crossing and negotiating “borders”: the process and product...

49

Crossing and Negotiating “Borders”:The Process and Product of Short-Term International Collaborative Learning Programs

海外短期協働学習プログラムの過程と成果

KOBAYASHI, Satoko

小林　聡子

Abstract

This paper comparatively illustrates, from a coordinating faculty’s perspective,

the process and product of two short-term international collaborative learning programs

（grouped under the course title, Global Study Program 〈GSP〉） operated by the Center

for International Research and Education at Chiba University and its sister universities

in Vietnam and Finland, during the summer 2013. Based on an analysis of ethnographic

data, course materials and the students’ pre-, mid- and post-interviews and comments,

I first provide a description of the differences and commonalities in the making of each

program’s framework, content and instruction. Secondly, I analyze the shift in students’

perception of self and others, of their communication and collaborativity in learning.

The final section discusses in a critical and reflexive manner, GSP’s strength as well as

the areas where improvement was deemed necessary. Throughout this paper, I hope to

articulate some of the challenges and possibilities that a short-term study abroad program

such as GSP poses for a higher educational institution.

要旨

　本稿では、千葉大学国際教育センターがベトナムとフィンランドの協定校と実

施した２つの海外短期集中共同学習プログラム（グローバル・スタディ・プログラ

ム）の計画・実施過程とその成果を比較分析していく。まず、各プログラムの渡航

前の計画と現地における実施に関する差異を教員の視点からまとめる。次に、「自

己と他者」「コミュニケーション」「共同学習における協働性」に関する学生の視点

の変化を、事前・事後アンケート、観察ノート、インタビューの分析より考察す

る。そこから、高等教育機関における短期海外集中プログラムの課題を考えていく。

51

国際教育　International Education Vol.7(2014.3)

In this rapidly globalizing society, international collaboration has been one of the major “hip”

concepts in many academic and professional fields. Many universities overseas as well as in Japan

place great emphasis on the “international” aspect of their education and promote short- or long-

term study abroad programs, while the “collaboration” angle tends to be left behind. In 2013, as

part of the Project for Promotion of Global Human Resource Development funded by the Ministry

of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Chiba University set a goal to have 50% of

the entire student population （1,200 students per every grade level） participate in at least one type

of academic or professional activity offered within the framework of this new project. Hoping that

students will gain some ‘global’ experience either domestically or internationally, Chiba University

currently anticipates the establishment of a system that will send 30% of its students （700 students）

to study abroad by 2016. As part of this plan, the Center for International Research and Education

（CIRE） at Chiba University started a two-week international collaborative learning program, the

Global Study Program （GSP）, which was included into the General Education curriculum.

In this paper, I compare two GSPs for which I worked as one of the two coordinating teachers

from Chiba University. GSP Vietnam course content centered my colleague’s specialty, and GSP

Finland focus on mine. Both of us engaged in the planning and implementation of the two programs.

The first program was conducted with University X in south Vietnam and the other one was operated

with University Y in west Finland, during the summer 2013. I continuously engaged in the re-making

of the program with staff and faculty members of the sister universities before and during the trip.

In this rapidly globalizing society, international collaboration is a crucial task. Better understanding

the challenges and possibilities of a short-term study abroad program is crucial to improving the

educational opportunities for all students.

1. GSP: Not a study tour but an international collaborative learning programMany universities in the world offer various types of short-term study abroad programs. In

Japan, learning English language in a foreign country is one of the most popular short-term study

abroad programs. Other, academic major-related short-term study abroad programs are also conducted

in a variety of forms.

In the area of business education, Sanchu, Brasher & Fee （2010） list three modes of short-

term study abroad programs: the summer semester abroad, the study tour, and the service-learning

trip. In all three modes of short-term study abroad programs, the scholars mention three common

goals: 1） Increase knowledge in the topic, of the host culture and themselves; 2） increase interest for

further learning and about themselves; and 3） build confidence in an international setting （Sachau,

Brasher, & Fee, 2010, p.646）. Indeed, one of the purposes of study abroad programs is not just for

participants to gain knowledge and motivation to learn the topic of study, but also to obtain cross-

cultural understanding and insight into the host and their own cultures （Anderson, Lawton, Rexeisen,

52


& Hubbard, 2002; Hutchings, Jackson, & McEllister, 2002; Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004）. In a study

tour, a group of students from a sending university often simply tours locations of their interests with

the help of the host university. Hence the program itself tends to lean toward the “tour” side, not

“study” （Long, Akande, Purdy, Nakano, 2010）. While a tourist-type of program can be beneficial

depending on the set goals, a careful balance between academic and sightseeing visits is crucial when

planning and operating a program like GSP, because, ultimately, it remains a university course.

Moreover, a short-term study abroad program often keeps the sending university’s students

among themselves, while contact with the host university’s students tends to be limited whether the

program is an English language program or a study tour. In CIRE’s GSP, the most important component

was “collaborative learning,” which is commonly explained as simply working with different people.

Much recent literature on collaborative learning at a higher education level focuses on the possible

use and effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning （O’Donnell, 2013）, which is crucial

when it comes to working with international counterparts; however, not many studies explore face-

to-face collaborative learning in an international setting, where learners have different linguistic,

cultural or academic backgrounds. CIRE’s approach in GSP is as follows: Chiba University students

and students from our sister universities overseas learn together beyond differences in language,

culture, age, gender and academic disciplines. In other words, GSP targets not only Chiba University

students but also our counterparts, who are invited to gain academic knowledge and motivation to

learn the topic of study, cross-cultural understanding, and insight into their own and other cultures.

While a definition, approach or meaning of collaborative learning varies （Dillenbourg, 1999）, I

hope this paper helps to fill the gap in the literature by exploring a type of approach to collaborative

learning in a short-term study abroad program.

Based on an analysis of ethnographic data, course materials and the students’ pre-, mid- and

post-interviews and comments, I first provide a description of the differences and commonalities

in the making of each program’s framework, content and instruction. Secondly, I analyze the shift

in students’ perception of self and others, of their communication and collaborativity in learning.

The final section discusses in a critical and reflexive manner, GSP’s strength as well as the areas

where improvement was deemed necessary. Throughout this paper, I hope to articulate some of the

challenges and possibilities that a short-term study abroad program such as GSP poses for a higher

educational institution.

2. Overview of Global Study Program“This course is offered as a Collaborative Learning Abroad subject within a joint project

launched by Chiba University and our sister universities abroad, where students of different

cultural backgrounds and specialties join in a collaborative effort to achieve the final goal while

making adjustments for the differences in their languages, behavior and sense of values” （Chiba

53


University Syllabus, 2013）.

As the above course description in the syllabus explains, the GSP programs in Vietnam and Finland

were prepared and operated for students of Chiba University and of the sister universities to learn

collaboratively and by negotiating their linguistic and cultural differences, about a specific topic:

“Agribusiness” at University X in Vietnam and “Schooling and Community” at University Y in

Finland. The common purposes of GSP courses are as follows:

•Throughout the program, the student will gain a new viewpoint on and a better understanding

of his/her own culture

•The student will learn how to approach a task from different angles, and will gain the flexibility

required to resolve problems in the international society of our times

•The student will acquire the ability to gather, process and disseminate information in the English

language

•The student will get a way of output （expression） and stay motivated to input （learning）

（Chiba University Syllabus, 2013）

The entire GSP process followed three steps: 1） pre-trip education （5-6 times）, 2） on-site

education （10-14 days）, 3） post-trip education （1-2 times）. Pre-trip education included, but was not

limited to, crisis management, general information about the host country, and preparation for the

Japanese culture presentations. The two-week course in the host country took a workshop approach

and combined case study, discussion, fieldwork, group work, several presentations and active learning

through the collaborative effort of all students. As part of the post-education, studentsreflectively

wrote an evaluation of themselves and of the program in a narrative format.

2.1. Participants & Settings

In GSP, students from Chiba University and from the sister university form a group, that is

ideally composed of an equal number of students from each university. For GSP Vietnam, we had 11

students from each university （Chiba and X）, thus 22 in total. GSP Finland had 13 Chiba University

students and 8 students from University Y. Table 1 and 2 below show the participants’ academic

departments and Table 3 includes student numbers by gender and grade level from each university.

54


Table 1. GSP Vietnam ’13 Participants’ Academic Department

　　（Chiba University Participant # by Department）（University X Participant # by Department）

Table 2. GSP Finland ’13 Participants’ Academic Department

　（Chiba University Participant # by Department）（University Y Participant # by Department）

Table 3. Participants by Gender & Grade Level

Gender Grade Level

F M 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Gr

GSP VietnamChiba U. 5 6 4 0 5 0 2

X 7 4 0 2 4 4 1

GSP FinlandChiba U. 8 5 2 7 2 2 0

Y 3 5 2 5 0 1 0

As the figures and table above show, GSP participants worked with students of different

nationalities, academic specialties, languages, genders, and grade levels. Moreover, none of the

participants’ native language was English, even though University Y students were relatively used to

speaking the language due to the linguistic environment in Finland.

2.2. Preparation of the Program

In the planning and operation of the framework and content, Chiba University, the sending

side, took the academic initiative this year. The coordinating faculty members of Chiba University

prepared for the original course descriptions for GSP Vietnam and Finland as below:

<GSP Vietnam initial course description, 2013>

“The objective of this program is to gain international academic experiences, compound eyes

55


and innovative mindset for the students at both University X and Chiba University through the

collaborative learning that students in groups propose future agribusiness by using the methods

of business ethnographic research and design thinking. The theme is "Future agribusiness" and

it is expected to propose a unique business model with new product, service or value.”

<GSP Finland initial course description, 2013>

“This course explores impacts of schooling and community on students’ learning experiences

from critical, reflexive and international perspectives. In particular, we will focus on the

construction of a normalized educational system and culture in a local community in Finland

by examining a learning environment such as schools, library, bookstores and family, as

well as linguistic and spatial practices among community members. Students of Chiba

University and University Y will consider how those normalized learning environments

would impact individuals who may find themselves having an area of mismatch. This course

is interdisciplinary in scope and practical in focus. As such, the class will first lay down the

theoretical foundations for understanding normalized learning environment. Then Chiba and

University Y students will engage in active, collaborative and experiential learning through

a group project on a specific topic related to educational equity and diversity. Students will

reflect on their assumptions, thoughts and actions, and then collaboratively create and present

practical approaches to the topical issues.”

Because GSP Vietnam was held for the first time in 2013, faculty and staff from Chiba

University and University X had multiple Skype meetings and email conversations to set up the

program. Still, because we had limited shared knowledge and experiences, it took several meetings

and the actual on-site classroom instructions to reach the mutual understanding that GSP was different

from a commonly conducted study tour. On the other hand, Chiba University and University Y had

previously run a similar program. In 2011, a group of Chiba University students went to University Y

for two weeks, and University Y students came to Chiba University in 2012. Thus ’13 GSP Finland

was our third year operating this type of international collaborative learning program with University

Y. Given that history, email exchange or virtual meetings were relatively limited. Table 4 and 5 below

show our proposed curriculum with the purpose and contents, which are then contrasted with the on-

site schedule, enriched with explanatory notes.

GSP Vietnam and Finland had different themes, agribusiness and education, but we proposed

nearly the same course steps, purposes and contents （Table 4 & 5）, which were built based on the

previously conducted programs with University Y. The program is workshop-based thus the proposed

content centered around group work with relevant field research and some lectures on the chosen

56


Tabl

e 4.

’13

GSP

Vie

tnam

pro

gram

ove

rvie

wPr

opos

ed b

y Ch

iba

Uni

vers

ityPr

epar

ed b

y U

nive

rsity

XN

ote

Step

sPu

rpos

eCo

nten

tsSc

hedu

leSi

te

Intro

Gai

n ba

sic

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

ea

ch o

ther

and

abo

ut

agrib

usin

ess i

n Vi

etna

m

Intro

duct

ion

of U

. X &

Chi

ba U

.Ex

plan

atio

n of

the

prog

ram

Lect

ures

on

agric

ultu

re in

Vie

tnam

an

d Ja

pan

[Day

1]

Intro

duct

ion

of b

oth

univ

ersit

ies

Cam

pus t

our

Lect

ures

on

agric

ultu

re in

Vi

etna

mVi

etna

mes

e la

ngua

ge c

lass

Cam

pus

clas

sroo

m

Two

X fa

culty

mem

bers

gav

e le

ctur

es

rela

ted

to V

ietn

ames

e ag

ricul

ture

; 1 h

r Vi

etna

mes

e la

ngua

ge c

lass

Fiel

d Re

sear

ch 1

Und

ersta

nd lo

cal

cond

ition

s

Gat

herin

g fa

cts o

f Vie

tnam

ese

cultu

re, a

gric

ultu

re a

nd d

aily

life

(tr

aditi

onal

and

inno

vativ

e ag

ricul

tura

l fi e

lds/m

arke

ts)

[Day

2]

Cu C

hi tu

nnel

tour

Clea

n ve

geta

ble

farm

tour

Fiel

d

The

plan

had

bee

n to

visi

t loc

al p

lace

s re

late

d to

cul

ture

, agr

icul

ture

and

dai

ly

life

but w

e ev

entu

ally

wen

t to

a fa

mou

s sig

htse

eing

loca

tion

(Cu

Chi t

unne

l) an

d a

clea

n ve

geta

ble

farm

tour

Idea

G

ener

atio

n 1

Revi

ew fa

cts,

fi ndi

ngs a

nd

gene

rate

idea

s

Shar

ing

fact

s fro

m th

e le

ctur

es a

nd

fi eld

rese

arch

Mak

ing

fi ndi

ngs

Setti

ng a

bus

ines

s opp

ortu

nity

are

a

[Day

3]

Cultu

ral e

xcha

nge

betw

een

stude

nts

Gro

up w

ork

Cam

pus

clas

sroo

m

Viet

nam

ese

stude

nts a

nd Ja

pane

se

stude

nts p

rese

nted

abo

ut th

eir c

ultu

res a

s th

ey w

ere

prep

ared

to; s

tarte

d w

orks

hop

for v

isual

izin

g th

eir f

acts

Fiel

d Re

sear

ch 2

Revi

sit lo

cal

cond

ition

s

Revi

sit fi

eld

and

chec

k va

lidity

of

the

busin

ess i

deas

Sear

chin

g ne

w fa

cts f

rom

a

spec

ifi c

view

poin

t

[Day

4] B

en T

re to

ur

Fiel

d

The

plan

had

bee

n to

visi

t loc

al p

lace

s re

late

d to

cul

ture

, agr

icul

ture

and

dai

ly

life

but w

e ev

entu

ally

wen

t to

a fa

mou

s sig

htse

eing

loca

tion

in B

en T

re (D

ay 4

), cl

ean

vege

tabl

e fa

rm to

ur o

n ca

mpu

s (D

ay

5) a

nd a

noth

er to

urist

loca

tion

in C

an G

io

(Day

6).

[Day

5] C

ampu

s veg

etab

le fa

rm

tour

[Day

6] C

an G

io to

ur

Idea

G

ener

atio

n 2

Prot

otyp

e ag

ribus

ines

s ide

as

Scan

oth

er re

sour

ces

Gen

erat

e an

d re

fi ne

idea

s usin

g th

e fi e

ld fa

cts a

nd o

ther

reso

urce

sPr

otot

ypin

g an

agr

ibus

ines

s ide

a an

d vi

sual

ize

itBr

ush

up th

e id

ea

[Day

7] G

roup

wor

k

Cam

pus

clas

sroo

m

From

day

to n

ight

, mos

t stu

dent

s wor

ked

toge

ther

in g

roup

s in

clas

sroo

m a

s wel

l as

in th

eir h

otel

room

s.

[Day

8] G

roup

wor

k[D

ay 9

] Gro

up w

ork

[Day

10

(mor

ning

)] G

roup

wor

k

Pres

enta

tion

Pres

ent a

n ag

ribus

ines

s ide

a

Verif

y an

d re

vise

the

busin

ess

mod

elPr

esen

t it t

o th

e au

dien

ce[D

ay 1

0 (a

ftern

oon)

] Pre

sent

atio

nCa

mpu

s cl

assr

oom

15-m

in P

rese

ntat

ion

in fr

ont o

f U. X

and

Ch

iba

facu

lty m

embe

rs

　　　　　　　　　

(Gro

up w

ork

time

= 4

full

days

)

57


Tabl

e 5.

’13

GSP

Fin

land

pro

gram

ove

rvie

wPr

opos

ed b

y C

hiba

Uni

vers

ityPr

epar

ed b

y U

nive

rsity

YN

ote

Step

sPu

rpos

eCo

nten

tsCo

nduc

ted

Sche

dule

Site

Intro

Gai

n ba

sic

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

ea

ch o

ther

and

ab

out e

duca

tion

in

Finl

and

and

Japa

n

Intro

duct

ion

of U

. Y &

Chi

ba U

.Ex

plan

atio

n of

the

prog

ram

Lect

ures

on

educ

atio

n in

Fin

land

and

Ja

pan

A le

ctur

e on

bas

ic fr

amew

ork

for

fi eld

wor

k in

edu

catio

n

[Day

1]

Intro

duct

ion

of b

oth

univ

ersit

ies

3 Le

ctur

es o

n ed

ucat

ion

in F

inla

ndCa

mpu

s cl

assr

oom

Lect

ure

sche

dule

was

del

ayed

ov

eral

l. A

lso, t

he c

onte

nt o

f the

gu

est l

ectu

res w

as n

ot o

n th

e ov

ervi

ew o

f the

Fin

nish

edu

catio

n sy

stem

or c

ultu

re, b

ut ra

ther

abo

ut

educ

atio

n in

gen

eral

[Day

2 (a

ftern

oon)

] Le

ctur

es o

n ed

ucat

ion

in Ja

pan

Gro

up w

ork

(2 h

rs)

Fiel

d Re

sear

ch 1

Und

ersta

nd lo

cal

cond

ition

s

Gat

her f

acts

on F

inla

nd c

ultu

re,

educ

atio

n an

d da

ily li

fe (k

inde

rgar

ten-

high

scho

ol, l

ibra

ry, b

ooks

tore

s)

[Day

2 (m

orni

ng)]

Visit

des

ign

proj

ect

Fiel

d

The

visit

ed fi

elds

wer

e no

t dire

ctly

re

late

d to

edu

catio

n ex

cept

for

dayc

are.

The

mai

n fo

cus o

f the

vi

sits w

as d

esig

n.

[Day

3] V

isit F

inni

sh d

esig

n in

Teu

va[D

ay 4

] Visi

t city

cen

ter

[Day

5] V

isit d

esig

n ex

po in

Hel

sinki

[Day

6] V

isit c

ity h

all

[Day

7] F

amily

visi

t [D

ay 8

(mor

ning

)] Vi

sit d

ayca

re ce

nter

Idea

G

ener

atio

n 1

Revi

ew fa

cts,

fi ndi

ngs a

nd

gene

rate

idea

s

Shar

e fac

ts fr

om th

e lec

ture

s and

fi eld

visi

tM

akin

g fi n

ding

s D

iscus

sion

on re

adin

gsSe

tting

an

area

of i

mpr

ovem

ent

[Day

8 (a

ftern

oon)

]Le

ctur

es b

y hi

gh sc

hool

teac

hers

, ad

ult e

duca

tion

cent

er

Gro

up w

ork

(2hr

s)

Cam

pus

clas

sroo

m

Mos

t tim

e w

as c

onsu

med

by

talk

s fro

m th

e le

ctur

ers,

whi

le g

roup

w

ork

time

was

lim

ited.

Fiel

d Re

sear

ch 2

Revi

sit lo

cal

cond

ition

s

Revi

sit fi

eld

and

chec

k va

lidity

of t

he

idea

sSe

arch

ing

new

fact

s fro

m a

spec

ifi c

view

poin

t

[Day

9 (m

orni

ng)]

Visit

Ryt

mik

orja

amo

proj

ect

Fiel

d

Not

dire

ctly

abo

ut e

duca

tion

but

the

visit

incl

uded

a ta

lk a

bout

how

un

iver

sity,

com

mun

ity a

nd b

usin

ess

colla

bora

te

Idea

G

ener

atio

n 2

Prot

otyp

e ed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

idea

s

Scan

oth

er re

sour

ces

Gen

erat

e an

d re

fi ne

idea

s usin

g th

e fi e

ld

fact

s and

oth

er re

sour

ces

Prot

otyp

ing

an e

duca

tion

prog

ram

idea

an

d vi

sual

ize

itBr

ush

up th

e id

ea

[Day

9 (a

ftern

oon)

] Gro

up w

ork

Cam

pus

clas

sroo

m

Stud

ents

had

to fi

nish

thei

r pr

esen

tatio

n bu

t the

gro

up w

ork

time

was

ver

y lim

ited

[Day

10

(mor

ning

)] G

roup

wor

k

Pres

enta

tion

Pres

ent t

he id

eaVe

rify/

revi

se th

e edu

catio

n pr

ogra

m m

odel

Pres

ent i

t to

the

audi

ence

[Day

10

(afte

rnoo

n)] P

rese

ntat

ions

Ca

mpu

s cl

assr

oom

The

time

allo

tted

to p

roje

ct a

nd

cultu

ral p

rese

ntat

ions

was

ver

y sh

ort

　　　　　　　　　

(Gro

up w

ork

time

= 1

day

+ 4

hrs)

58


theme, offered by either guest speakers or the coordinating faculty members. Based on the proposal,

both sister universities arranged the schedule contents.

2.3. Bridging the Gap between Proposed and Conducted

As planned, in both GSP Vietnam and Finland, almost all participants spent time together

every day in the host country. Some of the crucial differences between the plan and actual operation

were the content of field visits and its balance with group work time. As noted at the bottom of Table

4 and 5, we had four full days for students to sit and work on their ideas in Vietnam, while only a

day and few hours were spent on group work in Finland. In terms of field visit contents, our initial

proposals included trips to topic specific fields; for example, in Vietnam, traditional and innovative

agricultural fields, markets and other local locations where we could observe and talk with local

people. However, due to a technical difficulty, topic-related field visits were limited during our stay in

Vietnam. Similarly, in GSP Finland, nearly all of the field visits were related to the topic of “design,”

and not straightforwardly linked to the chosen theme of “education.”

Given the gap between proposed and conducted schedules, the coordinating faculty members

redirected the course contents so that students could make sense out of the program regardless the

above difficulties. In GSP Vietnam, our original goal was to create an innovative agribusiness plan.

However, we lacked relevant field visits and lectures by specialists in the agribusiness area, in addition

to having experienced communication difficulties among students. As we realized the existence

of these issues, the coordinating faculty decided to shift the focus of workshops to collaborative

idea generation instead of business planning. Similarly, in GSP Finland, the coordinating faculty

continuously re-steered the framework from educational planning to a creative thinking approach to

help students connect the seemingly unrelated dots – design and education.

3. Shift in Students’ Perception 3.1. Views of the Program Overall

“In the beginning, I thought we were just going to somewhere and sightsee with Japanese

students, but after days, I realized it wasn’t. I don’t even want to have lunch! I want to keep

working with my group. Many ideas, many great ideas” （GSP Vietnam Day 8 Interview, 3rd

year, female student from University X）

The ways in which students felt the gap between the proposed and conducted schedule varied,

probably because their expectations came from different places. Just by looking at the program title,

some students thought this program was a study tour, in which students go around to sightsee with

some study components. Yet, soon after the program started, those students have realized it was not

a tour. As discussed in the previous section, given the gap between our proposed and conducted

schedule, the coordinating faculty struggled to bridge it by shifting the program goals. Still, we

59


were concerned that students end up being disappointed by the outcome. Regarding the program

themes, some students still had a negative comment about this gap, as follows: “I thought I was able

to gain more specific knowledge in agribusiness like the theme, but what we have done was idea

generation using agribusiness as a medium” （GSP Vietnam, end-of-the-program survey, 3rd year,

male student from Chiba University）. Another student wrote, “I thought we would learn about the

Finnish education system and visit a lot of educational institutions in Finland, but we barely had that

chance” （GSP Finland, end-of-the-program survey, 2nd year, female student from Chiba University）.

In terms of the balance between field visits and group work, the response varied. A participant

of GSP Vietnam said, “It was more touristy than expected. But it was also more enjoyable than

expected” （GSP Vietnam end-of-the-program survey, 1st year, male student from Chiba University）,

while another student said, “It was nice to be able to engage in workshop activities more than I had

expected.” On the other hand, most participants of GSP Finland noted that “the group work time was

shorter and sightseeing occupied larger parts of the program than expected”; yet, the gap between

the planned and actual schedule did not necessarily give a negative impact on students’ experience.

“I thought we’d stay at the university more and do discussion, but we spent more time visiting

different places. It was different from my expectation, but it turned out to be a great experience

after all” （GSP Finland end-of-the-program survey, 3rd year, female student from Chiba University）.

Whether it was faculty’s continuous attempt to add meanings to seemingly irrelevant events, or

supplemental elements in the program such as socializing with other participants, most students of

Chiba University, University X and University Y found their experience in GSP both academically

and socially valuable to a great extent.

3.2. “An English Language Skill is Not a Communication Skill”

A difference between an English language class and a class conducted in English seems to be

obvious; yet, some students enrolled in GSP thought the course was aiming to improve their English

language skills. “I believe the goal of this class is to improve students’ English and communication

skills through international exchanges. I hope to refine my English skill in the foreign environment”

（GSP Finland, initial survey, 4th year, male student from Chiba University）. Others seemed to understand

that the program was not an English language class, but they tended to equate a communication skill

with an English language skill before the program started. “I enrolled in this course because I thought

we’d discuss about the theme in English… but I am a little worried about the lack of my English

language ability” （GSP Vietnam, initial survey, 1st year, female student from Chiba University）.

Many Chiba University students had similar expectations about GSP whether it was Vietnam or

Finland – improving their English language skill. However, as the program progressed, they realized

a communication skill does not equate to an English language skill. A third year Education major

student of Chiba University explained how her view on communication changed over the course of

60


her stay in Finland:

“The best part was what I hated the most in the beginning – communicate in English. I’m

generally very quiet and barely speak in Japan. But I have to speak in order to maneuver

here. I met many different people like when I had a homestay. I found myself wanting to talk

more and more, and it was so frustrating not to be able to. First day, second day, I was crying

alone in the classroom because I felt so frustrated. But now [near the end of the program], I

realize I don’t need to mind grammar or wording, but try to “tell” what I want to convey, then

people will try to listen to me. With mutual attempt to understand and support each other, we

can communicate” （GSP Finland Day 10, interview with 3rd year, female student from Chiba

University）.

Not only this student, but also many others including ones from University X in Vietnam echoed the

above opinion on how their view on communication had changed after GSP.

“I had a little concern about my English language skill. But after the course, I recognized

language barrier is not a problem at all. There are many ways to connect people in teamwork”

（GSP Vietnam, End-of-the-program survey, 3rd year, male student from University X）.

“I realized many things through this program. Before I departed, I was worried about my

English language ability. Of course I’m still not confident with my English, but I realized there

are many communication skills that need to be obtained beyond English language – such as

listening to others’ opinions, logic in discussion, ways to convey my idea, and other necessary

skills in collaborative work” （GSP Vietnam, End-of-the-program survey, female student from

3rd year Chiba U.）.

“This was my first time doing group work with students overseas. At first, I was overwhelmed

by the way students there talked assertively. However, I realized the importance of conveying

my opinion regardless of my grammatical errors and finding a better answer as a group. I

gained a great experience with group work with foreign peers” （GSP Finland, End-of-the-

program survey, 4th year male student from Chiba University X）.

“When talking in English, we have people with different language background, accents, and

expressions depending on the country of origin. I learned that what is important is the attitude

to convey my message” （GSP Vietnam, End-of-the-program survey, 3rd year female student

from Chiba University）.

61


In both GSP Vietnam and Finland, the coordinating faculty members encouraged students to

illustrate their ideas by drawing them, in addition to simplifying their written messages when working

in a group. Especially in Vietnam, the leading faculty used a design method to visualize, color code

and materialize students’ ideas. “I was worried about discussion in English, but I got over the anxiety

by assisting my English language ability with gesturing and drawing our ideas” （GSP Vietnam,

End-of-the-program survey, male graduate student from Chiba University）. Indeed, communicative

competence necessary in international collaborative work is not simply linguistic （Hymes, 1972;

Canale & Swain, 1980; Backman, 1990）, but also pragmatic, strategic, and intercultural （Uso-Juan

& Martinez-Flor, 2008）. Participants may not have gained academic knowledge in intercultural

communication but they did come to realize over the course of the program that “an English language

skill” is just one aspect of “a communicative skill” among others.

3.3. Self and Others: “Japanese work harder?”

Ethnic identity is continuously negotiated in relation to others （Bailey, 2000; Barth, [1967]

1998; Bucholtz & Hall, 2004, 2005; Lee & Bean, 2004）; thus, it is always in a process of being

constructed rather than fixed as a definitive product （Brubaker & Cooper, 2000; Bucholtz, 2003;

Hall, 1997; Waters, 1990）. In fact, the majority of the students of Chiba University or the sister

universities did not have to think of their nationality or ethnicity when they were in their home

country; however, through the interaction with each other, participants strengthened the notion of

their ethnicity and started to use ethnic categories as a base of their identification.

In Vietnam, many Chiba University students, and even X University students commented how

“Japanese work harder than Vietnamese.” For instance, some of the Chiba University students found

it frustrating how University X students did not want to work overtime: “Vietnamese students didn’t

seem to care about homework. Japanese even continue to work at the hotel” （GSP Vietnam, Day 5

interview, Chiba University graduate student）. Similarly, an X student commented on the work ethic

difference between Japanese and Vietnamese during the first half of the program: “Japanese are so

serious and work very hard. Vietnamese usually take a nap after lunch, but Japanese don’t seem to

care, even about eating” （GSP Vietnam, Day 5 interview, 3rd year University X student）.

Similarly in Finland, many students found differences based on the national categories. A Chiba

University student said, “Finnish students look so eager to take a break – eating cookies, drinking

coffee, and then go home as soon as possible. Japanese are the ones who stay and work late” （GSP

Finland, Day 8 interview, 2nd year Chiba University student）. On the other hand, some University Y

students saw “Japanese” as collective and passive: “It was interesting to see how different we were

doing the group work. It felt that Japanese-students needed someone to tell them what to do, and

Finnish were more spontaneous” （GSP Finland, End-of-the-program survey, 3rd year University Y

student）. Some Chiba University students echoed this view as follows:

62


“Japan has such a weird culture. Finnish students actively spoke up and discussed with a

teacher during class, but Japanese students remained quiet and passive （even outside of

the classroom）” （GSP Finland, End-of-the-program survey, 2nd year female student from

Chiba University）;

“I was dumbfounded by the differences in the work style between Finnish and Japanese

students. I had heard foreign students work harder than Japanese, and it was impressive to

see their excellent performance in class. It made me want to work harder” （GSP Finland,

end-of-the-program survey, 2nd year female student from Chiba University）.

In fact, many students took a primordial perspective on ethnicity by assuming that members

of an ethnic group share many commonalities regarding language, physical characteristics, religion,

homeland and ancestral histories （Min & Kim, 1999; Phinney, 1992）, and concluded that “Japanese”

were different from “Vietnamese” or “Finnish.” One of the major differences observed between

participants of GSP Vietnam and Finland was the shift in the perception of “the other” ethnicity –

Chiba University students’ image of University Y students tended to remain as “Finnish” and vice

versa, but nearly all students of Chiba University and University X in GSP Vietnam had started to see

more than nationality by the end of the program:

“I learned there is more than nationality like Japanese or Vietnamese. Among Vietnamese,

there are Chinese Vietnamese. One may be born in China but grew up in Japan and her most

proficient language can be Japanese and not Chinese. I learned there is diversity within a

national category” （GSP Vietnam, end-of-the-program survey, 3rd year female student from

Chiba University）.

As the student’s comment above shows, many GSP Vietnam participants acknowledged

diversity within the national category near the end of the program. The use of plural identity

categories, instead of the singular category, does not mean that the underlying view of essentialism

was overcome （Butler, 1995; Mendoza-Denton, 2002）. However, it certainly shows how students

gained another angle of vision in terms of understanding differences beyond nationality or ethnicity.

Among many factors that impacted on how participants understood “differences” within a

national or ethnic category, the main factor could be the amount of time they spent together and

the space given to interact with each other -- the length of shared time and space for GSP Vietnam

participants allowed Chiba and X students to understand each other not simply as a group of

“Vietnamese” or “Japanese” but as individual persons. In contrast, many students who participated

in GSP Finland did not have much time or space to get to know each other as individuals, a factor

63


that might have impacted on students’ understanding of “the others.” Indeed, how a program is set

up, not just a curriculum but also the learning environment, affects participants’ learning outcome.

3.4. Collaborativity in Learning

A format of collaborative learning can vary depending on the purpose. Some instructor may

utilize “free collaboration” by not giving much structure and let students “figure it out.” However,

in a short-term study program like GSP, it was very important to “script” （Dillenbourg, 2002）,

give a comprehensive structure for students to work collaboratively. In a way, GSP took a type of

cooperative learning approach, in which students had a format to work in a group with a common

task and an expected end-product （Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Oxford, 1997; Panitz, 1997）.

Through the task, the coordinating faculty assumed students to learn and embody “collaborativity”

“a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle where individuals are responsible for their actions,

including learning and respect the abilities and contributions of their peers” （Panitz, 1997, p.3）,

through collaboration.

Precisely, GSP’s goals include the objective that students gain flexible, practical and multiple

perspectives and skills to tackle an issue by actively processing and disseminating information and

ideas. Thus, the coordinating faculty created groups of three to five members, by mixing students

in terms of their nationality, gender, major and grade level. With available time and resources in

Vietnam and Finland, the faculty determined and facilitated how students collaborate and what they

produce. When giving students an instruction, the faculty tried its best for each student to have a

chance, time and space to speak his or her ideas and listen to the others in a group.

“I learned how it is difficult to create something as a group. It’s much easier to make a

presentation by myself, for example. It may take time, but it’s easier as I only have myself.

When working with multiple people, we need to listen and summarize different opinions, give

a role to each member. Especially, we needed to use English this time. I couldn’t even make

myself understood fully, and then I had to help other Japanese students as well, and at the

same time, I had to listen to Finnish students. I learned my capacity. I learned the importance

of thinking more about what I can do and cannot do, and then how the group should proceed

to work together” （GSP Finland, End-of-the-program survey, 2nd year female student from

Chiba）.

“I thought it was difficult to work with Finnish students, and then I realized it was difficult to

work even with other Japanese participants” （GSP Finland, end-of-the-program survey, 2nd

year female student Chiba）.

64


“Before I joined this program, I’ve only experienced working with people of the same specialty.

So I usually only thought of how each of us can use our talents to work in a group within that

frame. However, this time, I learned how difficult it is to work as a group when we have

cultural and specialty differences. Especially, I had to think over and over again how I could

work with Vietnamese students who had in-depth knowledge in agriculture. I believe I gained

a management skill for making good use of myself and others with different cultures and

specialties in a collaborative work” （GSP Vietnam, End-of-the-program survey, male graduate

student from Chiba）.

“I learnt how to do group work effectively from this course: to take time to share my ideas with

all members in the group and discuss them thoroughly. Another thing is that there are many

kinds of people that we have to work with, whether we like them or not, in order to achieve

success” （GSP Vietnam, End-of-the-program survey, 4th year, female student from X x）.

What students learned in terms of collaborativity was quite different not only depending on

each person, but also on which program they attended. For example, the first comment by a GSP

Finland participant from Chiba University focused on their struggles to work in a group with diverse

students. Similarly, many other participants from Chiba University as well as University Y mentioned

about the difficulty of group work. In particular, time constraints appeared to have impacted the

way they worked with each other -- “I thought we’d have more time, especially finishing up the

presentation” （GSP Finland, End-of-the-program survey, 4th year, male student from Y ）. On the

other hand, as illustrated in the two latter comments above, most GSP Vietnam participants focused

on their achievement in the collaborative learning experience, rather than just on hardships.

The amount of time, space and chance to interact with each other not only impacts on the end-

product that is directly related to the course, but also affects how students embody “collaborativity”

in learning. “Providing a variety of forms of cooperative learning and doing something cooperative

regularly helps build a habit of cooperation” （Smith, 1996, p.78）. The comparison of GSP Vietnam and

Finland participants’ comments showed diverse learning processes by which students learned what

an international collaborative work looked like and what they needed more to achieve collaborativity.

4. GSP: So what? Now what? Then what?Despite the limitations of this study, including the politics of data collection and analysis as a

coordinating faculty of GSP and the analysis being preliminary, in this paper, I attempted to describe

and compare the process and product of GSP Vietnam and Finland, particularly focusing on the shift

in students’ perception of self and others, communication and collaborativity in learning. So what is

GSP’s strength, what are the areas that need improvement, and what are some of the challenges and

65


possibilities of a short-term study abroad program like GSP in a higher educational institution?

Often, in a short-term study abroad programs including a study tour, students of a sending

university “take” and a host university “gives.” In fact, a GSP Finland participant of University

Y mentioned that “it felt like it was mainly aimed only at the Japanese students. Half of the time

we visited places in the city every Finnish students already knew, so it wasn't anything new to us”

（GSP Finland, End-of-the-program survey, Y University student）. Nonetheless, GSP’s focus was

on collaboration – both sides of students “contribute” and “gain.” Moving beyond a study tour, the

faculty and staff need to pay much closer attention to not only what sending university students

experience, but also how students of both sending and host universities can collaborate and learn

together in the future GSP. Indeed, a short-term study abroad like this should be beneficial for every

participating student and both sending and host universities.

Although the program’s main purpose was international collaborative learning between

students of Chiba University and its sister university, a crucial component was cooperation between

faculty members and staff from both universities. In the two programs, one of the issues when

preparing for the course was communicating our ideas and achieving shared understanding of the

program direction and content. In particular, GSP does not employ a common style of a short-term

study abroad program, thus much more careful planning with the collaborators is necessary during

the first few years of operation.

In regards to the program environment, it is important for the coordinating faculty and staff

to be deliberate about creating opportunities, time and space for active interaction. Additionally,

considering that the program lasts only two weeks, the way pre-departure and post-departure periods

are used is critical. As many higher educational institutions focus on international collaborative

learning on the Internet （e.g. O’Donnell, 2013）, the use of online space should be incorporated to

bridge students of host and sending universities before and after the face-to-face period.

In today’s society, students are expected to “cross （a） border（s）,” whether it is the border

of a country, language, academic specialty, gender or age. What students can gain in a short-term

collaborative study abroad program can vary; yet, the reflexive analysis of GSP Vietnam and Finland

demonstrated how important it is for each student to have a chance to know about him-/herself

and “the others,” experience a way of intercultural communication, and embody collaborativity

in an international setting. When “globalization” is a topic of talk, “Japanese” tends to be treated

homogeneously in relation to “the world,” and “an English language skill” often receives the central

attention. Nonetheless, a program like GSP helps students realize how diverse we are regardless of

the nationality, and how English language is just one of the tools for communication – “what they

want to convey” and “how they can convey” is more important to think about. It is our hope that our

students use an opportunity like GSP to gain a different perspective of considering themselves, Japan

and the world.

66


“When I will go back to Japan, I will be a different person from who I was before I participated in

this program, I think” （GSP Finland Day 10, interview with 3rd year, female student）.

Bibliography

千葉大学. グローバル人材育成推進事業構想調書（2013）. 日本学術振興会.

Anderson H.P., Lawton L., Rexeisen J.R., Hubbard C.A. （2002）. Exploiting the Links between Theory

and Practice: Developing Students’ Cross-cultural Understanding through an International Study

Tour to China. Higher Education Research & Development, 21 （1）, 55-71 .

Backman L.F. （1990）. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: OUP.

Bailey B. （2000）. Language and Negotiation of Ethnic/Racial Identity among Dominican Americans.

Language in Society, 29, 555-582.

Barley S.R. （1990）. Images of Imaging: Note on Doing Longitudinal Fieldwork. Organization Science,

1 （3）, 220-245.

Barth F. （[1967]1998）. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference.

Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.

Bucholtz M., Hall K. （2005）. Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach. Discourse

Studies, 7 （4-5）, 585-614.

Bucholtz M., Hall K.（2004）. Theorizing Identity in Language and Sexuality Research. Language in

Society, 33, 469-515.

BurubakerR., CooperF. （29年1月）. Beyond “Identity”. Theory and Society, 1-47.

ButlerJ. （1995）. Collected and Fractured: Response to Identities. 著: AppiahK.A., GatesL.H., Identities

（ページ: 439-447）. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Canale M., Swain M. （1980）. Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language

Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics（1）, 1-47.

Chen L., Isa M. （2003）. Intercultural Communication and Cultural Learning: The Experience of Japanese

Visiting Students in the U.S.. Howard Journal of Communications, 14 （2）, 75-96 .

Chieffo L., Griffiths L. （2004）. Large-scale Assessment of Student Attitudes after a Short-term Study

Abroad Program. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 165-177.

Dillenbourg P. （2002）. Over-scripting CSCL: The Risk of Blending Collaborative Learning with

Isntructional Design. 著: KirschnerA.Paul, Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? （ペー

ジ: 61-91）. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland,.

Dillenbourg P. （1999）. What Do You Mean by Collaborative Learning? . 著: DillenbourgP., Collaborative-

learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches （ページ: 1-19）. Oxford: Elsevier.

Hall S. （1997）. Old and New Identities, Old and New Ethnicities. 著: KingD.A., Culture and

67


Globalization and the World-system: Contemporary Conditions for The Representation of Identity

（ページ: 41-68）. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Hutchings K., Jackson P., McEllister R. （2002）. Exploiting the Link between Theory and Pratice:

Developing Students’ Cross-cultural Understanding through and International Study Tour to China.

Higher Education Research & Development, 21 （1）, 55-71.

Hymes H.D. （1972）. On Communicative Competence. 著: PrideB.J., HolmesJ., Sociolinguistics （ペー

ジ: 269-293）. Baltimore: Penguin Books Ltd.

Johnson D.W., Johnson R.T., Smith K.A. （1991）. Active Leanring: Cooperation in the College Classroom.

Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Lee J., Bean F. （8）. America’s Changing Color Lines: Immigration, Race/Ethnicity, and Multiracial

Identification. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 221-242.

Lewis L.T., Niesenbaum A.R. （2005）. The Benefits of Short-term Study Abroad. Chronicle of Higher

Education , 51 （39）, B20.

Long O.S., Akande S.Y., Purdy W.R., Nakano K. （2010）. Deepening Learning and Inspiring Rigor:

Bridging Academic and Experiential Learning Using a Host Country Approach to a Study Tour.

Sociology, Paper 10.

Mendoza-Denton N. （2002）. Language and Identity. 著: ChambersK.J., TrudgillP., Schilling-EstesN.,

The Hand Book of Language Variation and Change （ページ: 475-499）. Oxford: Blackwell.

O’Donnell M., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. A. （2013）. What is Collaborative Learning?: An Overview. 著: C.

E. Hmelo-SilverA. Chinn, C. Chan, A. M.-S. O’Donnell, C. A. Chinn, C. Chan,C., The International

Handbook of Collaborative Learning （Educational Psychology Handbook）（ページ: 1-16）. New

York and London: Routledge.

Oxford L.R. （1997）. Cooperative Leanring, Collaborative Learning, and Interaction: Three Communicative

Strands in the Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 443-456.

Panitz T. （1997）. Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning: A Comparison of the Two Concepts Which

Will Help Us Understand the Underlying Nature of Interactive Learning. Cooperative Learning and

College Teaching, 8 （2）.

Porth J.S. （1997）. Management Education Goes International: A Model for Designing and Teaching a

Study Tour Course . Journal of Management Education , 21 （2）, 190–199.

Sachau D., BrasherN., FeeS. （2010）. Three Models for Short-Term Study Abroad . Journal of Management

Education , 34 （5）, 645-670.

Smith A.K. （1996）. Cooperative Leanring: Making “Groupwork” Work. 著: Bonwell C., Sutherlund T.,

Active Learning: Lessons from Practice and Emgerging Issues （ページ: 71-82）. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Uso-Juan E., Martinez-Flor A. （2008）. Teaching Intercultural Communicative Competence through the

Four Skills. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 157-170.

68


Waters M. （1990）. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Wenger E. （1998）. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

crossing and negotiating “borders”: the process and product...

Documents