Global village, internationalization, educating for international competence: words long familiar to the foreign language education community. In the early 1990s the message behind the words seems to be getting through to a wider audience, for one need only tune in the evening news or read the local paper to find a business person or politician using these words in proposing how to improve US education or the country's business outlook. One tool in expanding American students' international perspectives is study abroad. But study abroad will become an effective tool in this venture only if student awareness and interest, followed by actual participation in study abroad programs can be stepped up dramatically. In terms present-day students and budget committees understand best, we have to learn to sell study abroad better, and to this end, we could take a lesson from successful businesses by thinking in terms of marketing: the benefits of our product (study abroad) have to be made clear to potential customers (students) so that they will choose the product. Businesses determine how best to market a product in part by researching who their potential customers are and what they already know or think about the product. Following this approach, we must learn more about our customers' prejudices, desires and opinions about study abroad, then determine the most efficient and, in these times of eroding budgets, cost-effective system for inducing students to participate. We can also help determine which programs are best for students and identify new programs specifically for those who have not participated in the past.1 With similar thoughts in mind, the decision was made at Oregon State University to ascertain through two student surveys exactly where OSU students stand on study abroad.2 Their results, although based on a student population made up largely of Oregonians, have general implications for the US. This report summarizes the surveys and their findings, then analyzes them in the context of US study abroad programs as a whole.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
King et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: