Residence Abroad
Matters

Complete minutes of workshops
 undertaken by 3 
HEFCE / FDTL Phase 2 projects 
on residence abroad

	Contents

		page

Introduction	1

Project Summaries	3

RAM Workshop; Issues and topics for discussion	9

Reports on Workshops

Theme A	Objectives and Curriculum Design
	- Salford University	11
	- Institute of Education, London	13

Theme A/B	Objectives and Curriculum Design / Assessment and 
	Accreditation
	- University of the West of England	16
	- University of Northumbria	19

Theme B	Assessment and Accreditation
	- Salford University	22
	- Institute of Education, London	27

Theme C	Types of Residence Abroad
	- Salford University	30
	- University of the West of England	34
	- University of Northumbria	38
	- Institute of Education, London	41

Theme D	Intercultural Issues
	- Salford University	42
	- University of the West of England	44
	- Institute of Education, London	47

Theme E	Language and Academic Integration
	- Salford University	49
	- University of the West of England	52
	- University of Northumbria	54
	- Institute of Education, London	56

Appendix

Project Teams	59

List of participants	
	- Salford University	61
	- University of the West of England	63
	- University of Northumbria at Newcastle	66
	- Institute of Education, London	68

Workshop A / Objectives and Curriculum Design

Salford 29 April 1998

Chair		Silvie Toll (Interculture Project, University of Central Lancashire)
Rapporteur	Tim Lewis (Interculture Project, Sheffield University)

Participants	Rosa Dover	Liverpool John Moore
	Martin Durell	University of Manchester
	Liz Crolley 	Manchester Metropolitan University
	Christian Maurer 	University of Hull

Summary of Acetate used in Closing Plenary:

•	Objectives of Residence Abroad 

Development of linguistic competence (learning about life, culture, society) 

The ability to function in L2 intellectual/professional environment

Development of self-management skills 

•	Integration into the curriculum

		Sheffield	Placement Preparation Module
				Year Abroad Projects
				Year Abroad Diary

Manchester	Integrate preparation into language courses (4 meetings plus lunchtime briefings)
	ELT module for would-be language assistants
	Year Abroad is a hurdle

MMU	Culture and Society are elements of the core curriculum
	Residence Abroad Project (done while abroad) forms the basis for the year and the oral

Salford		(extra-curricular) post Residence Abroad-debriefing bears credits ( a percentage of the final degree result is based on the Year Abroad)

Central Lancs	Briefing Pack (with tick list and attendance list)
	Residence abroad reports &
	Attestation/Employers’ report are a hurdle for students

Hull	Residence Abroad Dissertation (credited)

	

PRE			1 (Sheffield)
DURING		all (this is a hurdle)
POST	3 (MMU, Salford, Hull) and UCC(integrated into ELT module)
	Not for Sheffield and Manchester
REPORTS	part of year abroad
PRESENTATIONS	on return

•	‘Non-standard’ forms of Residence Abroad

	Residence Abroad for specialists in other disciplines

-	Home departments (lack of awareness)
 - of language and culture
	 - of the effort involved in preparation
-	Study requirements abroad are (often) more clearly defined than for specialist students

Workshop A / Objectives and Curriculum Design 

London 15 May 1998

Chair	-	Jim Coleman (University of Portsmouth)
Rapporteur	-	Nathan Hudson (University of Portsmouth)

Participants	Concerns/ particular interests
Jean Burrell 
(Oxford Brookes University).	Work placements; formulating objectives, communicating them to the students and modifying them to suit individual students’ needs.
Uwe Richter
(Anglia Polytechnic University).	Preparation for Residence Abroad; modes of delivery; objectives; what should students be asked to do while abroad and how should it be assessed; what skill training should target;
Jim Dingley
(School of Slavonic and East European Studies
	How to demonstrate that Residence Abroad is valuable beyond just personal growth.

Robert Gillet
(Queen Mary and Westfield College, London)
	How to make the period of Residence Abroad a meaningful part of the curriculum, integrating it in such a way that there is no loss of momentum afterwards.
Chris Pounton
(Cambridge).	Cambridge students are ‘on their own’ abroad; how to balance academic, linguistic and personal gains from the period of Residence Abroad Cambridge offers VSO placements too; believes that the greatest gains from Residence Abroad are in personal growth.
Dorothy Severin
(University of Liverpool).	Monitoring students and the mechanics of how the period of Residence Abroad is working.
Alex Hughes
(Birmingham University).	Integration of Residence Abroad into the curriculum; how to make Residence Abroad into an experience from which students can grow; responsibility and duties of care; web-based information and communication for students.
George Ferzoco 
(University of Leicester).	Discovering what Residence Abroad is meant to achieve, and how best to integrate it into the degree process; preparatory web pages for students.
Norbert Pachler 
(Institute of Education).	How to ensure that students make the most of the period of Residence Abroad; how can students tailor their Residence Abroad to suit their individual needs.
•	
Objectives of Residence Abroad

Students must understand what is expected of them and what is expected of the host institution. Students are in fact customers and should be able to expect value for money. JB pointed out that students also want to be able to define the objectives of Residence Abroad.

It was agreed that personal development cannot be cited as the most important objective of Residence Abroad, since this is not the Residence Abroad projects’ remit and personal development alone is not enough.   Indeed, if it is not possible to assess personal development, then this cannot be built into the curriculum as an objective.   It may be that other objectives in fact give evidence of personal growth.

Linguistic objectives - JD believes students can attain high levels of language proficiency without a period of Residence Abroad (for example, Russian students of English).   However, UR, RG and the majority  agreed that the sector can legitimately claim that students need to be sent abroad because the home country cannot offer them the context they need for the development of language and other skills.   For example, it has been suggested that linguists (who presumably will have completed a period of Residence Abroad) are very good at bringing together two distinct cultures and are therefore very employable in management consultancy companies where mergers between client companies are commonplace.  

However, linguistic objectives alone are not sufficient (see above point connected with the example of Russian linguists).   Hence, there is the need to highlight work-related and other objectives.  

JB suggested that students also want to be able to define the objectives of Residence Abroad, and highlighted the potential value of the learner diary.

RG suggested that coping with the bureaucracy in the host country which accompanies the period of Residence Abroad is in itself developmental of transferable skills.

NP stated that language learning is not just about learning languages, but also about personal growth and increasing knowledge of the foreign culture, as well as the development of a more intercultural outlook .   Indeed, CP stated that in conversations with employers for work placements, the latter cite modern language graduates as the most employable because of their intercultural experience and interpersonal skills.

RG believes that students return to the UK with a greater awareness of how the host country is made-up; for example, that Germany is not a monolith, but a group of different regions with associated cultures.

Interpersonal skills and transferable skills - DS believes students are too ‘nannied’. 

•	Pre-Residence Abroad modules

Birmingham University interview students and help them work out a project idea. However there are no specific pre-Residence Abroad modules.   RG believes it is necessary to get students curious about what language they are going to be exposed to from a linguistic point of view. 

Queen Mary and Westfield students take a module called Germany Today, which teaches students about the state system and reunification for example.   NP believes that students need to know how different university life is abroad (for example, the reduced amount of supervision), and the same is true with regard to working environments for work placements.
Should students be told about the differences in the host country, or should we devise/ rely on some sort of experiential process?   AH believes that we should aim for something between advice from returning students and formal teaching.   NP believes that greater use should be made of foreign students at the home institution in preparing (second year) students.   All agreed that the use of linguistic partners should be explored in more depth.

•	Post-Residence Abroad

UR believes that the level of linguistic competence required in the final year demands a prior period of Residence Abroad.

Language decay - the final oral examination at Cambridge takes place in September (i.e. at the beginning of the final year) to capture the students’ peak performance.   CP believes that the period of Residence Abroad and early oral testing (at the beginning of the final year) do free-up resources which can be used with first and second year students.   UR stated that there may be little that can be done to improve or conserve existing language skills post-Residence Abroad, but it would be possible to concentrate on teaching new skills such as those required for translation and interpreting (especially if resources have been freed-up as already suggested).

How can personal development post-Residence Abroad be measured?   UR suggested that the dissertation written while on placement might demonstrate that interpersonal and academic (research) skills have developed and that the student has successfully integrated him/herself into the host community.

•	Academic disruption by Residence Abroad

At Cambridge some students are engaged in very academic activities during their period of Residence Abroad, while others are not.   Students choose in effect which objectives they want to develop (academic, personal etc.).

It was generally agreed that final year teaching does rely implicitly on an intellectual and personal maturity that does not exist prior to Residence Abroad.   Post-Residence Abroad teaching can build on Residence Abroad skills at task level rather than module level.  

Workshops A+B	Objectives and Curriculum Design
	Assessment and Accreditation

University of the West of England 7 May 1998

Chair	Jim Coleman (University of Portsmouth)
Rapporteur	Nathan Hudson (University of Portsmouth)

Participants		Concerns/interests/position
Jeanne McDonald 	University of Wales Institute Cardiff	Work placements co-ordinator
Sabine Woods	Queens University Belfast	German language assistant
Joy Davies	Swansea Institute	Co-ordinator for languages
Valerie Howells	University of Swansea	Placement co-ordinator
Françoise Tidball	University of the West of England	Lecturer in French
Mari Wilkie 	University of the West of England	Head of Spanish
Paul Cook 	University of Exeter	Lecturer in French with special responsibility for students on work placements including assistantships.

The agenda agreed by the group:

1.	The criteria used by those who are already accrediting the period of Residence Abroad;
2.	The input/role of the employer and tutor regarding work placements;
3.	The number of credits allocated to the placement;
4.	What aspects should credit be given for, and how is the link made with preparation?;
5.	How much work should institutions stipulate the student does and submit?;
6.	How should credit be given when it is suspected that a student’s work is not entirely their own?;
7.	How should SLA and other equally valid skills (i.e. sociolinguistic elements, etc.) be assessed?;
8.	How should evidence be gathered (what evidence should be gathered) for giving credits?;
9.	Diaries and learning contracts;
10.	Follow-up to maintain momentum;
11.	Support and monitoring;
12.	The European Credit Transfer System (ECTS).

What are the objectives of the period of Residence Abroad?

•	Linguistic objectives – near native proficiency is often quoted  but what does this actually mean? The group defined linguistic objectives as accuracy and oral and written proficiency. Consensus was that the latter is best tested at the end of the Residence Abroad year, and this would allow teaching in the final year to concentrate on other skills such as translation and interpreting. However, it was acknowledged that early testing could result in a subsequent lack of student motivation and there was a need to address the problem of language decay. It was suggested that the use of language partners, involving both oral and written tasks might go some way towards minimising this decay.

•	Sociolinguistic objectives (register).

•	Professional objectives – transferable skills and work experience. How should these be accredited (includes assistantships). Currently there are work placement reports; however, it was agreed that these alone are not sufficient as a criterion for assessment, because they vary in reliability and hence are not always comparable. In some cases the reports are very valuable, but in others they are not. It was agreed that a placement diary and an oral presentation could be used.

•	Personal objectives – how can these be assessed and accredited? Self-assessment by the student raises question of reliability.

•	Cultural objectives – knowledge of the host country and how to operate within its socio-cultural environment.

N.B. Some ‘old’ or existing models may already deal with several of the above objectives.

Stated Objectives 

•	The group generally agreed that increasingly in education, there is the need to demonstrate a process of identification, definition and assessment. Hence, stated objectives must be assessable. This implies that those objectives that the TQA and many within the sector acknowledge as important, yet apparently unassessable, should remain unstated. In this respect, the objectives of the period of Residence Abroad can be thought of as a spectrum:

Academic objectives 				Personal objectives

How to combat plagiarism?

•	Suggested measures were:
	Stipulation that students keep evidence that what they submit is indeed their own work;
	Stipulation that students produce reports as evidence of the process;
	Stipulation that students submit or have ready to submit if requested, successive drafts of their work.

Learning contracts

•	Portsmouth should perhaps return to the 2nd year project to see how students respond to their own stated objectives.

ECTS

•	UK norm = 120 credits per year
•	European norm = 60 credits per year
•	Hence ECTS = 2:1

Preparation

•	It was felt that there should be some linguistic investigation into the language a student will need in a work placement (includes assistantship).

Workshops A+B	Objectives and Curriculum Design
	Assessment and Accreditation

University of Northumbria 13 May 1998

Chair:	 David Head (University of Northumbria)
Rapporteur	 Linda Parker (LARA , Oxford Brookes University)

Participants: 	Petra Points 	University College, Stockton
	Steve Le Fleming 	University of Durham
	Mike Gonzalez 	University of Glasgow
	Kim Willis 	University of Sunderland
	Jane Sheldon	University of Newcastle
	David Kaufmann	University of Northumbria

•	Objectives and Curriculum Design

More than once during the discussion the question was raised as to whether HEFCE is looking to impose a “national curriculum” for Residence Abroad.  Those closely involved in projects said that there was no indication of this from HEFCE but that the FDTL programme was to raise the quality of student learning in relation, in these particular projects, to Residence Abroad.  The group felt that diversity is a positive thing and should be encouraged.

The general issue was raised of whether Residence Abroad should be left totally in control of the student. It was argued that this could be a positive good, autonomous experience and that too much preparation and support could detract from student autonomy and independence.

Others felt that this laissez-faire approach is no longer acceptable, particularly if links could be established between such an approach and lack of student progression.  There is evidence of students themselves complaining that they are left to their own devices and with the pressure of fees on Residence Abroad, departments will be expected to prove the value of Residence Abroad

There was some discussion about the multifarious arrangements for Residence Abroad in departments (both in length of Residence Abroad - participants reported periods from 1 to 15 months- and different types of placement) and how this could lead to  difficulties in both preparation and assessment.  But departments need to use all kinds of placements available to them to maximise number of places available.

Preparation geared to individuals makes it difficult to come up with arrangements which suit everyone.
The timing of Residence Abroad : year 3 was common to most of the group, but is this necessarily the best time?  Chair pointed out that Oxford Brookes and Sussex send students in year 2 and that this was praised by QA assessors.

Some information was provided about the Scottish system:
5 year degrees with Residence Abroad normally in year 3
At Glasgow a student taking a Residence Abroad must be doing an honours degree and must reach a certain standard by end of year 2
A one year period of Residence Abroad is a requirement for a teaching qualification

Defending Residence Abroad is becoming more and more of an issue in Scotland and there is pressure to abolish the requirement of a one year period of Residence Abroad for a teaching qualification.

It was agreed that the main objective of Residence Abroad was improved language skills, although it was pointed out that students improve in different ways depending on their Residence Abroad placement.  Those who were in situations which provided plenty of opportunities to speak the target language learn to use the spoken language in different ways and acquire new skills sometimes to the detriment of other (particularly written).  On the other hand, students on study placements sometimes improve their formal language skills but have little opportunity to extend their command of the spoken language.

•	Assessment and Accreditation

The chair asked how institutions represented were awarding credits for Residence Abroad.  Some gave extra credits, others used credits from other years.  Northumbria did the latter, using year 2 credits, but were not entirely happy with the system as it meant that students do not get all their year 2 credits until the end of their Residence Abroad and so can fail year 2 after taking a third year of Residence Abroad

Other institutions represented were struggling with accreditation and did not yet have systems in place.

There was some discussion about finding straightforward ways of assessing/accrediting Residence Abroad.  Most institutions were using dissertations or projects as assignments during Residence Abroad. Some were assessed but not accredited, some both.  It was suggested that this work should form the basis for Residence Abroad assessment and accreditation.  It was noted that there are issues surrounding the assessment of project work on return to the host institution.  For example, how do you assess language work which may have been corrected by a native speaker, and should this matter or not?  How do you assess content in a project where you do not know much about the topic?

Northumbria assesses Residence Abroad through a presentation, which is examined by a visiting member of staff while the student is abroad.  Some other institutions present reported that they would not have funds available for such visits.

The use of learning contracts was mooted as a possible aid to assessment and institutions represented felt they would like to know more.   

One problem with the accreditation of Residence Abroad was that it does not fit easily into rigid systems of accreditation imposed by administrators.

It was generally recognised that all institutions would need to introduce Residence Abroad assessment and/or accreditation, that the benefits of and progress made during Residence Abroad would have to be measurable and that Residence Abroad should be seen to represent value for money.

•	“Non-standard” students

There was a short discussion about students outside language departments.  In the data return for the NRAD, it appears that while non-language departments are not as thorough as language departments in preparation of students for Residence Abroad, many of them do accredit.  
 
With regard to Residence Abroad, students in this category are being treated in a totally different way from language students.

Workshop B / Assessment and Accreditation

Salford 29 April 1998

Chair		David Steel (the Interculture Project, University of Lancaster)
Rapporteur	Jane Gardiner ( LARA Project, Oxford Brookes University)

Participants	Joelle Riley (JR)		University of Salford
Michael Rigelsford (MR)	University of Liverpool
Graham Hayes (GH)		University of Wolverhampton
Elizabeth Planella (EP)	Bolton Institute
Maeve Olahan (MO)		UMIST
Martine Shepherd (MS)	Liverpool John Moores University

Summary of Acetate used in Closing Plenary:

•	Assessment
not the same as ‘accreditation’
Should Residence Abroad be assessed?
Is it always assessed?
		
		Written assessment:	During?
					On return?
					In target language?

		Oral assessment	During?
					On return?
					In target language?

		By home institution/receiving institution?

		How supervised/authenticated?

		Modes:
		- Various language assignments
		- Projects
		- Log-books/profiles
		- Essays
		- Dossiers
		- Student self-assessment.
		
		Marking scale problems/ECTS.

•	Accreditation/Credits/’P’ Credits

Completion of various elements of the Residence Abroad.  Ratios.

•	Contribution towards degree result.

(Shorter Residence Abroad).

Notes from the Discussion

It was immediately clear from the opening discussion of terms that there were different experiences and understandings of  “assessment” and “accreditation” among the institutions represented.

•	Assessment

Salford:  the Residence Abroad was compulsory, assessed and counted towards the final degree (100 units out of 1500), but it did not carry credits in the new module system.

UMIST:  students got 120 credits for the Residence Abroad if they fulfilled the assessment criteria, but these did not count towards the final degree.

Liverpool John Moores:  two systems existed.  The ‘regular’ modern language degree accounted for 360 credits, with the Residence Abroad counting for 120 ‘P’ (placement) credits.  These ‘P’ credits did not count towards the final degree classification, although they did appear on the degree certificate.  The Residence Abroad was assessed.  However, the triple diploma programme with a Residence Abroad of two years was accredited and did count towards the final degree classification.

It was acknowledged that there were still students from some universities who were not assessed at all.  It was felt that this had a negative effect generally, especially when assessed students were placed with non-assessed students, the former losing their motivation to attend their prescribed courses or carry out necessary tasks.  The University of Liverpool stated that all their students were now assessed following an overhaul of their Residence Abroad procedures.

It was agreed that assessed work certainly helped to focus the student, no matter the length of the Residence Abroad.  It was also considered important that there be some means of measuring progress during the Residence Abroad.

Types of Assessment

Assessed work/activities varied depending on type of Residence Abroad, country of Residence Abroad and host institution.  

1.	Written Assignments

University of Salford:  The Residence Abroad Report was the only compulsory work done during an industrial placement abroad.  It counted for half a mark with the Supervisor’s Report counting for the other half.  In the Residence Abroad Report students had to set themselves objectives in 5 different areas and then analyse their progress against these.

University of Wolverhampton:  The Residence Abroad counted for 120 credits and was assessed with a minimum of 90 credits counting towards the final degree qualification.  The host institution assessed work completed by students while abroad.  ECTS would be implemented in the forthcoming academic year (1998-99).  GH raised the issue of whether it was relevant to send students to overseas institutions and ask them to carry out work for the home institution.  It was acknowledged that problems could occur in getting work assessed abroad when students spent two periods of Residence Abroad during one academic year as there could be a ‘clash’ with the academic calendar of the host institution.
UMIST:  previously some technical/specialised written work had been assessed in English, but this practice had now changed and assessed work was all undertaken in the target language.

2.	Oral Assessment

It was agreed that oral skills improved more readily than written skills while students were abroad.  Many felt, therefore, that there was no need for a specific oral assessment on a student’s return as any improvements would be obvious during the following year’s course work.  Many students had to give oral presentations while abroad and these were assessed in their host institutions.  It was considered to be a disadvantage for students who had spent two periods of Residence Abroad to be tested on the language of their first Residence Abroad on their return.

Liverpool John Moores:  students had the opportunity to use their new found oral skills during debriefing sessions and this was also a useful tool for gauging students’ improvements.

3.	Aural Skills

Although these were not assessed formally it was considered that these skills developed considerably when students attended courses at their host institutions.  In this environment students would encounter different linguistic registers and would benefit from the ‘shock’ experience.

Liverpool University raised the issue of problems experienced under the Socrates scheme where some host institutions were not always willing to allow students into mainstream university courses, preferring instead to put them into separate foreign language classes.  It was agreed that overcoming such problems was possible with goodwill and communication.

Marking Cultures

It was hoped that ECTS would prove an effective means of converting host institution marks but there still needed to be an understanding of their marking systems and classifications.  E.g.  What did ‘good’ mean?  The system was still very ad hoc.  It was also considered important that students be made aware of the differences between the marking systems and the implications these had for them.

At Liverpool John Moores, a grid of equivalent marks had been devised for the triple diploma qualification.  However, difficulties still arose when trying to equate different systems from various host institutions within one country.  This, it was argued, could even be one reason for not counting the Residence Abroad credits towards the final degree.  Several members of the group could not agree with the proposal that the individual tutor should have some licence to adjust marks.  The experience of MR at Liverpool was to adjust marks to give credit to students who had attended and satisfactorily completed academically ‘more challenging’ courses than their peers.

Authentication of Written Work

With regard to the authentication of work completed abroad, it was felt that usually either the student ‘came clean’ when cross-examined on aspects of written assignments, or any discrepancy would become apparent on resumption of coursework.  Some students had to sign quasi-legal declarations stating that all work carried out was legitimate.

Student Logs/Profiles

Salford: the log-book accounted for half of the Residence Abroad Report required.  In it students had to define their own objectives and evaluate their progress against these.  During debriefing sessions any discrepancies (either positive or negative) could be uncovered.  Students also had reports from their assessors which would counterbalance anything from the log-book.  Guidelines were issued to students on how to complete the log-books and when to return them for assessment.  It was agreed that although the best way of assessing students’ work would be to check it at regular intervals it was not practical to do so given constraints on staff time and resources.

Assessment of Work Placements

Salford highlighted the difference between work placements and university study in this area by suggesting that if a student did not meet their objectives while abroad on placement they would in effect ‘get the sack’, whereas students studying at host institutions were seldom monitored in their attendance of courses.  In these cases the benefits of the Socrates system, as explained by Liverpool University, were highlighted as the designated contact would automatically let tutors know of any ‘stray’ students.

Assistantships

At Liverpool John Moores students were required to produce among other things a dossier containing lesson plans, etc. and this was awarded ‘P’ credits.  The dossier would be presented orally on return.  At Lancaster, a project was produced in the target language.  The theme of this could be unrelated to the experience as an assistant but had to have a critical dimension.  All agreed that ‘assistantships’ should be treated as ‘work placement’ in terms of assessment.

•	Accreditation

It was considered very difficult to equate the experiences of students on placement with those of students following academic programmes based on different systems. However, when accrediting students’ work, past performance could also be taken into account and some adjustment in marks made where necessary.  Further difficulties arose when a tutor was dealing with many host institutions using different practices within a particular country.  MS stated that in her experience students liked the idea of ‘P’ credits as it gave them a goal to work towards.  One advantage (or disadvantage?) was, however, that poor performance during the Residence Abroad would not count towards their final degree classification.

It was discovered that the weighting of the Residence Abroad in the final degree could vary drastically, from 33% (1 year out of 3) or 25% (1 year out of 4) to 1 unit out of 9 or 10.

One principle agreed upon was that staff should not double-check the marks given by colleagues in host institutions.  They should respect their professional integrity and simply convert given marks.

Unfortunately there was no time left at the end to discuss other important issues:

•	Assessment/Accreditation of non-specialist language students on shorter Residence Abroad.
•	Fees issue

Workshop B / Assessment and Accreditation

London 15 May 1998

Chair	David Drake (Middlesex University)
Rapporteur	Linda Parker (LARA)

Participants: 	Mark Allinson	Royal Holloway University of London
	Sonia Critchley	University of Brighton
	Peter Dunwoodie	Goldsmiths College
	Diane Hayler	Anglia Polytechnic University
	Sabine Hotho	University of Abertay Dundee
	Abigail Lee	Queen Mary & Westfield College
	Richard Littlejohns	University of Leicester
	Stephen Noreiko	University of Hull
	Ian Pickup	University of Birmingham
	Ian Roe	University of Reading
	Muaadh Salih	School of Oriental & African Studies
	Maria Shepherd	Buckinghamshire College
	Marina Spunta	University of Leicester
	I. A. White	Royal Holloway University of London

The group was asked to identify the issues which were most important to them and their institution.

There was a remarkable degree of consensus, which could be summed up under one heading:

•	Comparability

Priorities:

-	How do you assess different modes of Residence Abroad
-	Comparability between different modes of assessment
-	Comparability between different degree types
-	Level of validation by the home institution
-	Comparability of results between host/home universities

There was also some concern about Credibility

-	Assessed work needs to be appropriate to the kind of Residence Abroad and indeed to Residence Abroad itself (i.e. students should be set tasks that can only be done abroad, not something that could just as easily be done in the library in the home institution)
-	Task must be appropriate to the student’s situation (i.e. must take into account the availability of resources)

The Validity of assessing Residence Abroad at all was also raised and there was some support for the “go have a great time” approach.  However, in general the group believed that institutions needed to be able to prove the value of Residence Abroad to outside agencies, parents and students themselves.

The discussion then moved on to consider the points raised about comparability in more detail.

•	Comparability between different modes of Residence Abroad

Not all institutions represented did use different kinds of placement.  University of Birmingham has only study placements and a year abroad is compulsory in all single honours language degrees or joint degrees which include a language.  The University of Brighton uses assistantships, study placements and work placements.  
One of the pitfalls of assessment when a combination of different types of Residence Abroad is used  was pointed out by Queen Mary and Westfield where all students used to be required to write a project during Residence Abroad.  That was abandoned for students on Erasmus and Socrates exchanges, who now have to sit exams at the host institution for which they are accredited.  This group feels discriminated against, as they believe it is easier to write a project than sit exams.  

Middlesex University uses assistantships and work placements.  They are assessed through a project (which is always relevant to being abroad and could not be done in the library at Middlesex) the marks for which count towards the degree. They must also attend some university courses while abroad.  To continue into final year the student must produce a certificate of attendance.
[There was some discussion about getting certificates of attendance from host institutions, which has been a problem in some cases].

It was felt that although there should be flexibility, the same basic approach should be used whatever the type of Residence Abroad placement.

No institution represented was using oral assessment of Residence Abroad, although the University of Birmingham is planning to introduce it in the near future and Queen Mary and Westfield had stopped using it because of large student numbers and lack of  staff time.

•	Comparability between different degree types

Chair asked if assessment should be different for students at different start levels?  The overwhelming feeling of the group was that this should not be the case and that ab initio and post A level students were on a level playing field by the time they reached Residence Abroad.  (N.B. All institutions in the group send students in year 3).

There was then much discussion about 

•	Comparability of results between host/home institutions

The University of Birmingham uses a dual marking system where project work is marked in the host university for content and at home for language.

The School of Oriental and African Studies asks to see examination papers from the host institution (although this is not obligatory) and if a student’s results are not what is expected then other factors are taken into account.

Royal Holloway felt that students were used to a high standard of assessment at home and were concerned about methods of assessment in host institutions.  

There was general concern about ECTS.

There was however also a feeling that perhaps staff in UK institutions are unnecessarily anxious about marks being awarded in host institutions and perhaps we should “have the courage” to accept marks from European colleagues. University of Abertay and the University of Reading  thought the system worked well.  

There  was concern about the time academic staff are spending on administering ECTS.  What should the division of labour be between academics and administrators?
The structure of  European collaboration has evolved (from individual to institutional arrangements  via Erasmus to Socrates) but institutional support  has not always followed.  The job takes time and needs properly trained administrative staff or more remission for academic staff.  

The group felt these issues surrounding ECTS were important as perhaps the change in fee structures would mean more students opting for Socrates placements.

Workshop C / Types of Residence Abroad 
	(work placements, studentships and assistantships)

Salford 29 April 1998 

Chair	-	Uwe Zemke (Salford University)
Rapporteur	Nathan Hudson (Residence Abroad Project, University of Portsmouth)

Participants	Concerns/ particular interests
Glyn Williams 
(University of Huddersfield).	Concerned because their TQA criticised the fact that they sent ‘too many’ as assistants (the students’ lack of additional vocational skills forces them to do this).
Kevin Martin
(University of Lincolnshire and Humberside).
	EU Co-ordinator of the Business School
His students qualify with two degrees (one from home and one from host institution).
Shelly Godstand
(Manchester Metropolitan University).	Her students only go on academic placements, and she wishes to increase the options.

Kirsty Garrett (University of Salford).	Language Administrator for French, German, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian.

Hazel Thompson (University of Derby).	Administrator.

T.G. Williams
(University of Huddersfield).	Head of Languages.

Rafa Sala (University of Bradford).	Best way of obtaining work placements.

•	Work placements:

Students should not be exploited (all students should be paid). Uwe acts as a trouble-shooter and has established contacts for German work placements, and feels more and more that increasing numbers of UK universities are looking to establish work placements for their students.

The benefits to the student:

•	insight into commerce and industry
•	useful (and quotable) work experience
•	career decisions are often made based on the work placement
•	acquisition of transferable skills
•	improved language competence
•	financial income
•	character development
•	‘eminently more employable’

Everyone benefits:

•	universities - because it adds weight and credibility to their courses;
•	companies - relatively cheap labour of graduate calibre and with native English;
•	students - see above;
•	parents - gives parents a financial ‘lift’.

Considerations:

Need to think very carefully about moving over to industrial placements rather than study placements.   Companies commonly call for a six or twelve month commitment;

paid industrial placements or paid assistantships may offer a solution to the problem of funding the period of Residence Abroad;

Question:	If your institution was offered an unpaid work placement, would you accept it?

Answers:	University of Derby is already accepting offers of unpaid work placements because the students are happy to simply have their accommodation arranged for them;
University of Bradford (have been using work placements since the mid to late 1960s) - ‘Yes, of course’;   

Consensus is that work placements in Spain are virtually impossible due partly to the current economic climate in Spain (high unemployment etc.), but have always been difficult to establish because of the culture/ attitude of Spanish firms (often verbal agreements are made, but when push comes to shove these break down; much is done over the telephone and hence it is harder to obtain firmer written agreements); University of Derby has only been able to secure work placements in hotels and bars, which are not vocationally relevant to most students;

Consensus is that it is easier for a student to adapt to a foreign company than to a foreign university;

Uwe Zemke states that it is important to know names and to be able to refer to other contacts by name.   Personal contact is essential and requires money to visit potential contacts;
employers want students to be hardworking, smartly presented, etc.   Not all students are suited to work placements;  

There are generally two types of work placement - ‘in-house’ (e.g. translating, import/ export, human resources, marketing, accounting), and ‘in the field’ (e.g. work at trade fairs);

Uwe Zemke selects his students for work placements on the basis of his knowledge of them, their own preferences, and the host company’s requests or pre-requisites.

•	
All types of placement:

Monitoring and visiting

TQA reports state that some universities do not support their students.   The University of Bradford visits all its students, and while they believe it is more important to visit students on work placements in order to cultivate the contacts, Rafa Sala believes it is also very important to visit those at universities since it is also necessary to cultivate contacts at the host universities.   Manchester Metropolitan University do not visit all their students - i.e. those in Buenos Aires.

Kevin Martin (Lincolnshire and Humberside) ensures that all their students have a list of each other’s addresses etc. abroad.   Consensus was that students should at least be contacted by telephone, email or letter, and that it is important that the students have an academic tutor or industrial supervisor at the host organisation.  

Kevin Martin indicates that applications can be made to LEONARDO/ SOCRATES for money to visit students.   In addition, the ERASMUS Teaching Grant provides £300, and this can be incorporated into the teaching exchange, which if married to student visits, means that the £300 can be used to help cover the costs of visiting the students.   The University of Derby and Manchester Metropolitan University both do this.

Consensus was that it is important for staff to stay in hotels of a certain standard for reasons of personal safety, to combat the sometimes considerable fatigue element, and to present the right impression when meeting contacts from host companies and institutions.

General points

Question:	How do you deal with reports from students of sexual harassment?

Answers:	Bradford and Derby have had no real incidents, but there should be some provision for preparing students about to enter ‘hostile’ environments; difficult because of the importance of the work placement but would hope to have a good enough contact at the host company to deal with such eventualities; no one would involve parents, however 9 times out of 10 it is the parents who contact the home university; it is important to know your opposite number at the host company/ institution, and their supervisor too.

All those present would like to expand the number of work placements available to their students.

Two problems regarding assistantships organised by the Central Bureau are that the news as to whether placements have been successfully secured arrives very late, and the fact that half year placements are more difficult/ impossible to arrange.

The good thing about assistantships organised by the Central Bureau is that this organisation arranges everything.    

All those present felt that it is good to have an administrator to arrange placements, especially as the pressures on academics are greater now.   The administrator could have a weekly briefing meeting with academic staff.   At present, almost all institutions represented have their German placements arranged by the German department, French by the French department, and so on.   All agreed that there should at least be some liaison across the different language departments.

All those present doubt the linguistic advances made in four week placements.

If the period of Residence Abroad is optional, then at finals there will possibly be a disparate group of candidates (post-A level students who have completed a year abroad and ab-initio students who have not completed any period of Residence Abroad hence, do you have two sets of exams?   There is also the potential for resentment between students completing four years (including Residence Abroad) and those who do not and go straight into final examinations.

WORKSHOP C / Types of Residence Abroad

University of the West of England 7 May 1998

Chair 	Elisabeth Lillie (University of Ulster)
Rapporteur	Linda Parker.(LARA Project, Oxford Brookes University)

Participants	Annie Lewis 	University of the West of England
	Godfrey Carr	Warwick University
	Gerald Opie 	University of Exeter 
	Ernest Hampson	Bath University

•	Assistantships

Advantages:

Well paid
Provide good linguistic opportunities
Excellent experience for students considering teaching/academic careers and encourages some who have not considered this option to take it up
Most students find them a positive experience

Disadvantages:

Teaching has a bad image among some students
Problems associated with the system:
	only 1 year placements available
	haphazard feedback
	slow
	student needs/preferences often not taken into account
	sometimes no follow-up after placement
	students can feel isolated

UWE needs to place students for periods shorter than one academic year and has solved this by finding its own places for assistants in private schools in France and Spain.  This system has the advantage of putting UWE in control, staff know schools and staff well and can match students to schools.  Problems can be dealt with quickly.  One disadvantage is that pay is lower in private schools.

UWE has had no difficulty in finding schools to collaborate in this scheme.

•	Work Placements

Some participants had wide experience in this area, others very little, although all institutions represented did have some. (At Exeter, for instance, although there is no formal work placement scheme, students who wished to do so could organise their own).

Advantages:

Very popular with students - see them as relevant
Aid recruitment
Linguistic benefits - ready-made language environment
Students gain employment and transferable skills

Disadvantages/Problems:

Continuity of academic work
Difficulty of finding placements
Students must be given "real" work - not, for example, endless photocopying
Parental anxiety over certain countries (e.g. Columbia)
Organisation is very time-consuming - under-resourced in most institutions
Voluntary work is not funded by LEAs

Advice and Comments

Finding Placements:
Use personal contacts among both staff and students 
Try the Internet
Use bureaux overseas
Try Brussels & Strasbourg (very large number of companies who need language skills)
European organisations
Keep your placements once you've got them by regular contact with employers

Vetting Placements:
Strong long-term contact with employers, get to know individuals
Visit regularly wherever possible
Draw up contract with employers
Preparation - help students deal with problems in situ by working on inter-personal skills such as explaining problems/complaining to a superior

Advice and Comments:
Placements need to be at least 4 months long to be of any real benefit
Employers want IT skills and are unlikely to take students without them (minimum: Windows, Excel, Email).  Training in telephone skills would also be very useful.

Possible areas for action/collaboration between institutions

Share information about employers
More resources should go into work placements, in particular departments and institutions should recognise the need for ample time allowances for work placement officers. 

•	University Study Placements

Advantages:

Erasmus/Socrates framework and funding
Good experience for those considering an academic career
Good for the most able

Disadvantages/Problems:

Linguistic - students often mix with other foreign students, using English
	most of the time.
Less able students struggle.
Timing of the British academic year v. other countries, particularly in the southern hemisphere.  This can lead to funding problems, as LEAs are very inflexible.
Differences in academic culture.

General Advice and Comments:

Encourage only academically stronger students to take certain study options (where good support is available study periods can work even with less able students)
Recognition of differences in culture should be part of the learning process
In Latin America use institutions other than universities (e.g. museum courses) to place students at periods which fall into the UK academic year
Preparation for academic cultural differences 

Areas for collaboration/action

Pressure on government/LEAs for more flexibility

•	Students learning two languages

QA reports highlighted problem of students studying two languages on joint degrees but only doing Residence Abroad in one of them and stressed the need for equality of opportunity in the two (or more) languages.

Practice among workshop participants varied, although all provided some opportunity for students to go to 2 countries.  This ranged from "full" provision (one period of Residence Abroad - 1 semester- obligatory in each country) to short vacation courses (some funded by the institution and some not) for the second language.  
In some institutions students could opt for their main period of Residence Abroad in one country or the other.   There is sometimes a problem with ab initio languages when the department insists that students must take their period of Residence Abroad in a country where that language is spoken. 

It was pointed out that students seem to prefer longer periods of Residence Abroad to short ones and that splitting a year can be disruptive.  Institutions that require a joint student to do Residence Abroad in one country only attempt to overcome problems with progress in the second language by:

Funding vacation courses in the other language
Requiring students to write a dissertation in the other language
Insisting students on university placements follow courses in the other language

•	
The timing of Residence Abroad

Year 3 was the most common in the group, although UWE pointed out that in a student survey the students themselves said they felt the end of year one would be more appropriate.

This issue is becoming more complicated as more "starting points" for ML degrees emerge (ab initio, post GCSE, etc.).

Workshop C / Types of Residence Abroad

Northumbria 13 May 1998

Chair		Lesley Twomey (University of Northumbria)
Rapporteur	Eva Eppler (Interculture project, Lancaster University)

Participants	Tony McNeill 	(University of Sunderland)
	Mike Gonzales 	(Glasgow University)
	David Taylor 	(New College Durham)
	Laura Bickel 	(Durham University)
	Marianne R. Waine 	(Lancaster University)
	Ute Schmidt 	(University of Northumbria)
	Mary Burke 	(University of Northumbria)
	Anne-M. Cordon 	(University of Northumbria)

Work Placement

Participants agreed that students seem to gain most from work placements

-	Difficulties experienced in finding and holding placements, especially in Spain.
-	Element of choice for students is generally small;
-	Work placements depend on the initiative of individual students;
-	Work placements are very demanding! – require ‘strong’ characters;
-	Business programmes (Marketing and Management), tricky to know who to send; factors to be taken into consideration: personality of students, how ‘mature’ they are, language proficiency etc.); 
-	Companies require forthcoming and expressive student personalities;
-	No of hours to be worked: students on work placements tend to work longer hours than assistants and those on study placements;
-	Qualification: within a company, which jobs are students qualified for?
-	Dual and Triple Qualification.
Take care that languages do not ‘dominate’ the Year Abroad;
Joint honours and non-specialists tend to be less well monitored than single honours language students.

Assistantships

Role of the Central Bureau, how much TEFL training do students need/get? Should teacher training modules be incorporated into the Modern Languages curriculum?
Assistantships are more readily available than other placement types – do students therefore focus on a career as TEFL teachers?

Studentships

Main problem is assessment.
Assessment abroad: students should be encouraged to sit exams abroad, even if they find it difficult, can boost students’ morale. 
Despite the European Assessment Credit System – still problems with assessment.
Where programmes match closely between host/partner institution: monitoring is more effective and efficient.

Duration of Residence Abroad

Advantages and disadvantages of ‘split’ Residence Abroad: settling in, uprooting, benefit for both languages, immersing oneself in a different culture.

Welfare

Physical attacks seem to be on the increase: ‘foreign looks’ attract attention; raise students’ self-awareness about different cultural dress codes.
Terrorism.
It was discussed whether welfare and harassment officers should be involved in preparation. Officers at the home institution might not be familiar with the specific situation abroad. Many continental universities and schools do not have harassment officers.
The effect of traumatic experiences linked to language learning 

Insurance

Most insurances do not cover counselling, other ‘specialist’ services might not be covered in certain countries.

Accommodation

Disparity of practice across departments: lists of B&B’s, Rough Guide. Get addresses from previous students; well selected accommodation does increase students’ safety.

Disparity of practice across departments

How much:

Preparation

Different types of placements make preparation difficult.
Also – different people have different needs.
Individual mentoring: Year4’s to guide Year2’s if available.
‘Good Practice’ at Durham.
Intensive weekend: role plays, group discussions, very basic issues relating to gender and food/drink.

Support

Visits are generally seen as valuable by both staff and students. 
For staff visits are the only way they can see how students function abroad; but, how telling are short visits? – staff might get a wrong impression. 
Visits are increasingly more difficult to fund.
Visits also enable staff to liaise with link-people at partner institutions.

Debriefing

Fitting back in again after one or even two years is perceived as difficult, especially when the course structure and curriculum have changed during students’ Residence Abroad.
Personal dimension: friends might have left university in the meantime, sense of being left behind.

Individual Character of (British) students

An important aspect of how much they learn and adjust abroad.
Students are young when they go on their placements abroad; 
They may not be fully developed personalities before they go abroad – students come back as ‘stronger’ more developed characters.
British students may be perceived as quieter, shy and very polite.

Workshop C / Types of Residence Abroad

London; Institute of Education, 15 May 1998

Chair	Marie-Madeleine Kenning (University of East Anglia)
Rapporteur	Artie Vossel-Newman (Residence Abroad Project, University of Portsmouth)

Participants	Ingrid de Smet	University of Warwick
	Sally Burch	University College London
	Maria Darnley	University College London
	Paul Davey	CILT
	Ronald hallmark	University of Birmingham
	Annie Lahellec	South Bank University
	Paddy Manning	Middlesex University
	Michael Perraudin	University of Birmingham
	K Richards	University of Leeds
	Jaqueline Smith	Oxford Brookes University
	Inge Weber-Newth	University of North London

The group divided into 3 smaller groups to identify everyone’s interest and exchange information which was followed by providing feedback to the group as a whole. This was repeated with a different group formation before the identified key issues and possible actions were discussed.

The overhead used in the final plenary contained the following information [square brackets provide additional explanatory information that was not on the overhead]:

Actions:
•	Increasing administrative load needs to be addressed
-	e.g. placement officer for work placements
-	help for those dealing with incoming (exchange) students
-	additional funding for projects in order to include information for foreign students [this refers to the above point: the workload connected to the students coming to the UK. General guidelines were agreed to be desirable which the residence abroad projects could perhaps look into if they had additional funding]
•	Comparability between types of placement [especially with regard to credits]
-	Guidance as to what is acceptable/advisable as a work placement [it was discussed whether going as an au pair would count as a work placement]
•	How do you go about providing work placements? [this was no doubt the most discussed question. Experience from South Bank University showed that on average 10 phonecalls are necessary to establish 1 successful contact with a company abroad which is why a placements officer for work placements, see above, is to be recommended]

WORKSHOP D / Intercultural Issues

SALFORD 29 April 1998

Chair:	 R.Crawshaw (the Interculture Project, Lancaster University)
Rapporteur:	 L.Parker (LARA project, Oxford Brookes University)

Participants:	C.Hall	Leicester
	B.Theuerkauf 	Central Lancashire
 	A.Hogarth 	Liverpool John Moores

We considered two issues

•	How do you identify cultural/intercultural issues affecting students?

•	What kinds of approaches are effective?

The distinction between information on practical, cultural issues and intercultural learning was also raised.

From their own experience, the group identified the variety of needs among different groups of students and there was some discussion about:

•	Non-specialist linguists who receive little or no preparation
•	Personality differences among students which could indicate that some need more preparation and support in these areas than others

For the former, there is perhaps a need for independent learning packs.

Participants spoke briefly about arrangements in their own institutions:

Central Lancashire has a "European Week" which focuses largely on practical issues and includes talks by visiting academics from host institutions, meetings between returnees and students due to go abroad in following year, meetings involving incoming exchange students, role-playing sessions.

Liverpool John Moores has a "Centrefair" in which returning UK students set up stalls about the centres (i.e. host institutions) where they did their Residence Abroad.  Students who will go abroad in the following year then visit the fair and have the opportunity to learn a great deal of specific detail before making their choices.  This practice serves a dual purpose as it provides essential information for outgoing students and also allows returnees to talk about their Residence Abroad experience in a structured way which is seen to be of value by the institution.

Leicester (German) has a new second year module (22 hours), Intercultural Communication, which is fully accredited.  The course is largely theoretical but there are plans to introduce more practical, structured activities such as role -playing and ethnography games in the future.  It is very popular and obviously benefits students going abroad but also has more general aims.  It supplements the more traditional student briefings which take place prior to Residence Abroad.

Student briefings were used in all institutions and represented a way of providing practical information.  Everyone also made use of incoming exchange students albeit in an informal rather than systematic way.

We then came back to the more general issues of:

•	What are the cultural issues we should be addressing?  We think we know but does this always correspond to student need?

•	Is it necessarily a good thing to prepare students fully, i.e. perhaps intercultural awareness should be an outcome of Residence Abroad?

To attempt to identify the cultural issues which need to be addressed is one of the aims of the Lancaster project and this is being done through questionnaires and interviews with students both before and after Residence Abroad.

Different points of view were expressed: that the starting point should be theory; that students should be taught general coping strategies rather than focusing too narrowly on specific issues; that areas of sensitivity would be a good place to start  (an example given was the concept of "politeness" in English and German speaking cultures); that there was a kind of intercultural pyramid, with general intercultural issues which could apply to more than one country at the widest point down to issues which were specific to the needs of individuals.  One area of agreement was that students need to learn that they often judge others against their own cultural standards.

RC talked about "critical incidents" and suggested that these could be a useful starting point in structuring courses.  One or two examples of critical incidents were discussed.  It was agreed that personality played a vital part in coping in sensitive situations and that the importance of preparation for the individual student should be recognised - but this has enormous resource implications.

Workshop D / Intercultural Issues

UWE 7 May 1998 

Chair (CR)	Celia Roberts (Thames Valley University)
Rapporteur (JG)	Jane Gardiner (LARA Project, Oxford Brookes University)

Participants:	Libby Rothwell (LR)	Kingston University
	Susan Price (SP)	University of the West of England
	Fee Ruhlmann (FR)	University of the West of England

Although the group for Workshop D was very small the combined experience of the different members meant that a wide variety of experience in this field could be called upon.

•	What counts as Cultural/Intercultural Learning during residence abroad?

Problems:

It was agreed generally that no adequate framework had been formulated to encompass intercultural learning and preparation. It was felt that to date a common attitude among language departments had been “You’ll just pick it up”.  

Solutions:

CR suggested that the four (+ one additional) ‘Savoirs’ outlined in Michael Byram’s work “Assessing Cultural Learning” could be used as a model or at least as an agenda for discussion of intercultural learning. However, this model would need considerable adaptation for HE purposes.

LR/Kingston was currently involved in attempting to use the five ‘Savoirs’ to translate into curriculum framework objectives.  They were also trying to find a framework for looking at how students develop experiential learning, for example, learning through extending one stereotype onto another one, how stereotypes are formed and how they change – how students assess their own assumptions and how they go beyond these and change.

SP/UWE informed the group of a new project “Cultural Learning in Local Businesses” which could generate some very useful information for the creation of a framework.

Summary:

It was agreed that a lot of intercultural preparation was very short term in its formulation when what was needed was a piece of systematic learning with well-founded theories to be used as a framework.

•	What Kinds of Preparation/Learning are most effective?

The group approached this from a utopian perspective, i.e. if they had plenty of resources and time available, etc.

Documentation

It was agreed that there were a lot of materials currently available for cultural training but that this was not necessarily the most effective way to learn.

Contact with exchange students

The group believed that a pan-European training exercise would be useful whereby all staff and students (outgoing and incoming Erasmus/returnees) involved would work towards finding some common ground.

Ideally the group would prefer to see intercultural preparation handled under a separate assessed module which would last at least one semester.  

LR explained that in their linguistic programme Kingston were using aspects of the TVU ethnographic model.

Cultural Briefings

It was believed that these tended to be language and country specific whereas other more general briefings dealt with issues of stereotypes, etc.  What was required was something that covered the middle ground and was adaptable so that students could be prepared to learn from the experience of the year abroad.

•	What support, monitoring, activities are the most effective in developing cultural/intercultural learning while abroad?

At Kingston it was explained that full field French students made presentations and produced essay work while combined language students produced two 5,000 word projects.  The topics for these were agreed prior to departure and students were visited once.  The projects should be more ‘active’ in nature and should relate to the country of residence abroad.  Students were encouraged to avoid book-based learning.  

It was agreed by the group that students who participated in intercultural preparation had an advantage over their peers in that they could produce work that was more relevant to the culture of the country in which they found themselves during their residence abroad.

Students from UWE who had industrial placements in Germany carried out work-based projects in collaboration with their employers.  This project had a high analysis content including surveys and interviews.  FR explained that the projects were very well integrated into the work placements and therefore directly relevant to the student (and to the employer).  

It was noted that such projects were very useful in revealing problems over communication between students and work colleagues e.g. encountering different language registers and using appropriate ‘work-based’ language.  The insights from these projects could be used to feed into preparation for the next group of outgoing students.

The group also believed that (paid) industrial work placements benefited students more than, for example, study placements.  Students could be more deeply integrated into the culture of the country of their residence abroad and therefore the learning and intercultural experience would be of a much better standard.

•	
Re-integrating Students after their Residence Abroad

Debriefing

UWE 		– meetings arranged between outgoing students and returnees.
Bradford 	– no organised session.
Salford 	– very structured debriefing approach.

Most institutions represented within the group had some form of de-briefing process but it was agreed that a more organised approach to debriefing students on their return was necessary.

Building on the Residence Abroad experience

Not many institutions had specific modules building on the experiences of students during their period of residence abroad.  

At UWE there was an ‘Area Studies’ module in Year 4 which took account of the intercultural learning experience of the period of residence abroad.  Students were also required to give an oral presentation of their experiences on return.  

At TVU they kept a collection of ethnographic studies carried out by past students.

It was agreed that students felt very negative on their return if their year abroad learning experience was not built upon or even discussed.

Workshop D / Intercultural Issues

London 15 May 1998 

Chair:		Eva Eppler (the Interculture Project, Lancaster University)
Rapporteur:	Beth Callen (the Interculture Project Lancaster University)

Participants:	Gerdi Quist	University College London
Linda Kirke	Nottingham Trent University
	Matilde Gallardo	South Bank University
	Ana Maria Plymen	South Bank University
Russell Cousins	University of Birmingham 
	Dan Makin	Thames Valley University

The discussion started with a survey of current institutional practices with regard to preparation, including the following :

•	Types of Preparation

-	Information giving
-	NRAD (National Residence Abroad Database).  Material packs/guidelines.  Advice lines (putting people in touch).  ‘Virtual visits’. Internet based video-conferencing.  Someone to help with accommodation out there.  Information on the host university.
-	Information on differences in educational systems.
-	Informal meeting with first years recommended.
-	Discourage a ‘holiday’ mentality.
-	Contact with foreign students
	Exchange students, put students in contact with students from the relevant host country who are currently studying in the UK. Whilst abroad co-write projects with native students. Tandem models.
-	Contact with returnees
	Arrange meetings with returnees (but warn them not to base opinion on one past year only). Written reports from past students handed out.
-	Locally-based projects
Ethnography project based on ideas from TVU. Write on current issues (encourage to go out and interview people, not projects that can be done in a library.  Write in foreign language.  Preparation for project writing before they go).
-	Linguistic preparation
-	Including translating CV, form-filling practice.
-	Language studies applied to social/cultural issues. Debates and discussions. 
-	All subjects should feed into general tolerance/awareness raising.
-	Encouraging critical awareness of discourse.

Difficult to prepare when not all students go for same length of time / to one single country.

The group then moved on to discuss some of the cultural differences students experience in the foreign country

•	Problems of Adaptation

-	Gender
Different cultural attitudes to women: safety risks. (Get local police to come and talk to the newly-arrived students about safety issues and personal safety. Give information regarding cultural/social differences. Use student reports, which parts of town to avoid, etc.).
-	Educational systems 
Differences.
-	Halls of residence
Different rules/norms of behaviour apply.
-	Different work ethic in the workplace.
-	Parental worries about the students’ welfare.
-	Legal/financial issues
Solutions include asking the prospective employer for health and safety information, getting students to sign disclaimers pre-departure and a document acknowledging receipt of information.

A few questions arose from the discussions about forms of preparation and the problems of adaptation:

•	Questions
-	Support vs. spoon-feeding
Need to strike a balance between preparation and spoon-feeding: meeting differences is a valuable part of the experience. 
-	Does too much information suffocate students’ curiosity?
-	Is tolerance always a good thing?
Academic preparation is part of developing tolerance before going abroad.
-	Work-placements
Do students on work-placements adapt/benefit more?  Forced to function in the foreign situation all the time.
-	How to deal with reverse culture shock after return, exacerbated by friends having moved on?
-	Need to strike a balance between addressing issues and scare-mongering.

Workshop E / Language & Academic Integration

Salford 29 April 1998

Chair		Caroline Clapham (Interculture Project, Lancaster University)
Rapporteur	Eva Eppler (Interculture Project, Lancaster University)

Participants	T. G. Williams 	Univerity of Huddersfield
	Ursula Haeckel 	Liverpool John Moores Univerity
	David Hand 	Manchester Metropolitan University
	Kathleen McKilligan 	Keele University
Kirsten Soentgens 	Bolton Institute
Robert Hooworth-Smith 	Hull Business School
Edwin Lovatt 	University of Leeds

The following three related issues were discussed:

(i)	What is the impact of Residence Abroad on preceding language programmes?
(ii)	How is the learning of language during Residence Abroad integrated into the degree programme?
(iii)	How are exchange students and returnees involved in the language learning process?

(i) 	What is the impact of Residence Abroad on preceding language programmes?

Periods of Residence Abroad have changed the overall approach to language teaching at the University of Huddersfield. Grammar teaching and translation have been incorporated into interactive tasks like role plays in work environment situations, filling in forms etc. Year 2 is particularly orientated towards spoken language. Preparation for Residence Abroad, especially linguistic preparation, is exclusively part of the year two language teaching curriculum.

Hull Business School uses a lot of business-related teaching material. Emphasis is placed on learner autonomy. At the language centre three learning support staff help students to produce a portfolio of independent work including a project on the region where students will spend their Residence Abroad, letters to employers etc. The Socrates Programme provides excellent opportunities for conversational exchange. Partner institutions from Europe send videos to Hull which form part of the teaching and learning materials.

In addition to the preparation integrated into the language programme, Hull Business School produces a Residence Abroad handbook which is based on questionnaires. The Year Abroad handbook is revised and updated every year.

Peer activities are a key aspect of the preparation for Residence Abroad at the University of Leeds. Pairing home and exchange students (the ‘Tandem Model’) is implemented on a personal as well as on an internet basis (via e-mail partnerships). Students at Bolton Institute are combined honours students who have a choice between work and study placements. Preparation for Residence Abroad is furthermore built into tourism, computer, and business course elements.
The Student Union at Leeds produces a Residence Abroad handbook which gives important addresses, help on how to fill in forms, and specific advice for female students.

The tandem model is also highly valued as a means of preparation for Residence Abroad at Liverpool John Moores University. At this HE institution, students’ choice of location is partly motivated by already existing personal contacts. In ‘oral-aural classes’ home and exchange students give pair presentations. Home students get considerably more out of these classes than ESOL students. Some course units are taught in the target language and throughout year 2 students engage in Residence Abroad orientated tasks like writing CVs and reading target language texts from current affairs and tourism.
Liverpool John Moores also produces a Residence Abroad handbook.

Apart from year 2 courses being orientated towards Residence Abroad (linguistic preparation, society classes etc.) Manchester Metropolitan University organise several meetings in preparation of periods of residence abroad. The main purpose of the first one in January is to help students choose a placement type and location. The follow up meetings in May and June are more practical in nature. These meetings are backed up with tutorials. Four to five students are sent to each placement from the French and German Departments at Manchester Metropolitan University. In Spanish they have to send considerably more as there are, proportionally, fewer placements in Spain.

Preparation for Residence Abroad starts at the end of year 1 at Keele University. Handouts informing students about the country, law and business matters are given out. In year 2 home and exchange students are paired (‘Tandem Model’). At the ‘Year Abroad Fair’ the individual stalls are staffed by people from the different target areas. The listings for placements and locations are done in individual tutorials. Lunchtime meetings with representatives from the partner institutions provide further orientation for the students. Debriefing starts with a social drinks party and is followed up by individual tutorials.

All institutions make increasing use of electronic means (e-mail and world wide web) in preparation for and supervision during Residence Abroad.
Representatives from all institutions hope for more quality video teaching material to be available in the future. Audio-visual material is considered to be of great value for sociolingusitic preparation.
All institutions use a combination of standard textbooks supplemented by teaching and learning material produced on site.

(ii)	How is the learning of language during Residence Abroad integrated into the degree programme?

Despite recent attempts to standardise accreditation systems, participants still encounter problems of compatibility, especially with oversees countries such as Japan and Russia. The modular system occasionally leads to students acquiring too many credits which then, in most cases, cannot be transferred to other years.

Liverpool John Moores students whose Residence Abroad extends over 10 months should attend 12 hours per week at the minimum and fulfil course requirements for 6 hours. Those students who only spend half a year abroad give an oral presentation which is discussed with the supervisors.

Other forms of integrating the learning of language during Residence Abroad into the degree programme are assessment of:
				diaries 
research interviews				essays
tape-transcripts				assignments
videos						dissertations
oral presentations				logbooks

Participants find that diaries can be rather mundane and repetitive. Students and staff profit most from highly reflective diaries in which students monitor not only their linguistic but also their inter-cultural and personal development.

Marking and providing feedback for language learning tasks undertaken during the year abroad is time consuming and sometimes difficult to achieve.

Visits to students abroad are considered to be vital. They are, however, increasingly difficult to fund. Partner institutions generally do not send representatives on student visits to British HE institutions.

Students generally find it rather hard to pass exams in the target language. Some British HE institutions therefore provide the opportunity to re-sit exams at the beginning of year 4. It was discussed how one can support students who fail the assessment criteria for Residence Abroad in order to stop them from dropping out of the course. Those students who fail to qualify for a degree in HE because of their Residence Abroad assessment are awarded a diploma.

(iii) 	How are exchange students and returnees involved in the language learning process?

Exchange students tend not to be involved in formal language teaching. Many of them are non-language students with limited interest in language teaching and learning. The British HE institutions represented in workshop E receive more exchange students than they have outgoing students. Different semester structures between partner institutions make it difficult to integrate exchange students more fully into the formal language leaning process.

Exchange students, however play a crucial role in the tandem model and in informal language learning processes such as mentoring, social activities, shows, plays etc. Structured support sheets for tandem pairs are found to be a necessary pre-requisite for a successful output. Exchange students are furthermore actively involved in producing preparation material for Residence Abroad such as the Year Abroad handbooks.

Workshop E / Language and Academic Activities

University of the West of England 7 May 1998

Chair	Caroline Clapham (The Interculture Project, Lancaster)
Rapporteur	Artie Vossel-Newman (Residence Abroad Project, Portsmouth)

Participants
Stephen Lamb -	Dept. of German, University of Warwick
Reinhild Weiss -	Business School, University of Wales, Institute Cardiff
Jeanine Treffers-Daller	Languages and European Studies, UWE
Kate Beeching -	Languages and European Studies, UWE

Caroline Clapham put the following information on the OHP as a guideline for discussion and it was decided that we spend 20 minutes on each topic and use the final 30 minutes to summarise.

(i)	What is the impact of Residence Abroad on the preceding language programme (e.g. sociolinguistic preparation, special course elements - including assessment -, development of learner autonomy etc.)?
(ii)	How is the learning of language during Residence Abroad integrated into the degree programme (projects, dissertations, oral assessment etc.)?
(iii)	How are exchange students and returnees involved in the language learning  process?  

(i):	What is the impact of Residence Abroad on the preceding language programme (e.g. sociolinguistic preparation, special course elements - including assessment -, development of learner autonomy etc.)?

The discussion about pre-Residence Abroad preparation inevitably merged with expected learning outcomes during students’ placements.
The main points arising from this discussion were:
•	important to analyse your own preparation and identify aspects relevant to Residence Abroad matters (especially when they are not labelled as such)
•	encouraging students to engage in active learning rather than expecting to improve passively and automatically. This involves stressing that they need to continue to work at their grammar since students’ oral language skills (particularly slang) were reported to improve the most. The importance of alerting students to different registers so they don’t use their acquired slang in formal oral or written communication was also highlighted
•	students’ desire to be taught suitable vocabulary was noted, especially for work placements
•	the monitoring and marking of work carried out by students while abroad was regarded as problematic in view of a lack of resources

(ii): 	How is the learning of language during Residence Abroad integrated into the degree programme (projects, dissertations, oral assessment etc.)?

Those present gave a summary of the requirements at their own institutions as follows and the general feeling was that there should be a happy mean between over- and under-assessment:
•	At UWE students do a mini-project in year 2 which prepares them for the full project they have to do while they are abroad. It has to be written in the foreign language but is marked more on content than on language (since there is no guarantee it’s the student’s own language)
•	At UWIC students on the BA course European Business Management are going to France, Germany or Spain during semester 4, i.e. 15 weeks (4 weeks they attend classes at one of our partner institutions and for 11 weeks they are working in a company). At the end of this period they have to hand in 4 assessments, 3 in English and one in the foreign language (Transnational Placement Report and a log book); the 5th mark for this semester is based on the employer's report. The first language assessment in year 3 is an oral presentation on the time abroad for students of year 1 and 2.
•	Warwick no longer requires its German Studies students to produce a project or dissertation, as staff were not persuaded of the actual benefits of such work, particularly with regard to monitoring originality and operating sanctions if the project was not submitted. Instead of student visits, all students are required to attend a four day Easter vacation residential course in a German castle, a major theme of which is the state of Germany and Austria today. Students have to make presentations in German relating to their experience of German and Austrian culture and society. They also have individual consultations with tutors. The course is funded by the university. In addition, students are expected to use the year abroad to do preparatory work for their final year, including work on the long final year reading lists.

(iii): 	How are exchange students and returnees involved in the language learning  process?  

Representatives reported no formal arrangements at their institutions and it was found that involving exchange students and returnees especially was more relevant to cultural aspects.

Other points:

•	How do you define “Academic Activities”? Is it attending a course at university or could it be a visit to the cinema/theatre?
•	Categorising Year Abroad preparation was found problematic since preparation is not always credit-based but still related and important

Workshop E / Language and Academic Activities

University of Northumbria at Newcastle 13 May 1998

Chair	Alison Smith (Keele University)
Rapporteur	Nathan Hudson (Residence Abroad Project, University of Portsmouth)

Participants	Particular interests
Annegret Jamieson	University of Hull
Shelagh Johnson	University of Lincolnshire and Humberside	Planning programmes in year 2 for preparation for Residence Abroad
Hanna Ostermann	University of Northumbria at Newcastle
Anne-Marie Condron	University of Northumbria at Newcastle

Impact of RA on preceding language programme

AJ perceives a reluctance among students at Hull to go abroad. (Calais is the preferred choice).

AJ would like to see better language provision for RA, with particular regard to dialects in Germany (Bavaria), Switzerland and Austria. Some students at Hull do office German, which includes c.v. writing, form filling, telephone and interview skills.

SJ stated that her students at Lincolnshire and Humberside emphasise how much they do want to go abroad.

At Lincolnshire and Humberside, language preparation is ‘very focused towards the year abroad’, and is geared towards the cultural environment that the students will encounter. For example, it covers the Spanish education system, writing business letters, completing forms, c.v.’s etc. As part of the assessment in semester 2 all students (regardless of the type of RA they will undertake) are required to apply for a dummy post and are interviewed for 15 minutes in the target language. Students are also given information relating to the local timetable, customs etc.

All agreed that there should be more preparation for coping with dialects/local variations of the target language. This should include coping strategies which can be used particularly by those who find they cannot understand the local language variant: for example, simple phrases such as ‘I don’t speak (dialect), please repeat …..’. Students should be taught that it is okay not to understand a local dialect or language variant and use a coping strategy in such situations.

Students should also be taught that it is expected that they will make mistakes when speaking the target language.

It was also stated that students should be encouraged to accept offers of hospitality and social invitations, as these help the students integrate into the local society.

Current practice in individual HEI’s

At Northumbria, students are required to write a 5000 word dissertation in the target language for each of the two languages studied. In addition to this, when the students are visited on each placement, they are required to take an oral examination based on their project. This consists of a 15 minute presentation involving visual aids, followed by a 15 minute question and answer session all conducted in the target language. The mark for this examination feeds into the final degree mark. The marks for the year abroad are awarded equally by both the home and the host institution (i.e. 50 % from each).

At Keele, French students on work placements or assistantships do a project in French marked by Keele. French students on studentships (the majority) are assessed by the institution they attend. Keele adopts the mark for the project, or a calculated mark based on the results of studentships, in some cases adapted to try to ensure parity across 13 very different institutions and courses, and feeds that into the central system which accepts it as an extra second-year mark. They thus have one second-year mark more than they need for French, and the lowest automatically disappears to give them the requisite total. 

At Humberside, students on the Business and Language course do the Diplôme d’Université Technique (DUT), a diploma normally taken at the end of year 2 by French students. However, apart from this, Humberside do not count the third year (RA) in the final degree mark (CATS points are automatically given for year 3).

At Hull, students are required to complete two dissertations of 5000 words each (or other combination totalling 10 000 words) in the target languages. Each 5000 words is worth up to approximately 20 credits, with a further 100 credits awarded for good attendance at the host institution.

Other issues discussed beyond the topic of Language and Academic Activities:

Work placements

It was agreed that these are difficult to find, especially in Spain.

Consensus was that it is a good thing to have an agreement signed by the student, the home university and the host employer, which includes the company details and a named person responsible for the student’s supervision. At the University of Durham one person arranges this for all languages. Such an agreement would be similar to those under the Leonardo da Vinci scheme or a Convention de Stage.

Objectives and Accreditation of RA

There was general agreement with what was said at the workshop on this topic at UWE on 7th May (see notes of that workshop on page 41), particularly on the idea that personal objectives may be impossible to assess and accredit, and therefore perhaps should not be presented as primary stated objectives.

Consensus that students want specific objectives, so a framework is needed, but it should be up to the students to organise themselves – some degree of autonomous learning.

Workshop E / Language and Integration

London 15 May 1998 

Chair	Anne Ife (Anglia Polytechnic University)
Rapporteur	Jane Gardiner (LARA Project, Oxford Brookes University)

Participants	Phil Brew (PB)	University of Essex
Maria Carmen Cil (MCC)	University of Brighton
Anne Clafferty (AC)	Staffordshire University
Murray Hill (MH)	The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen
Paddy Manning(PM)	Middlesex University
Karen Roehr (KR)	University of Lancaster
Mike Rogers (MR)	University of Southampton
Maria Shepherd (MS)	Buckinghamshire College
Chris Tinker (CT)	University of Birmingham
Jeremy Whistle (JW)	Nene University College 

•	(Linguistic) Preparation of Students

The group could not agree on one solution to the problem of preparing all students sufficiently for all the various year abroad experiences.

Specific problems to be overcome included:
-	the heterogeneity of students
-	students studying languages at different levels
-	students intending to work or study while abroad. 
It was felt that there was too wide a spectrum of student needs to be met by one programme.

Possible solutions that had been applied by group members included:

-	running targeted preparation programmes such as integrated accredited modules.  These, however, had often found limited success due to lack of student numbers attending.  It was suggested that the Central Bureau could perhaps offer some preparation programme, for example for TEFL;

-	gathering outgoing students and incoming Erasmus students/returnees together informally.  Group experience of this was that 2nd year students were often somewhat reluctant to attend such gatherings.  It was agreed that one of the best ways of ensuring students acclimatise quickly while abroad was to encourage them to make early contact with visiting students from the host institution and build friendships;

-	orientation/preparation courses run by host institutions.  One particularly successful one for assistants took place in Spain and was split over two days.  The first day took place soon after arrival with a second day scheduled for some time later in the period where students could raise specific issues.  Examples of good preparation programmes included those run by Trier in Germany, Tours, and Lyons 3 (mainly for US students).

Due to lack of time the group was unable to discuss the issue of non-integration of students during the period of residence abroad.

Preparing Students to get the best out of the Year Abroad

One issue raised was the problem over the equivalence of programmes followed by students at home and abroad.  The example given was for engineering students (i.e. a non-specialist language students) who continued their studies abroad during year 3.  Would their academic experience abroad relate to the home degree programme or would they on their return be in effect a 'year behind' colleagues who had not elected to study abroad.

Another issue for both the non-specialist and specialist language student was that of linguistic competence.  It was not always the case that the student would be sufficiently prepared to access the courses on offer at the host institution. It was felt that this was more of an issue for ab-initio students than for post 'A' level students.  

One solution to this problem, discussed by the group, could be running targeted subject-specific preparation programmes for students from different disciplines. One factor in determining whether this would be useful was student interest in such a programme and (lack of) resources.

Summary 

The group discussion showed that there was a real need for adequate
preparation but problems existed concerning student numbers, costs,
and curriculum design, among other things.

•	Preparation for TEFL/Assistants

PB/Essex believed that many students seemed to cope relatively well with assistantships despite a lack of specific targeted preparation.

MR/Southampton stated that Southampton organised a detailed preparation programme, including EFL workshops.

AI/Anglia explained that they offered a TEFL accredited module that had proven very popular among students prior to their departure.

The group was warned, however, that having such a popular module could in fact upset the balance of the curriculum as a whole.

The Perception of Languages within the Home Institution

Some group members had experienced problems within their own institutions when dealing with departments or faculties offering non-language courses.  It was felt there was little understanding of -or sympathy for- the languages element and this resulted in students not being adequately prepared for a period of residence abroad.

Curriculum Culture Difference

It was often difficult to integrate incoming Erasmus students into suitable courses at the home institution.  They would often only be satisfied with an exactly 'matching' course because their tutors would not give credit if they could not find something suitable.
•	Preparing Ab-Initio Students

AC/Staffordshire suggested that giving ab-initio students increased hourage at Level 1 and Level 2 would mean that some could achieve the same level as post-A level students.

PB/Essex explained that their ab-initio Spanish students take the equivalent of 3 Essex accredited courses while abroad, one of which must be Spanish as a Foreign Language.

•	Specific Preparation Modules

AC/Staffordshire believed that there was scope for the world wide web to be used more widely for developing and running independent learning packages for specific students.

•	Assessment and Accreditation

There was not enough time to discuss whether students actually got more out of the stay abroad and the activities undertaken during it if they knew it would be assessed and would count towards their final result.

Appendix

Project Teams

The Interculture Project
Department of European Languages and Cultures 
Lancaster University
Lonsdale College
Lancaster LA1 4 YN

e-mail: icp@lists.ac.uk
fax: 	01524 843 934
http://lang.fdtl.ac.uk

Beth Callen
01524 592 670

Caroline Clapham
eiacmc@exchange.lancaster.ac.uk
01524 592 442

Robert Crawshaw
r.crawshaw@lancs.ac.uk
01524 592 663

Eva Eppler
eppler@exchange.lancs.ac.uk
01524 593 312

David Steel
	01524 592 665

LARA Project
School of Languages
Oxford Brookes University
Mill Court
Gipsy Lane
Headington
Oxford OX3 0BP

e-mail: lara@sol.brookes.ac.uk
fax:	01865 483 690
http://www.lara.fdtl.ac.uk/lara/index.htm

	Mark Bannister
mark@sol.brookes.ac.uk

Residence Abroad Project
School of Languages and Area Studies
University of Portsmouth
Park Building
King Henry I Street
Portsmouth PO1 2DZ

e-mail: fdtl-lang@port.ac.uk
fax:	01705 846 032
http://www.hum.port.ac.uk/slas/fdtl

	Jim Coleman
	jim.coleman@port.ac.uk
	01705 846 220

	Nathan Hudson
nathan.hudson@port.ac.uk
01705 846 051

	Artie Vossel-Newman
	artie.vossel-newman@port.ac.uk
	01705 846 051

PARTICIPANTS - SALFORD UNIVERSITY

Elisabeth Planella	
Bolton Institute
Faculty of Business
Dean Road
Bolton 	BL3 5AB
e.planella@bolton.ac.uk

Kirsten Soentgens
Bolton Institute
Faculty of Business
Dean Road
Bolton BL3 5AB
k.sontgens@bolton.ac.uk

Jean-Marc Trouille
Department of Modern Languages
University of Bradford
Richmond Building
Bradford BD7 1DP
West Yorks

Dr. R. Sala
Department of Modern Languages 
University of Bradford
Richmond Building
Bradford BD7 1DP
West Yorks

Beate Theuerkauf
University of Central Lancashire
Department of Languages
Fylde Building
Preston PR1 2HE
b.theuerkauf@uclan.ac.uk

Anne Hogarth
Liverpool John Moores University
School of Modern Languages
98 Mount Pleasant
Liverpool L3 5UZ
a.m.hogarth@livjm.ac.uk

Ursula Haeckel
Liverpool John Moores University
School of Modern Languages
98 Mount Pleasant
Liverpool L3 5UZ
u.haeckel@livjm.ac.uk 

Martine Shepherd
Liverpool John Moores University
School of Modern Languages
98 Mount Pleasant
Liverpool L3 5UZ
m.t.shepherd@livjm.ac.uk

Michael Rigelsford
The University of Liverpool
Department of German
Dutch Section 
Liverpool L69 3B

Dr Shelly Godstand
Department of Languages
Manchester Metropolitan University
Cavendish Street
Mabel Tylecote Building
Manchester M15 6BG

Dr. Kathleen McKilligan
Department of Modern Languages
Keele University
Keele
Staffs ST5 5DJ
k.m.mckilligan@keele.ac.uk

Mrs Hazel Thompson
School of European and International Studies
University of Derby
Kedleston Road
Derby DE22 1GB
h.thompson@derby.ac.uk 
Liz Crolley
Department of Languages
Manchester Metropolitan University
Mabel Tylecote Building
Cavendish Street
Manchester M15 6BG

David Hand
Department of Languages / French Studies
Manchester Metropolitan University
Mabel Tylecote Building
Cavendish Street
Manchester M15 6BG
d.hand@mmu.ac.uk 

Martin Durell
Department of German
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Martin.Durrell@man.ac.uk 

Kevin Martin
Department of International Marketing and Modern Languages
Hull Business School
University of Lincolnshire and Humberside
Cottingham Road
Hull HU6 7RT
Kevinm@humber.ac.uk

Robert Hooworth-Smith
Department of International Marketing and Modern Languages
Hull Business School
University of Lincolnshire and Humberside
Cottingham Road
Hull HU6 7RT
Rhooworth-smith@humber.ac.uk 

Maeve Olohan
Department of Language Engineering
UMIST
PO Box 88
Manchester M60 1QD

Mr. Edwin Lovatt
French Department
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT

Agaath de Vries
Department of Dutch Studies
University of Hull
Hull HU6 7RX

T. G. Williams
Head of Languages
University of Huddersfield
Queensgate
Huddersfield HD1 3DH

Dr Chris Hall
Department of German
University of Leicester
Leicester LE1 7RH

Rosa Dover
Liverpool John Moores University
School of Modern Languages
98 Mount Pleasant
Liverpool L3 5UZ

Christian Maurer
German Department
University of Hull
Hull HU6 7RX

Graeme Hayes
School of languages and European Studies
University of Wolverhampton
Wolverhampton WV1 1SB
g.hayes@wlv.ac.uk 

PARTICIPANTS - UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND

Ms Libby Rothwell
School of Languages
Kingston University
Penrhyn Road
Kingston Surrey 
l.rothwell@kingston.ac.uk
0181 547 2000
		Mr Stephen Lamb
Dept. of German
University of Warwick
Coventry  CV5 6FN
s.j.lamb@warwick.ac.uk
01203 524479
	
Dr Godfrey Carr
Dept. of German
University of Warwick
Coventry  CV4 7AL
01203 524419
		Ms Sabine Woods
German Studies
Queen's University, Belfast
Belfast  BT7 1NN
swoods@clio.arts.qub.ac.uk
01232 - 335363
	
Mrs J. L. Macdonald
Business School
UWIC
Colchester Ave Campus
Cardiff  CF3 7XR
01222 - 506354
		Ms Reinhild Weiss
Business School
UWIC
Colchester Ave Campus
Cardiff  CF3 7XR
01222 - 506360
	
Dr Paul Cooke
French Dept.
University of Exeter
Queen's Building
Exeter  EX4 4QH
p.r.cooke@exeter.ac.uk
01392 264228
		Mr Gerald Opie
German Dept.
University of Exeter
The Queen's Building
Exeter Devon EX4 4QH
g.opie@exeter.ac.uk
01392 - 264328
	
Ms Jackie Cannon
Languages and European Studies
UWE
j-cannon@wpg.uwe.ac.uk
		Ms Kate Beeching
Languages and European Studies
UWE	
Ms Janine Picard
UWE

		Ms Fee Ruhlmann
UWE
f-ruhlmann@wpg.uwe.ac.uk

Ms Susan Price
UWE
sa-price@wpg.uwe.ac.uk

		Ms Jeanine Treffers-Daller
Languages and European Studies
UWE
Frenchay Campus
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol  BS16 1QY
j-treffersdaller@wpg.uwe.ac.uk
0117 - 9656261, Ext.2390

Ms Annella McDermott
Hispanic, Portuguese and Latin American Studies
University of Bristol
a.mcdermott@bristol.ac.uk

		Ms Annie Lewis
Languages and European Studies
UWE

Ms Françoise Tidbalo
Languages and European Studies
UWE

		Dr Valerie Howells
Dept. of French
University of Swansea
Singleton Park
Swansea  SA2 8PP
v.howells@swansea.ac.uk
01792 - 205678

Ms Joy Davies
Faculty of Business
Swansea Institute of Higher Education
Mount Pleasant
Swansea  SA1 6ED
joy.davies@sihe.ac.uk
01792 - 481000

		Ms Monika Prützel-Thomas
UWE

Ms Irene Wilkie
UWE

		Mr Ernest Hampson
University of Bath

 Jim Coleman
Residence Abroad Project
University of Portsmouth

		 Mike Scriven
UWE

 Linda Parker
LARA
Oxford Brookes University

		 Caroline Clapham
The Interculture Project
Lancaster University

 Jane Gardiner
LARA
Oxford Brookes University

		 Nathan Hudson
Residence Abroad Project
University of Portsmouth

 Lis Lillie
Residence Abroad Project
University of Ulster

		Celia Roberts
LARA
Thames Valley University

 Artie Vossel-Newman
Residence Abroad Project
University of Portsmouth

	

PARTICIPANTS - UNIVERSITY OF NORTHUMBRIA

Mr Tony McNeill
University of Sunderland
Forster Building
Chester Road
Sunderland  SR7 3SD
0191 515 2239

		Ms Annegret Jamieson
German Department
University of Hull
Cottingham Road
Hull  HU6 7HB
01482 465851

Ms Nicky Haxell
Dept of French
University of St Andrews
St Andrews Fife KY16 9PH
01334 463647/3654

		Ms Shelagh Johnson
University of Lincolnshire and Humberside
Cottingham Road
Hull  HU6 7RT
s.johnson@humber.ac.uk
01482 440550, Ext. 3274

Mr Mike Gonzalez
Hispanic Studies
Glasgow University
University Avenue
Glasgow  G12 8QQ

		Mr David Taylor
Division of Business
New College Durham
Nevilles Cross Centre
Darlington Road
Durham  
0191 3754000

Mr Steve le Fleming
Ustinov Institute
University of Durham
Elvet Riverside
New Elvet
Durham  DH1 3JT
l.s.k.lefleming@durham.ac.uk
0191 374 2682

		Ms Laura Bickel
School of Modern European Languages
Durham University
Elvet Riverside
New Elvet
Durham  DH1 3JT
laura.bickel@durham.ac.uk
0191 374 2711

Ms Marianne R. Waine
Dept. of European Languages and Cultures
Lancaster University
Lancaster  LA1 4YN
01524 592468

		Ms Ute Schmidt
Modern Languages
University of Northumbria at Newcastle
Newcastle upon Tyne  NE1 8ST
ute.schmidt@unn.ac.uk
0191 227 3778

Ms Anne-Marie Condron
University of Northumbria at Newcastle

		Mr David Kaufmann
University of Northumbria at Newcastle

Dr Jane Shelton
School of Modern Languages
University of Newcastle
Old Library Building
Newcastle upon Tyne  NE1 7RU
j.f.shelton@ncl.ac.uk
0191 222 5053

		Ms Mary Burke
University of Northumbria at Newcastle
mary.burke@unn.ac.uk

 Hanna Ostermann
University of Northumbria at Newcastle

		 Kim Willis
University of Sunderland
Forster Building
Chester Road
Sunderland  SR1 3SD
0191 515 2217

 Eva Eppler
The Interculture Project
Lancaster University

		 David Head
Residence Abroad Project
University of Northumbria at Newcastle

 Alison Smith
Residence Abroad Project
University of Keele

		 Lesley Twomey
Residence Abroad Project
University of Northumbria at Newcastle

Ms Petra Points
University College Stockton
University Boulevard
Thornaby
Stockton Tees 
petra.points@durham.ac.uk
01642 335334

	

PARTICIPANTS - INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION, LONDON UNIVERSITY

Phil Brew
Dept of Language and Linguistics
University of Essex
Wivenhoe Park
Colchester  CO4 3SQ
brewp@essex.ac.uk
01206 872187

	Dr Sabine Hotho
Languages Division
University of Abertay Dundee
Bell Street
Dundee  DD1 1HG
bstsh@tay.ac.uk
01382 308259

Dr Abigail Lee Six
Hispanic Studies
Queen Mary & Westfield College
Mile End Road
London  E1 4NS
a.e.leesix@qmw.ac.uk
0171 7753395

	 Dan Makin
International Office
Thames Valley University
St Mary's Road
London  W5 5RF
0181 2312706

Dr Peter Dunwoodie
Dept of European Languages
Goldsmiths
New Cross
London  SE14 6NW
ela01pd@gold.ac.uk
0171 9197460/7466

	 Jim Dingley
Language Unit
School of Slavonic and East European Studies
Malet Street
London  WC1E 7HU
0171 6374934 ext 4051

 Stephen F Noreiko
French Dept
University of Hull
Cottingham Road
  HU6 7RX
s.f.noreiko@french.hull.ac.uk
01482 465382

	 Annie Lahellec
Business School
South Bank University
103 Borough Road
London  SE1 0AA
lahella@sbu.ac.uk
0171 8157789

Mr Muaadh Salih
NME Dept
School of Oriental & African Studies
Thornhaugh Street
Russell Square
London  WC1H 0XG
0171 3236226

	 Fiona Drew
BITC
Sheffield Hallam University
City Campus
Pond Street
Sheffield  S1 1WB
f.drew@shu.ac.uk
0114 2533364

Prof Reinier Salverda
Dept of Dutch
University College London
Gower Street
London  WC1E 6BT
r.salverda@ucl.ac.uk
0171 4193118

	Dr Michael I Freeman
ADAPT Course Manager
University of Luton
75 Castle Street
Luton  LU1 3AJ
michael.freeman@luton.ac.uk
01582 743439

Dr Ana Maria Plymen
Business School
South Bank University
103 Borough Road
London  SE1 0AA
a.plymen@plymenam.demon.co.uk
0171 8157723

	Dr Chris Pountain
Year Abroad Officer
University of Cambridge
Modern & Medieval Languages
Sidgwick Avenue
Cambridge  CB3 9DA
01223 335008

 Simone Navon
Year Abroad Secretary
University of Cambridge
Modern & Medieval Languages
Sidgwick Avenue
Cambridge  CB3 9DA
sn215@hermes.cam.ac.uk
01223 335008

	 Diane Hayler
Anglia Polytechnic University
East Road
Cambridge  CB1 1PT
hacsdmh@bridge.anglia.ac.uk
01223 363271 ex 2150

Dr Michael Perraudin
Dept of German
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham  B15 2TT
m.f.perraudin@bham.ac.uk
0121 4146173

	 Merlo Michell
Leeds College of Art and Design
Jacob Kramer Building
Blenheim Walk
Leeds  LS2 9AQ
0113 2433848 ext 169

Dr Alex Hughes
Dept of French
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham  B15 2TT
a.hughes@bham.ac.uk
0121 4145964

	Mr Chris Tinker
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham  B15 2TT
c.g.tinker@bham.ac.uk
0121 4145967

Ms Gerdi Quist
Dept of Dutch
University College London
Gower Street
London  WC1E 6BT
g.quist@ucl.ac.uk
0171 4193114

	 George Ferzoco
Director of Studies for Italian
University of Leicester
Leicester  LE1 7RH
gpf2@leicester.ac.uk
0116 2522654

Dr Reinhard Tenberg
School of Modern Languages
Anglia Polytechnic University
East Road
Cambridge  CB1 1PT
rtenberg@anglia.ac.uk
01223 363271 ext 2092

	Dr Mark Allinson
Spanish Studies
Royal Holloway University of London
RHUL
Egham  TW20 0EX
m.allinson@rhbnc.ac.uk
01784 443758

Dr Ian Roe
German Studies
University of Reading
Whiteknights
Reading  RG6 6AA
i.f.roe@reading.ac.uk
0118 9318335

	 Marina Spunta
School of Modern Languages
University of Leicester
Attemborough Tower
Leicester  LE1 7RH
ms96@le.ac.uk
0116 2522658

 Linda Kirke
Modern Languages
Nottingham Trent University
Clifton Lane
Nottingham  NG11 8NS
linda.kirke@ntu.ac.uk
0115 9486686

	Mrs Paddy Manning
Middlesex University
White Hart Lane
London  N17 8HR
p.manning@mdx.ac.uk

Dr I A White
German Department
Royal Holloway University of London
Egham  TW20 0EX
i.a.white@rhbnc.ac.uk
01784 443199

	 Monica Threlfall
Department of European Studies
Loughborough University
Loughborough  LE11 3TU
m.threlfall@lboro.ac.uk
01509 222981

 K Richards
Spanish/Portuguese Department
University of Leeds
Leeds  LS2 9JT
k.j.richards@leeds.ac.uk
0113 2333524

	 Karen Seago
School of European & Language Studies
University of North London
166 - 220 Holloway Road
London  N7 8DB
k.seago@unl.ac.uk
0171 6072789 ext 2401

Dr Ingrid A.R. de Smet
French Department
University of Warwick
Coventry  CV4 7AL
frsak@ice.csr.warwick.ac.uk
01203 523017

	 Gordon Phillips
School of Languages
Kingston University
Penrhyn Road
Kingston Upon Thames  
0181 5472000 ext 2391

Dr Ian Pickup
French Studies
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham  B15 2TT
0121 4145975/5965

	Dr Russell Cousins
French Studies
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham  B15 2TT
0121 4145974/5965

Mr Ronald E Hallmark
French Studies
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham  B15 2TT
0121 4145986/5965

	Prof Dorothy Severin
Department of Hispanic Studies
University of Liverpool
Liverpool  L69 3BX
d.s.severin@liv.ac.uk

 Maria Shepherd
Buckinghamshire College
Newland Park
Chalfont St Giles  HP8 4AD
msheph01@buckscol.ac.uk

	 Nicole Tosser
Buckinghamshire College
Newland Park
Chalfont St Giles  HP8 4AD
ntosse01@buckscol.ac.uk

Mr Paul Davey
CILT
20 Bedfordbury
London  WC2N 4LB
paul.davey@cilt.org.uk

	 Chantal Lewis-Villien
Foreign Languages
University of Luton
Park Square
Luton  LU1 3JU
chantal.lewis-villien@luton.ac.uk
01582 734111 ext 3019

 Sally L Burch
French Department
University College London
Gower Street
London  WC1E 6BT
s.burch@ucl.ac.uk
0171 4193084

	 Anne Slater
University of Hertfordshire
Mangrove Road
Hertford  SG13 8QF
a.slater@herts.ac.uk
01707 285557

Dr R M Gillett
German Department
Queen Mary and Westfield College
Mile End Road
London  E1 4NS
R.M.Gillett@qmw.ac.uk
0171 7753377

	Dr Marie-Madeleine Kenning
Chair
University of East Anglia
m.kenning@uea.ac.uk

Dr David Drake
Chair
Middlesex University
david64@nw.mdx.ac.uk

	 Jean Burrell
Chair
Oxford Brookes University
lara@sol.brookes.ac.uk

 Linda Parker
LARA
Oxford Brookes University
lara@sol.brookes.ac.uk

	 Jane Gardiner
LARA
Oxford Brookes University
lara@sol.brookes.ac.uk

 Eva Eppler
The Interculture Project
University of Lancaster
icp@lists.lancs.ac.uk

	 Beth Callen
The Interculture Project
University of Lancaster
icp@lists.lancs.ac.uk

 Jim Coleman
The Residence Abroad Project
University of Portsmouth
fdtl-lang@port.ac.uk

	 Nathan Hudson
The Residence Abroad Project
University of Portsmouth
fdtl-lang@port.ac.uk

 Artie Vossel-Newman
The Residence Abroad Project
University of Portsmouth
fdtl-lang@port.ac.uk

	Dr Matilde Gallardo
South Bank University
London Road
London  SE1 0AA
0171 8157683

Dr Anne Ife
Department of Languages
Anglia Polytechnic University
East Road
Cambridge  CB1 1PT
aife@bridge.anglia.ac.uk
01223 363271 ext 2089

	Prof Richard Littlejohns
University of Leicester

 Gladis Garcia-Soza
Department of Language and Linguistics
University of Essex
Wivenhoe Park
Colchester  CO4 3SQ
gladis@essex.ac.uk
01206 872186

	 Ranald Macdonald
FDTL
Centre for HE Practice, 
The Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes  MK7 6AA

Dr Norbert Pachler
Languages in Education
Institute of Education, University of London
20 Bedford Way
London  WC1H 0AL
n.pachler@ioe.ac.uk
0171 6126712

	 Uwe Richter
Department of Languages
Anglia Polytechnic University
East Road
Cambridge  CB1 1PT
u.m.richter@anglia.ac.uk

 Mike Rogers
School of Modern Languages
University of Southampton
Highfield
Southampton  SO17 1BU
mar@lang.soton.ac.uk
01703 592605

	 Noelle Brick
School of Languages
Kingston University
Penrhyn Road
Kingston upon Thames  KT1 2EE
n.brick@kingston.ac.uk
0181 5472000 ext 2302

 Maria Darnley
Spanish & Latin American Studies
University College London
23 Townsend Road
London  N15 4NT
0181 8013724

	 Inge Weber-Newth
University of North London
166 - 220 Holloway Road
London  N7 8DB
0171 2789 ext 2901

 Sonia Critchley
The Language Centre
University of Brighton
Falmer
Brighton  BN1 9PH
sc44@bton.ac.uk
01273 643353

	 Rania Katsara
The Language Centre
University of Brighton
Falmer
Brighton  BN1 9PH
01273 643410

 Maria Carmen Cil
The Language Centre
University of Brighton
Falmer
Brighton  BN1 9PH
01273 643410

	 Karen Roehr
Department of European Languages and Cultures
University of Lancaster
Lancaster  LA1 4YN

 Jeremy Whistle
Nene College
Moulton Park
Northampton  NW2 7AL
01604 735500 ext 2182

	 Anne Clafferty
School of HSS
Staffordshire University
College Road
Stoke on Trent  ST4 2DW
a.s.clafferty@staffs.ac.uk
01782

Dr Murray Hill
Centre for Modern Languages
The Robert Gordon University
Schoolhill
Aberdeen  AB10 1FR
imsmmh@sim1.rgu.ac.uk
01224 262491/3

	 Guy Cook
Institute of Education, University of London

 Jacqueline Smith
Oxford Brookes University

	 Philip Handley
University of Brighton