The two readings, ACE, International HigherEd Partnerships and IE, A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint names, where very interesting reads. I was especially drawn to the cultural and contextual issues section (p. 21) that describes the cultural contexts that all parties should consider for successful interactions with multiple cultures. Managing and recognizing cultural differences, and I would argue similarities, are paramount through all phases of program development: initial negotiation, design, implementation, and preservation. In an institution where I have worked, we worked a bit backwards at times. The regressive process was accepted by faculty and staff because it included a mandatory scout trip that did not require those involved to return with affirmative results. For example, a faculty member decided that Martinique, a small French Caribbean island between Barbados and Dominica, would be an ideal place for a study abroad excursion due to its small American tourism focus. Indeed the country is rich in history, as it served as a port and export center during slavery and has an expansive forest terrain. The college began detailed talks about a credit program with a university in Martinique that would blossom to a joint credit bearing exchange program with the students of this university. Faculty wrote a proposal. The college sent three paid representatives to Martinique to scour the area and identify an itinerary – two faculty perspectives were gained and one from a college relations perspective. As stated in the reading, language consideration is very crucial in designing a program. I think that the language of operations in Martinique was somehow overlooked. Two of the three representatives spoke fluent French and the other used their “high school” French and Patois to navigate the city that seemed disinterested in English translation. It was later discovered that language made Martinique a non-contender for our student needs as only a small number of students where proficient in French. The college was not at the point where language immersions classes were an option for our students.
In IE, A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint, I was in awe of the system that Rice University has designed for joint and degree programs. I especially liked the pre-approval assessment in which a program proposal is reviewed by several constituents and voted on. Coming from a new institution where innovative ideas can be run amuck, structure is important. Since the piloting of our international education program, there have been great accomplishments and some hiccups along the way. I will bring this model to my colleague that designs the study abroad program to see if we can incorporate some of Rice’s practices into our strategy. To date, I think that we get stuck in the philosophical realm; too much time is spent in this area by faculty. Also as suggested in the lessons learned section (P. 9), all major stakeholders should be at the table! This will allow for a diverse pool of opinions. Leaders of a project can get so immersed in getting their ideas off the ground they may ignore details and unknowingly sabotage their own project. In my work currently, I am helping a faculty member to create a certificate program with another island. So far, everything is complete on our end, we have even begun the student search process. The only potential problem is… the Provost has not officially approved it. Go figure!
5 thoughts on “W6 – Process for Screening -Practice can make perfect, but why reinvent the wheel?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hello Tiffany,
I really enjoyed reading your post this week and learning about the process the institution attempted to incorporate international studies. I am shocked that during the development phase, especially the design and implementation aspect, did not consider language. I was under the impression that the reason behing an extensive proposal was the ensure all of the t’s and i’s are crossed and dotted. It was quite unfortunate that the institution had to forego it’s original plan after all of the time, money, and energy was spent preparing for it. Is there a particular reason the instiution was opposed to language immersion courses, especially since students were not proficient in French, the main language in Martinique? I know there are study abroad programs that offer intensive language programs in other countries. Student’s would develop fluency in the second language quickly because they get to practice their skills with locals and take a full course of classes taught solely in the native language (even for beginners). It requires students to complete more homework and take more classes, but the results are worth it!
Read more: http://www.studyabroad.com/language_portal.aspx#ixzz436GJy9D9
It saddens me that your blog actually made me chuckle a little bit. It proves so many points that people try to make all the time- about faculty, the implementation process, and even internationalization itself. The latter, however, is what struck me the most. We have already read that in the United States, internationalization is not as popular as it is in other regions of the world. Overall, it may not be a priority, but as we are learning, some people and organizations place a lot of emphasis on it. It sometimes feels as if programs are created because others are already doing it, and if they don’t get on the bandwagon, or can’t keep up with the Joneses (or any other common expression), then they aren’t good enough. I get the impression that the faculty at the college thought that creating a study abroad program would benefit all involved, but they didn’t truly understand how the process works. Sure, it’s admirable that they tried, but it’s also laughable that they didn’t do their due diligence. To have an international program just for sake of saying they had one is pretty irresponsible. I’m sure the faculty got very depressed and thought that they were being mistreated and under appreciated, right? Okay, sorry, now I’m becoming unnecessarily hostile. In any case, hopefully the project you are working on now succeeds!
You are absolutely correct! It became an OH WOE IS ME campaign!
This was a great experience to share! It really shows how higher education, especially at CUNY, does not communicate with each other or does not put the students interests first. As you said the thought process for creating this program is backwards. They picked out a country and then tried to make a program fit that country and then advertise it to the students. If the faculty member who suggested it thought about the language barriers and proficiency of the students, the Martinique program might not have been created. Gauging the student’s interest or even focusing on the institution’s overall interest will guide the process and prevent these types of slippages and mistakes.
Hey Tiffany,
Thank you for sharing that story about the potential partnership in Martinique that didn’t quite happen to work out for your institution. While parts of the story seem comical and definitely avoidable looking back now, these types of things surprisingly happen all the time! I agree with you about the pre-approval form from Rice University and their system overall. It seems so simple, but makes the decision making process so much easier.