ongoing
support of future participants. The data could also be used to furnish examples of ‘real-world’
scenarios (e.g., cases, critical incidents) for use in the preparation of both hosts and education
abroad participants.
Most investigations in education abroad centre on students and the perceptions of accom-
panying faculty (if any), largely ignoring the experience and perspectives of hosts (e.g., host
families, host ‘buddies’) even though these individuals often play a pivotal role in determining
sojourn outcomes. Few researchers have studied host perceptions of their roles and responsibil-
ities or examined how their behaviour can impact the adjustment and L2/intercultural learning
of education abroad participants. More attention should also be paid to the ways in which inter-
action with newcomers and intercultural interventions (e.g., courses for locals and non-locals)
affect the intercultural attitudes/competence and global-mindedness of host nationals (e.g., local
students and educators).
Finally, more interdisciplinary research, involving the collaboration of applied linguists,
cross-cultural psychologists, speech communication specialists, and scholars from other dis-
ciplines could deepen our understanding of the multifaceted experience of education abroad
participants. This triangulation of perspectives could facilitate theory building, enrich research
projects, and foster improvements in education abroad programming. Ultimately, this collabor-
ation could propel more students towards intercultural communicative competence and a more
inclusive, global mindset.

Related topics
Cross-cultural adaptation and transformation; identity; intercultural adjustment; intercultural
assessment; intercultural communicative competence; intercultural pedagogy/praxis/training;
intercultural sensitivity; the intercultural speaker.

Further reading
Borghetti, C. and Beaven, A. (eds) (2018) Study Abroad and Interculturality:  Perspectives and Discourses,
London:  Routledge. (An edited collection that draws attention to the ‘social’ turn in second language
acquisition; examples are provided of research that centres on the sociocultural dimension of study
abroad experience, including the analysis of language encounters in terms of intercultural learning and
engagement.)
Fantini,A.E. (2019) Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange: A Multinational Perspective,
London:  Routledge. (An exploration of the nature of and assessment of intercultural communicative
competence in relation to sojourner engagement with diversity during study abroad experience.)
Howard, M. (ed.) (2019) Study Abroad, Second Language Acquisition and Interculturality, Bristol:  Multilingual
Matters. (An edited book which explores key issues, trends, and approaches used to investigate the lan-
guage and intercultural learning of study abroad participants; drawing on recent research, contributors
discuss such aspects as social networks, learner identities, and individual differences in relation to study
abroad experience.)
Jackson, J. (2018) Interculturality in International Education, London:  Routledge. (A review of key issues
and developments in study abroad research and practice with a specific focus on the intercultural and

453
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Jane Jackson

language learning dimensions of study abroad experience. This volume is a resource for study abroad
scholars and researchers in such fields as intercultural communication, applied linguistics, sociolinguistics,
and language education.)
Jackson, J. and Oguro, S. (eds) (2018) Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad, London: Routledge. (Making
connections between contemporary study abroad research, theory, and practice, this edited volume
describes innovative programmes that have been designed to deepen the intercultural learning and
engagement of study abroad participants.)
Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N. and McManus, K. (2018) Anglophone Students Abroad:  Identity, Social
Relationships, and Language Learning, London:  Routledge. (The presentation of the findings of a major
study that tracked the language learning, social networking, integration, and identity development of
British students of French and Spanish who studied abroad. The researchers found that language and
intercultural learning is impacted by the students’ own agency and ability to negotiate their identities in
multilingual and lingua franca environments.)

References
Alred, G. and Byram, M. (2002) ‘Becoming an intercultural mediator: A longitudinal study of residence
abroad’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(5): 339–52.
Bennett, J.M. (1993) ‘Cultural marginality:  Identity issues in intercultural training’, in R.M. Paige (ed.)
Education for the Intercultural Experience,Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, pp. 109–36.
—— (2008) ‘On becoming a global soul: A path to engagement during study abroad’, in V. Savicki (ed.)
Developing Intercultural Competence and Transformation:  Theory, Research and Application in International
Education, Sterling,VA: Stylus, pp. 13–31.
Block, D. (2003) The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence, Clevedon:  Multilingual
Matters.
Chieffo, L. and Spaeth, C. (eds) (2017) The Guide to Successful Short-Term Programs Abroad, 3rd edn,
Washington, DC: NAFSA.
Coleman, J.A. (1997) ‘State of the art article: Residence abroad within language study’, Language Teaching,
30(1): 1–20.
—— (2013) ‘Researching whole people and whole lives’, in C. Kinginger (ed.) Social and Cultural Aspects of
Language Learning in Study Abroad, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–44.
Collentine, J.A. and Freed, B. (2004) ‘Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition’,
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26: 153–71.
Cuenat, M. (2018) ‘Plurimobil: Pragmatic enhancement of intercultural learning in study abroad contexts’,
in J. Jackson and S. Oguro (eds) Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad, London:  Routledge, pp.
175–89.
Deardorff, D.K. (2015) Demystifying Outcomes Assessment for International Educators:  A Practical Approach,
Sterling,VA: Stylus.
DeCosta, P., Rawal, H. and Zaykovskaya, I. (2017) ‘Introduction: Methodological diversity and innovation
in study abroad research’, special issue: ‘Study Abroad in Contemporary Times: Toward greater meth-
odological diversity and innovation’, System, 71: 1–6.
de Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L. and Egron-Polak, E. (2015) Internationalisation of Higher Education,
Brussels: European Parliament.
Dietrich, A.J. (2018) ‘History and current trends in US study abroad’, in C. Sanz and A. Morales-Front (eds)
The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice, London: Routledge, pp. 545–58.
European Commission (2017) Erasmus+. Enriching Lives, Opening Minds:  Annual Report 2016. Available
online:  https://publications.europa.eu/fr/publication-detail/-/publication/b0250d33-fcce-11e7-b8f5-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-66293473 (accessed 14 December 2018).
Fantini, A.E. (2019) Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange: A Multinational Perspective,
London: Routledge.
Forum on Education Abroad (2011) Education Abroad Glossary, 2nd edn, Carlisle, PA: Forum on Education
Abroad.
Freed, B.F. (1995) Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Freed, B.F., Dewey, D.P., Segalowitz, N. and Halter, R. (2004) ‘The language contact profile’, Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26(2): 349–56.

454
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Education abroad

Hoffa, W.W. (2007) A History of US Study Abroad: Beginnings to 1965, Carlisle, PA:  Forum on Education
Abroad.
Hoffa, W.W. and DePaul, S. (eds) (2010) A History of US Study Abroad:1965 to Present, Carlisle, PA: Forum
on Education Abroad.
Hoult, S. (2018) ‘Aspiring to postcolonial engagement with the Other: Deepening intercultural learning
through reflection on a South India sojourn’ in J. Jackson and S. Oguro (eds) Intercultural Interventions in
Study Abroad, London: Routledge, pp. 71–87.
IEREST (2015) Intercultural Education Resources for Erasmus Students and Their Teachers, Koper:  Annales
University Press.
Institute of International Education (IIE) (2018) Open Doors 2018:  Report on International Educational
Exchange. Available online:  http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors (accessed
15 April 2019).
Iwasaki, N. (2019) ‘Individual differences in study abroad research:  Sources, processes and outcomes of
students’ development in language, culture, and personhood’, in M. Howard (ed.) Study Abroad, Second
Language Acquisition and Interculturality, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 237–62.
Jackson, J. (2006) ‘Ethnographic preparation for short-term study and residence in the target culture’,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(1): 77–98.
—— (2008) Language, Identity, and Study Abroad: Sociocultural Perspectives, London: Equinox.
—— (2010) Intercultural Journeys: From Study to Residence Abroad, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
—— (2015) ‘Becoming interculturally competent:  Theory to practice in international education’,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 48: 91–107.
—— (2017) ‘The personal, linguistic, and intercultural development of Chinese sojourners in an English-
speaking country: The impact of language attitudes, motivation, and agency’, Study Abroad Research in
Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 2(1): 80–106.
—— (2018) Interculturality in International Education, London: Routledge.
—— (2019a) Online Intercultural Education and Study Abroad: Theory into Practice, London: Routledge.
—— (2019b) ‘Intercultural competence and L2 pragmatics’, in N. Taguchi (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics, London: Routledge, pp. 479–94.
—— (2019c) ‘“Cantonese is my own eyes and English is just my glasses”:  The evolving language and
intercultural attitudes of a Chinese study abroad student’, in M. Howard (ed.) Study Abroad, Second
Language Acquisition and Interculturality, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 15–45.
Jackson, J., Howard, M. and Schwieter, J. (2020) ‘Language proficiency’, in A. Ogden, B. Streitwieser and van
Mol, C. (eds) Education Abroad: Bridging Scholarship and Practice, London: Routledge.
Jackson, J. and Oguro, S. (eds) (2018a) Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad, London: Routledge.
—— (2018b) ‘Introduction:  Enhancing and extending study abroad learning through intercultural
interventions’, in J. Jackson and S. Oguro (eds) Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad, London: Routledge,
pp. 1–17.
Jackson, J. and Schwieter, J.W. (2019) ‘Study abroad and immersion’, in J.W. Schwieter and A. Benati (eds)
Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 727–50.
Jing-Schmidt, Z., Chen, J.-Y. and Zhang, Z. (2016) ‘Identity development in the ancestral homeland: A
Chinese heritage perspective’, The Modern Language Journal, 100 (4): 797–812.
Kinginger, C. (2009) Language Learning and Study Abroad: A Critical Reading of Research, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Knight, S.M. and Schmidt-Rinehart, B.C. (2010) ‘Exploring conditions to enhance student/host family
interaction abroad’, Foreign Language Annals, 43(1): 64–79.
Lewin, R. (ed.) (2009) The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest
for Global Citizenship, New York: Routledge.
Llanes, À., Tragant, E. and Serrano, R. (2012) ‘The role of individual differences in a study abroad experi-
ence: The case of Erasmus students’, International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(3), 318–42.
Mas-Alcolea, S. (2019) ‘Study abroad and students’ discourse on “cultural difference”: A longitudinal view’,
in M. Howard (ed.) Study Abroad, Second Language Acquisition and Interculturality, Bristol:  Multilingual
Matters, pp. 46–74.
Medina, A. (2008) Intercultural Sensitivity Development in Study Abroad:  Is Duration a Decisive Element in
Cultural Learning Outcomes? Saarbrücken: Verlag.
Mikk, B.K., Cohen, A.D. and Paige, R.M. with Chi, J.C., et  al. (2019) Maximizing Study Abroad:  An
Instructional Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use, Minneapolis, MN:  Center for
Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota.

455
Downloaded By: University College London At: 01:11 04 Jul 2020; For: 9781003036210, chapter27, 10.4324/9781003036210
Jane Jackson

Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N. and McManus, K. (eds) (2015) Social Interaction, Identity and Language
Learning during Residence Abroad, Essex: European Second Language Association.
—— (2018) Anglophone Students Abroad:  Identity, Social Relationships, and Language Learning, London:
Routledge.
Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2002) Student Mobility and Narrative in Europe: The New Strangers, Routledge: London.
Ogden, A.C. and Brewer, E. (2019) ‘Historical perspectives, emerging trends, and changing narratives’, in E.
Brewer and A.C. Ogden (eds) Education Abroad and the Undergraduate Experience: Critical Perspectives and
Approaches to Integration with Student Learning, Sterling,VA: Stylus, pp. 15–40.
Paige, R.M. (2015) ‘Interventionist models for study abroad’, in J.M. Bennett (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of
Intercultural Competence, vol. 2, Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 563–68.
Paige, R.M., Fry, G.W., Stallman, E.M., Josić, J., et al. (2009) ‘Study abroad for global engagement: The
long-term impact of mobility experiences’, Intercultural Education, 20(4): S29–S44.
Plews, J.L. and Misfeldt, K. (2018) Second Language Study Abroad:  Programming, Pedagogy, and Participant
Engagement, New York: Springer International Publishing.
Roberts, C., Byram, M., Barro, A., Jordan, S., et  al. (2001) Language Learners as Ethnographers,
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sanz, C. and Morales-Front, A. (eds) (2018) The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice,
London: Routledge.
Savicki,V. and Brewer, E. (eds) (2015) Assessing Study Abroad: Theory,Tools and Practice, Sterling,VA: Stylus.
Schaefer, Z.A. and Lynch, O.H. (2017) ‘A novel approach to London: Infusing ethnography and the study
abroad experience’, Communication Teacher, 31(2): 112–15.
Shively, R.L. (2010) ‘From the virtual world to the real world: A model of pragmatics instruction for study
abroad’, Foreign Language Annals, 43(1): 105–37.
—— (2013) ‘Learning to be funny in Spanish during study abroad: L2 humor development’, The Modern
Language Journal, 97(4): 930–46.
Taguchi, N. (2015) Developing Interactional Competence in a Japanese Study Abroad Context, Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
—— (2018) ‘Contexts and pragmatics learning:  Problems and opportunities of study abroad research’,
Language Teaching, 51(1): 1–14.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2018) ‘Facework and face negotiation theory’, in Y.Y. Kim (ed.) The International
Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication, vol. 2, Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., pp. 775–79.
Tullock, B. (2018) ‘Identity and study abroad’, in C. Sanz and A. Morales-Front (eds) The Routledge Handbook
of Study Abroad Research and Practice, London: Routledge, pp. 262–74.
UNESCO (2018) Global Flow of Tertiary-Level Students, UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Available
online: http://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow (accessed 1 January 2019).
Velliaris, D. and Coleman-George, D. (eds) (2016) Handbook of Research on Study Abroad Programs and
Outbound Mobility, Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Zhu, H. (ed.) (2016) Research Methods in Intercultural Communication:  A Practical Guide, Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

456