MONASH LEARNING AND TEACHING

FELLOWSHIP 2013

PROJECT REPORT Dr. Matthew Piscioneri

Matthew.Piscioneri@monash.edu

MONASH STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF LINKAGES

BETWEEN THEIR STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMMES &

GRADUATE EMPLOYABILITY

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The study shows that a significant number of the online survey respondents and focus

group participants understood the linkages between their study abroad/international

experience and enhancement of their graduate employability. Some students

understandably recognized the linkages primarily in terms of their overseas study

programs’ content. In terms of “soft skills” (for example: resilience, inter-cultural

communication and negotiation skills, time and financial management, critical thinking

and problem solving), these types of benefits were often recognized by participants as

potential outcomes of their international experience. However, recognition was by no

means universal. Moreover, especially in the focus group discussions, recognition of the

linkages between study abroad and employability in terms of soft skill acquisition

and/or enhancement appears to have required a degree of explicit prompting. The main

recommendation of the Report is that Monash continues to support and even extend its

efforts in this area as there is strong evidence in the literature to support the benefits of

such a strategy.

3

CONTENTS PAGE

Section 1

LIST OF FIGURES & MAIN ABBREVIATIONS 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5

ETHICS 6

CHIEF INVESTIGATOR’S SUMMARY 6

Section 2

OUTLINE OF THE PROJECT 9

JUSTIFICATION/RATIONALE 8

MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS 10

LITERATURE REVIEW 11

METHODOLOGY 17

QUALITATIVE DATA SAMPLES 19

QUANTITATIVE DATA SAMPLES 22

FINDINGS 28

DISCUSSION 29

DISSEMINATION 34

LIMITATIONS/FUTURE DIRECTIONS 35

CONCLUSION 35

REFERENCES 36

4

FIGURES

FIGURE 1. Gender of online survey participants 18

FIGURE 2. Age of participants 18

FIGURE 3. Type of exchange program 19

FIGURE 4. Destinations 19

FIGURE 5. Anticipated key employment outcomes 20

FIGURE 6. Main focus of pre-departure orientation for inter-campus exchange 20

FIGURE 7. Perceived purpose or reason for study abroad 21

ABBREVIATIONS

Arts Academic Language & Learning Unit [AALLU]

Association of International Educators [NAFSA]

Association for the International Exchange of Students in Economics and Commerce

[AIESEC]

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR]

Higher Education [HE]

Monash Abroad [MA]

Monash Learning & Teaching Fellowship [MLTF]

Monash Professional Writers [MPW]

Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee [MUHREC]

Office of the Pro-Vice Chancellor Learning & Teaching [OPVCLT]

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Chief Investigator, Dr. Matthew Piscioneri, acknowledges the following people and

groups with much gratitude and appreciation. The Project would not have been nearly

as effective without your contributions. I would especially acknowledge the exceptional

work of the Project’s Research Assistants (Erik, Sinem and Alberto: please see below)

and the essential contributions to the success of the Project made by Mr. Trevor

Goddard (Director, Monash Abroad) and his Monash Abroad Team (in particular Ms.

Wendy Tran, Ms. Judith Cowie: Monash Abroad Clayton, and Mr. Selwyn Ng: Monash

Abroad Sunway).

The Office of Pro-Vice Chancellor, Learning & Teaching, Monash University

(in particular: PVC LT Professor Darrell Evans for his contribution to the

Assessment for Global Learning Symposium in September 2013; Ms. Kerry

Allison for her support and guidance throughout and A/Professor Angela

Carbone and Ms. Rachel Saffer for their invaluable assistance.)

Research Assistance

Mr. Erik Beyersdorf

Ms. Sinem Doyran

Mr. Alberto Nicotra

Monash Student Participants

The 92 respondents to the online survey and focus group members in

Clayton, Sunway and Prato.

Project Reference Team

Mr. Trevor Goddard (Monash Abroad)

Dr. Nadine Normand-Marconnet (French Studies, Faculty of Arts, Monash)

Dr. Libby Tudball (Faculty of Education, Monash)

Dr. Fay Patel (Deakin University)

Professor Carolyn Stevens (Japanese Studies, Faculty of Arts, Monash)

Mr. Will Moore (Monash Careers)

Dr LeHa Phan (Faculty of Education, Monash)

Dr. Tina Kallivas (Monash Asia Institute)

Ms. Yacinta Kurniasih (Indonesian Studies, Faculty of Arts, Monash)

Monash Faculty of Arts

Dean Professor Rae Frances

Associate Dean (Education) Associate Professor Susanna Scaparo

Dr. Andrew Johnson (Arts Academic Language & Learning Unit)

Dr. Andreas de Castro (Anthropology)

Monash Faculty of Arts Professional Staff

6

Ms. Kerry Bowmar (Financial Services)

Ms. Kerrie Cake (Financial Services)

Ms. Cathy O’Brien (Monash Arts Prato Program)

External Project Examiner

Professor Betty Leask (LaTrobe University)

ETHICS APPROVAL

On the 5th of February 2013: Monash University Human Research Ethics

Committee (MUHREC) approved the project.

Project Number: CF13/217 - 2013000082

Project Title: Monash Abroad Outbound Internationalisation – Key

Employability Outcomes

Chief Investigator: Dr Matthew Piscioneri

CHIEF INVESTIGATOR’S SUMMARY

At the outset, I would like to thank the Monash OPVC LT for awarding me this 2013

MLTF. I understood from its inception that the Fellowship was a special opportunity,

especially given the difficult circumstances surrounding funding of this type at present

at Monash. Recognition of this situation has shaped the implementation of the project.

From my perspective, it was always a “shared” Fellowship. I have treated the

Fellowship mainly as an opportunity to engage with Monash colleagues who share my

interest in issues connected to student mobility, student mobility and employability and

global engagement/the internationalisation of higher education, more generally. The

implicit aim of the Fellowship has been to encourage a community of practice around

these issues at Monash. The composition of the project’s Reference Team reflects this I

believe.

The Fellowship also provided the platform from which to draw this community into a

wider discourse arena. This objective has been achieved via two multi-institutional

symposia, both of which were streamed live to the web. At the second symposium we

had representatives from 16 HE institutions. These events provided opportunities for

our group to showcase a Monash position on a range of related issues within the

general framework of the Fellowship’s themes. The symposia programs, I am confident,

support claims for the relative success of this endeavour. As noted below, the strategy

was also to build a cross institutional community of practice for the Fellowship’s

specific project and I am hopeful the decision to direct resources in this direction will be

vindicated as the project’s knowledge transfer processes commence later this year.

7

What about the project itself: as a study, as a research undertaking? Generally, I am

satisfied with the quality and quantity of the data we were able to collect. I am satisfied

our data collection systems worked well and the specific instruments were effective. I

was initially disappointed with the level of cooperation from various programs in

various faculties that offer their students ‘short term/in country international

experiences’. However, understandably, given the level of complexity that surrounds

the organization, management and implementation of programs such as these, an

added ‘burden’ in the form of a request to survey participating students could appear

especially onerous. Moreover, these programs often serve as “research fodder” for the

coordinators themselves and again a reluctance to facilitate outside access is

understandable.

A project of this type nearly always takes on a new work-in-progress identity that

varies from its conceptualization in the original funding application. This project has

been no different. The most obvious deviation from the outline initially proposed has

occurred in the type and number of anticipated outputs. Initially, we proposed a range

of promotional materials (a brochure and short video) that would highlight findings

from the study. As the project developed, pursuing these aims was judged under-

productive for the following reasons:

Monash Careers produced a resource in late 2012 that expertly drew attention to

the usefulness of students’ international experiences to the enhancement of their

Resumes (http://www.monash.edu.au/careers/assets/docs/employability-

skills/exchange-study-abroad.pdf)

Attempts to encourage my students in ATS1298 to contribute to a manga-style

story that supported the benefits of students’ international experiences to the

enhancement of their employability profiles proved practically fruitless

Production of a short video was seen to be beyond the immediate expertise of the

project and would have required greater dollar and time investment than was

originally planned.

In the end, it was decided we should concentrate on doing what we felt we did best --

research and the dissemination of this research’s findings. Importantly, one paper based

on the study has already been submitted for publication and another two are in

preparation.

The original spur for my application for the MLTF around this time last year grew out

of my teaching practice in ATS1298 Professional Writing. Part of the curriculum

requires students to compose a Cover Letter and Resume in response to a fictional

position at a fictional company: Monash Professional Writers [MPW]. As their main

assessment task (40%), as newly employed Junior Assistant Editors at MPW, students

are next required to report on a set of data presented to them for analysis and

discussion. Monash Careers, who generously teach into the unit, drew students’

attention to the opportunities any international experience provided when seeking to

address job selection criteria that sought evidence of applicants’ possession of a range of

soft skills. This year the subject of my ATS1298 students’ report is Monash students’

perceptions of linkages between their Study Abroad Programmes & Graduate

8

Employability. Already several students have reported interest in undertaking Study

Abroad programs as a result of their research and following the presentation made to

them by Mr. Trevor Goddard from MA. This minor outcome has been gratifying and

whilst not ‘earth shattering’, to be effective, to be sustainable and to flourish, an

institution, organization, even an eco-system such as Monash must perform equally

well at the microscopic level as well as the macroscopic. Outcomes even of this

microscopic type are therefore valuable as well and should not be overlooked in the

overall assessment of a project of this type.

As Chief Investigator, I especially thank colleagues at The OPVC LT and my colleague

Dr Andrew Johnson in the AALLU for our pedagogical discussions. I also thank

Professor Betty Leask, External Examiner of the Fellowship. Your advice to compose a

Project Reference Team early was invaluable. I can’t thank enough Dr. Fay Patel with

whom I co-conspired to organize the Fellowship’s two cross-institutional symposia.

Enough said. Thanks also to all the presenters to and attendees at these events and the

support staff. Details of presentations and access to the recordings are available here (or

will soon be!):

http://profiles.arts.monash.edu.au/matthew-piscioneri/creating-spaces-symposium/

http://youtu.be/k-nbPJt_G0c

Finally, I have had the absolute good fortune to work on the project with three

exceptionally talented Research Assistants (really more like co-investigators) all of

whom are currently undertaking HDR at Monash or who have very recently completed

postgraduate study: Erik Beyersdorf, Sinem Doyran and Alberto Nicotra. Thank you so

much. I hope you have enjoyed it; I certainly have enjoyed working alongside you.

Dr. Matthew Piscioneri

Matthew.Piscioneri@monash.edu

+61 3 99055069

9

PROJECT OUTLINE

The Project explored Monash students’ perceptions of the linkages between their

international experiences on outward mobility programs (for example, Monash

InterCampus Exchange) and the enhancement of these students’ employability skills. In

particular, the study sought to establish how Monash’s mobile students understood that

their international experience may have encouraged the acquisition of what are termed

‘soft skills’ in terms of employability attributes: resilience and inter-cultural negotiation

and communication skills and problem solving.

Based on the collection and analysis of data obtained from an online survey as well as

focus groups conducted at Monash Clayton, Sunway and Prato campuses, the study has

produced a number of findings that might contribute to a fuller, more contemporary

understanding of the synergies between Monash students’ international experience and

their graduate outlooks. It is anticipated the project’s results will contribute to a more

refined, informed approach to both pre-departure and post-completion briefings in the

future.

PROJECT RATIONALE/BACKGROUND

The project’s rationale can be drawn back to at least four main sources:

Strong institutional and sector recognition and support for student mobility

programs in relation to both graduate employability and global engagement

as key outcomes of tertiary study

Strong Federal government support for the sector to encourage the

international mobility of Australian university students

Increasing emphasis in the scholarly literature relative to student mobility on

the nexus between students’ international experience and their employability

Increased awareness in the chief investigator’s teaching program (ATS1298

Professional Writing) of the relevance of this issue in the effective

representation of a range of soft skills in the compilation of a successful

Resume.

10

MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS &

PARTICIPANTS

The major or primary stakeholders in the study have been organized according to

orders of importance/relevance in terms of the scope of application for the study’s

findings. There will of course be some overlap and interpenetration between these

levels. Moreover, in the 2nd and 3rd orders, to some degree, the study’s relevance is

conjectured dependent upon successful dissemination of its findings to a broader

audience.

1st Order Stakeholder/s: Monash Institutional

Clearly, we recognized the Monash funder (PVC Office of LT) and the Monash

Education Committee as the primary stakeholders for the project. We posited Monash

Abroad [MA] as the ‘imagined’ first order stakeholder/client of the Project and have

liaised very closely and successfully with MA over the life of the project. We also

anticipate extending this collaboration with MA beyond the ‘funded’ life of the Project.

It was also clear that a range of people and groups at Monash could be considered as

potential stakeholders in the project. For instance, as one of the project’s audiences

(imagined or otherwise), we always posited the generalized Monash student cohort

(past/present/future), those who have, those who may be interested in incorporating an

international experience into their study program while at Monash. Other Monash

institutional stakeholders could also include,

Monash Careers

Monash Faculties and Institutes that run mobility programs (eg: short term ‘in-

country’ programs)

Monash lecturers and researchers interested in the pedagogical implications of

the project’s work.

2nd Order Stakeholder/s: National

We are confident that mobility/global engagement units within other Australian higher

education [HE] institutions, professional associations, government and private bodies

and organizations with interests in this area will welcome being informed of the study’s

results:

Student mobility offices in Australian HE institutions

Peak state and national employer groups/associations

Federal agencies such as DEEWR

Private sector groups (eg: AIESEC Australia)

It is anticipated that a more concise report of the study’s findings with supporting data

samples will be produced and distributed to these non-Monash groups.

11

3rd Order Stakeholder/s: International

While not wanting to over-estimate the significance of the study, we are hopeful that

given the present focus in the discourse on the nexus between study abroad in HE and

employability there will also be a more global audience for the project’s findings. We

will seek assistance from Monash Abroad on the best ways to reach this international

audience, professional associations in particular, such as NAFSA. The scholarly

publications we anticipate producing as a result of the study, the website that will

provide an overview and summary of the findings and where possible conference

presentations will also assist in our outreach to this international audience.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There appears to be a natural connection between graduate employability and student

mobility, with students agreeing that their employability levels were enhanced;

however, they were unsure how to best capture this in the recruitment process (Bentley,

J., Broons, B., 1999, p.7). It has also been noted through many studies that utilised

different forms of qualitative data, that soft skills are an extremely significant

component of the student mobility programs (Nilsson, S. 2010, p.549).

As was also highlighted by Nilsson it was thought that a focus on soft skills provided

vital employability skills and allowed them to gain experience in the field of work they

intended to join once back in their country of origin (p.549).

In also analysing the case study by Perrone and Vickers, it seems that employers can

sometimes leave students in a “paradoxical” situation where work experience is

desirable, regardless of the fact that they are responsible for providing this experience

(p.74). The way in which students today are often required or expected to have

undertaken work experience or a significant learning experience goes to highlight the

way in which our institutions have “[decreased] in the importance of formal education”,

leaving a degree to be viewed as “an ‘entrance ticket’” (Nilsson, S. 2010, p.524).

Each of these studies goes to highlight the significance of obtaining more than a degree

where possible in order to gain the “edge” (Bentley, J., Broons, B., 1999, p.7) over any

competitors. Not only does an abroad experience provide this, but it is also a very rare

occurrence for students to travel abroad within their studies (Clifford, V.A. 2011, p.1).

It appears in each of these studies a focus on soft skills and gaining experience overseas

were important themes. Each study also highlighted the importance of these factors to

the students undergoing such programs, leaving the impression that the experience was

highly valued. However, in addressing these two overarching themes, students must

12

then be able to translate the skills of “maturity, renewed enthusiasm, a greater sense of

purpose, determination and motivation” (Bentley, J., Broons, B., 1999, p.7) into

employment to truly reap the benefits. Without being able to represent these skills to

the employer in a desirable way, there is little point in undertaking the experience. This

highlights the necessity to not only take students on an abroad experience, but also

guide them in ensuring that they can “extract the maximum value from their

experiences” (Bentley, J., Broons, B., 1999, p.7).

Ultimately without a long-term outcome, the benefits of this experience will be short

lived in terms of employability. The following section provides an abridged review of

literature relevant to the project.

Overview

(Monash) students’ perceptions of the linkages between their study abroad programs and the

enhancement of their employability can be categorized broadly under the rubric of the

internationalization of higher education. This category also includes topics such as,

internationalization of the curriculum

internationalization of higher education and the global citizenry debate

internationalization at home and internationalization abroad

enhancement of tertiary students’ professional and graduate attributes

student mobility and its benefits

From review of the literature over the last two decades, it is clear in terms of the general

discourse of the internationalization of higher education, certain themes and paradigms have been

(co) emergent at different times. Specifying exact breaks and transitions in these discourses is

unwise and ignores the transformative, adaptive nature of scholarly discourse as well as the

explanandum on which this discourse/these discourses focus. In the 1990s, as the numbers of

international students enrolled at Australian universities began to grow exponentially (Leask,

2001; Hellsten, 2008), extensive scholarship started to be paid to issues surrounding the social,

cultural and academic orientation of international students in Australian universities (Ballard

& Clanchy, 1997; Volet & Ang, 1998). It is also accurate to say that in this period some

contributors to the discourse of the internationalization of Australian HE also linked this

phenomenon to critique of the neo-liberal reordering of the Australian HE sector: its

corporatization, its marketization (Marginson & Considine, 2000). In terms of student

mobility/exchange programs in the 1990s and the earlier part of this decade especially, I would

suggest the dominant discursive frame of justification for Australian students studying abroad

still drew mostly on a North American/European ‘ideal’. This rationale for students spending a

part of their degree programs studying ‘abroad’ had mainly positioned the benefits of student

mobility within an individual sojourner’s processes of identity formation and self-development

(Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Edwards, 2008), also with “interests of building international

understanding and cooperation” (Bell, 2008: 129).

In the early 2000s, as the paradigm of internationalization of (Australian) HE as

marketization/ commodification gained a degree of critical ascendancy, given the vastly

13

increased flows of international full fee paying students (EastWest especially), newer

frames in which to view internationalization also began to emerge. As early as 1994,

Knight had proposed internationalization be considered a “process of integrating an

international and intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service

functions of the institution” (Knight, 1994, p. 7). Knight’s later work (1997; 2004; 2007)

work has continued to urge a balance, a diversity at least be maintained when

conceptualizing internationalization in HE. According to Knight, in spite of the

persistence of the basic marketization paradigm and strategic motives (regional alliance

building) for some cross border education programs and scholarships (Knight, 2004),

other dimensions of internationalization in HE (the inter-cultural and moral dimensions,

for example) continue to deserve recognition.

In an Australian context, in the discourse of the internationalization of higher education, Meeri

Hellsten (2004; 2007), Betty Leask (2001; 2005), Simon Marginson (1999; 2000; 2002), Fazal Rizvi

(1998; 2000; 2005), Erlena Sawir (2005; 2009) and Michael Singh (2005; 2007) are some of the

many notable contributors to the field. Since the later 1990s, a dynamic discourse has also

emerged in relation to efforts to theorize and practice internationalization of the curriculum for

all participants in tertiary education. In this regard, in Australia, the work of Betty Leask (1999;

2001; 2009) should be highlighted as particularly groundbreaking; others including Gavin

Sanderson (2008; 2011) and Cynthia Joseph (2008; 2012) and several authors already mentioned

have also contributed much work of insight and value.

Within this contemporary discourse of the internationalization of Australian higher education,

Australian tertiary students’ international experience (outward mobility on exchange as one

instance of this) has, arguably, occupied a marginal position over the last two decades

(exceptions: Crossman & Clarke, 2010; Forsey et al, 2012). When it has been discussed, study

abroad was seen to offer outgoing as well as incoming ‘sojourners’ and full fee paying

international students, opportunities to reflect on and promote potentials and aspirations for

developing a greater sense of global engagement, for example (Bell, 2008). Bell actually

suggests that relatively recently the image of study abroad [SA] has been tarnished, citing

criticisms of SA as risking being little more than “edu-tainment” (p133) and displaying an

“increasingly touristic nature” (p133). Very recently, criticism has been voiced of developed

world SA programs that venture to impoverished and/or crisis contexts as risking

instrumentalizing local communities (Mitchell, 2013).

Nevertheless, in Australia, institutional support for SA remains strong (for example: Monash,

2013; UniMelb, 2013; UQ, 2013). Both major Australian political groupings, before the 2013

Australian Federal election, had outlined competing but substantial commitments to this

feature of higher education (Liberal-NP, 2013) and the AsiaBound Grants program introduced

by the ALP in July 2013 (AEI, 2013) .

This brief, even crude, schematization of the discourse of internationalization in (Australian)

higher education with reference also to student mobility inevitably poses the question: in the

2010s, what is the state of play? I would like to suggest the state of play currently (and I think

positively) admits of a certain pluralism in terms of how internationalization of (Australian) HE,

including the valuing of outward student mobility programs especially, can be understood.

14

Hellsten (2008: 85-86), for example, provocatively states “It is then, perhaps somewhat

redundant to claim that the international academic experience is in essence about constructing

‘new student identities’ that will equally affect the local host population as well as the

incoming student community.” And, I tend to agree, almost sensing a sort of approaching

‘exhaustion’ in the discourse of internationalization of HE in terms of its moral dimensions, its

capacity to enhance global citizenry, for example.

What might be recognized as emergent is almost a form of dialectical readjustment, wherein a

synthesis of the opposing paradigms might be asserting itself? In other words, the benefits of

students’ international experiences can be both, as well as only, idealistic (enhancement of

global citizenship aspirations) and realistic (acquisition of relevant skills to enhance

employability, for example). I don’t actually see these to be exclusive of each other. Both, I

would suggest, are equally good outcomes and perhaps these outcomes might also be ‘two

sides of the same coin’, anyway?

If this were to be the case, then I would suggest in practical terms the explicit articulation of the

value of student mobility programs be carefully measured. I would like to see muted the

prescriptivism reflective of what for convenience might be registered as ideological imperatives.

In articulating to students what “we” would like to be the benefits of “their” international

experience, I would prefer to see a shift in modality from the prescriptive “should” (you should

see this as an opportunity to develop your employability; you should recognize this experience

in terms of its moral dimensions, in terms of your potential citizenry, for example). The

modality I feel is more appropriate, more nuanced, is one that emphasizes a sense of “could”

or “might”. This modality better accords I believe with what many of us actually hope will

manifest from our students’ mobility programs, from their international experiences:

empowerment as more competent, alert, able, sensitive human beings. As educators, we need

to trust our students may be able to already exercise choice knowingly. To do so, as far as

possible, I would argue might frame their participation in study abroad programs relatively

free of any disempowering prescriptivism, any self-serving didacticism and/or certainly any

ideological/self-interested biases of institutional, pedagogical or political facilitators.

Other trends we have discerned as emergent in the contemporary discourse of

internationalization of (Australian) HE with specific reference to student mobility and

employability are the following:

critique of 1st world/developed countries’ student mobility (for example, short term ‘in-

country’) programs to crisis/stressed regions in developing country contexts as risking

exploitation of the inhabitants/communities and eco-systems of these contexts

investigation of the potentials for relevant ‘onshore’ international experience as an

alternative to travel abroad

ongoing contestation of the conceptual and political resonance/validity of the

internationalization of HE paradigm

The discussion next focuses on recent literature most relevant to the present study; in

particular, Crossman and Clarke’s (2010) paper “International Experience and Graduate

Employability: Stakeholder Perceptions on the Connection”.

15

Student Mobility & Employability

Rizvi (2005) argues that cultural exchange and the cross border sharing of ideas have always

been a part of higher education and such objectives majorly effect student motivations for

mobility. He also argues that contemporary internationalization of higher education is a

response to globalization, it is a historical practice, that there is actually nothing ‘new’ about

student mobility and studying abroad. According to Leask (2001) and Rivzi (2005), student

mobility has played a role in positive processes of internationalizing higher education. Overall,

a range of strategies has been used to encourage (Australian) students to become mobile (Rivzi,

2005: 693). However, as Bell notes, only a very small number of Australian tertiary students

study abroad: “In 2003 less than 1% of Australian students were travelling abroad for study”

(2008: 130). Trevor Goddard, director of Monash Abroad Office, recently stated that in 2012/3

“around 10% of graduating students” had some form of international study experience

(Goddard, 2013). Student mobility is a well embedded feature of tertiary education. As

suggested above, the rationales for supporting these programs have ranged from the

pedagogical, the strategic (soft power), the moral (global citizenship) and the self-

developmental and typically a mix of all. Increasingly, contemporary justification of the

practice has begun to be expressed in terms of study abroad as adding noteworthy value to

sojourners’ graduate employability outlooks not simply in terms of the content of their study

programs, but often and even more importantly, in terms of the sojourner’s acquisition of a

range of soft skills.

In this research we have sought to distinguish between two main sets of potential

employability benefits for students on a Study Abroad program:

1. Benefits that are specifically related to the content, the instruction of the program in

units, especially those that are always/already vocationally oriented (eg. studying opera

singing in Italy or a short term teaching placement in a school in Soweto). These benefits

are best described as hard skills.

2. Skills and competencies that are accrued or absorbed tacitly, without direct instruction,

as a result of the daily interactions, experiences and challenges a sojourner encounters

on his or her study abroad program (eg. adaptability, intercultural

negotiation/communication, independence, problem-solving). These skills,

competencies, benefits are best described as soft skills.

Similarly, Crossman & Clarke (2010: 602) write of “critical subject specific knowledge and skills”

[hard skills] and “transferable knowledge, skills and attitudes” [soft skills]. Based on their

findings, the authors offer an almost overwhelming endorsement of international study

experiences and graduate employability:

International experience appears to support the development of cultural sensitivity and

adaptability as well as enhancing graduate attractiveness in a globalised and internationalised

labour market, all key factors in determining individual employability. (2010: 609)

In an earlier paper, “Benefits of the International Co-op Experience Relating to Employability

and Future Studies”, Bentley and Broons (1999: 7) conclude positively, “The students

unanimously recognised that they were more employable.” Perhaps, just as significantly, they

state next,

16

…though there was some confusion as to how to properly report this in the context of the

recruitment process. There was a strong feeling in the minds of the students that they were

equipped with an employability edge yet they had not been able to identify how to extract the

maximum value from their experiences. (2009: 7)

These findings generally concur with the findings from a range of other studies conducted

overseas (for example, Inkson & Arthur, 2001; Dickmann & Harris, 2005). In terms of the

present study also, probably the key issue is how to best encourage mobile students to identify

and then translate the soft skills gained from their international experience more readily and

effectively as part of their ongoing and sustainable “career capital” (Crossman & Clarke, 2010:

608).

17

METHODOLOGY

A mixed methods approach to data collection was considered most appropriate.

Consequently, and with the assistance of the Monash Abroad Office, via a short online

survey facilitated (15 questions: mix of closed and open + Likert scales) on google.forms,

initially quantitative data was collected from 92 Monash students. Participants were

Monash students who mainly either were about to embark on or who had recently

completed an exchange/study abroad program. Participation was entirely voluntary.

Both the qualitative and quantitative data collection processes were conducted with the

approval of the MUHREC Office: CF13/217 - 2013000082.

In the online survey, participants were asked to identify the main motivations for and

expectations of their international education experience. As well, they were also asked

to evaluate their capacities in terms of a range of specific employability skills sets: for

example, resilience, inter-cultural knowledge, inter-cultural communication and

problem solving and how their international experience might contribute to enhancing

these skill sets. Participants could also add longer comments in text boxes in response to

more open ended question forms and in this way extensive data of a more qualitative

nature was obtained. At the conclusion of the survey, respondents were also asked if

they would agree to participate in focus-group sessions at Clayton/Melbourne, Sunway

or South Africa.

Due to the lack of response from participants on exchange to Monash SA, it was

decided to organize focus groups in Monash Melbourne, Sunway and Prato. Qualitative

data was obtained from focus groups at Clayton in June 2013 (2 groups each comprising

4 participants) and at Sunway (one group comprising 3 participants) and Prato (4

groups: overall 18 participants) in July 2013. It had been planned that at these focus

group sessions students would also be invited to keep a reflective journal on their

sojourn experience; however, it readily became clear that where relevant (students in

ongoing study abroad programs) participants were not willing or able to take on this

extra load. The ‘busyness’ of students in study abroad programs, both pre-departure

and during their sojourn, is a factor researchers in the field need to keep in mind. There

are special challenges in terms of access to students via an office such as MA (or a

faculty-based office such as Arts Prato) and the sense of risking ‘excess load’ on the

students participating in the focus groups, as well as their on the ground support staff,

was palpable at times. Overall, our approach to data collection design accords with

recent, complementary research conducted by Dr. Nadine Normand-Marconnet &

Goddard (n.d) from Monash, Faculty of Arts.

The quantitative data obtained via the google.forms instrument yielded a basic set of

graphic representations of responses (see below: pie charts and bar graphs) that have

allowed for convenient comprehension of key features and correlations in the data. It

would have been advantageous to translate the quantitative data into a more detailed

statistical form; however, this option has been restricted by available funding and

18

access to immediate expertise. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this study, we are

confident that the basic graphical representation of the quantitative data is sufficient.

Given the primary focus of the study (“student perceptions”), the depth and variety of

the qualitative data obtained via the online survey and then via the focus group

discussions, is deemed overall, perhaps, more valuable in advancing the objectives of

the study.

In summary of this aspect of the study, as CI, in retrospect, I would have adjusted

several elements of the proposal, specifically in relation to data collection processes.

Our anticipated access to student participants of study abroad programs was probably

too optimistic as was the expectation that they would have the motivation or capacity to

fully engage with the project. As mentioned previously, it became clear that this cohort,

even more than the average university student, receive an inordinate amount of email

contacts/requests/duties, especially in the lead up to their study abroad. Moreover, it

also was apparent that juggling the semester timings of departures/returns and onsite

experiences was always going to complicate the type and range of participants available

to survey. Finally, although the Fellowship ostensibly is for a 12 month period, due to

Faculty/Central accounting practices, it is not feasible to have working funds to

commence the project until after January 1. This factor delayed the recruitment of

research assistance to commence basic tasks such as ethics applications and design of

data collections processes. Normally, the CI could initiate these processes but Summer

Semester B 2013 was also the first time delivery of one of my teaching units ATS1340

English for Academic Purposes, which restricted the time I was able to devote to the

project at this stage, especially in terms of organizing better the first phase of

quantitative data collection.

In spite of these challenges, we were satisfied with the rate of response for both the

qualitative and quantitative data collection phases. In total (both qual & quant), 121

participants were involved in the online survey and the focus group sessions. This

figure compares well with Crossman & Clarke (2010: 599) “N=45” and Normand-

Marconnet & Goddard (n.d) [N=62].

19

DATA SAMPLES, FINDINGS &

ANALYSIS

The following demographic data are presented “as is”. Comments are offered if certain

features invite explication or display a noteworthy characteristic.

FIGURE 1. Gender of online survey participants

FIGURE 2. Age of participants

While the ratio of female to male

respondents is dramatically skewed,

it should be remembered that most

participants in student mobility

programs/overseas study exchange

are female. Also, this ratio generally

accords with the gender

representation in several similar

studies.

As would be expected, the

overwhelming majority of study abroad

students, according to this data, fall into

the most populous age bracket of

contemporary Australian tertiary

students.

20

FIGURE 3. Type of exchange program

FIGURE 4. Destinations for inter-campus exchange

The mix of respondents here is

particularly encouraging as it assures

data has been collected from Monash

students who have undertaken a range

of different study abroad programs

(N=92: inter-campus 40%; exchange to

other universities 38.9% and short term

study programs such as in-country

intensive units 21.1%). Useful, future

analysis of the data collected via survey

could ‘dig deeper’ into any correlation

between exchange type and the

perceived benefits of study abroad to

enhancing employability.

For the respondents, it is

clear that Monash

University’s Prato campus

is the most popular

destination. Traditionally, in

Australia and elsewhere,

Arts and Humanities

students tend to be more

mobile students.

21

FIGURE 5. Anticipated key employment outcomes

The data in Figure 5 is notable more for what respondents highlighted least. The three

attributes or outcomes least anticipated by respondents (‘develop problem solving skills’;

‘develop critical thinking skills’ and ‘refine negotiation skills’) are often proposed by

advocates of study abroad/exchange and employability as key areas of advantage to

‘mobile’ graduates in the employment market. More students appear to be focused on

personal or inter-personal skill outcomes and don’t appear as much to see the benefits of an

international study experience to enhancing more ‘cognitive’ attributes such as ‘problem

solving’ or ‘critical thinking’. In the CI’s teaching practice in ATS1298, in discussion of how

a study abroad experience might support graduate students’ claims in a Cover Letter

and/or Resume, making the linkage between mobility and the enhancement of these

‘cognitive’ employability skills is often most difficult and takes more imagination to find a

‘fit’.

FIGURE 6. Main focus of pre-departure orientation

Enhance inter-cultural

communication skills

Develop problem solving abilities

Develop critical thinking abilities

Improve adaptability skills

Enhance capacity for resilience

Refine inter-personal skills

Refine negotiation skills

Improve capacity to work

independently

Without wanting to

over emphasize this

point, the apparent

absence of direct

discussion of the

benefits of an

international

experience in terms

of soft skill

development and/or

the potential impacts

of study abroad on

sojourner’s future

employability may

be a factor worth

noting here.

22

LANGUAGE/CULTURE 13.4%

UNIVERSITY PRESTIGE 4.7%

FACILITIES <3%

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 3%

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 8.5%

TRAVEL/RECREATIONAL 18.9%

PERSONAL ENHANCEMENT 17.8

EMPLOYABILITY 11.8%

INTERCULTURAL EXPERIENCE 16.4%

CONTRIBUTION TO COMMUNITIES <3%

FIGURE 7. Perceived purpose or reason for study abroad

In most respects, the quantitative data was ‘unremarkable’. Of course, this lack of

exception doesn’t detract from its usefulness in outlining basic demographic

information, choice of exchange destination and, especially, students’ perceptions of

their motives for becoming mobile.

B. DATA SAMPLES: Qualitative (online)

Relative to the focus of the project, our real interest was the qualitative data. In the

online survey, this data was obtained from text box commentary provided by

respondents to 6 questions. As well, extensive qualitative data was generated in 7 focus

groups conducted in Australia, Malaysia and Italy in June/July 2013. Initially,

qualitative data samples from the online survey are presented. As an initial summary,

comments from respondents to a number of questions have been collated in a table.

This format allows for a brief comparison of a number of respondents and their

responses to gain a quick sense of the data.

This data was especially

relevant as we felt it provided

some insight into students’

“natural” or “untutored”

perception of what, for them,

their study abroad was all

about. No one category

dominates the responses and

it needs to be said that the

choices were presented to the

survey’s respondents, and so

there may have been other

prominent motives not

envisaged by the researchers.

This quantitative data was

inviting of comparison to the

data received back from the

focus groups, as discussed

below. From this data factors

not strictly academic or or

related primarily to

employment

attributes/motives tended to

dominate.

23

RESPONDENT Q6. Have you lived,

studied or worked abroad

before? If YES, what were

the benefits you felt you

received from the

experience?

Q10. In what way do you think

you could benefit professionally

from an Inter-Campus Exchange

or study abroad experience?

Q15. In what ways do you think a

study abroad/exchange experience

might be useful to enhancing your

professional CV?

3 Everything. My entire outlook

on life changed. I became a

much more patient, accepting,

confident, outgoing, calm,

organised person. I dealt with

all sorts of problems and

issues and became a lot more

accepting of various cultural

differences.

I think that a lot of employers look for

international experience. Certainly,

now that I plan to work in

International Aid, my experience both

on exchange in Africa and the

subsequent travel I undertook will

make me a more attractive candidate

when applying for jobs. I think also

the experiences and problems I faced

while abroad have enhanced much

broader skills such as time

management, cultural awareness, and

leadership skills.

I think in two ways - one, just in the

simple fact that having lived, travelled,

and studied in another country is in

itself an advantage, shows you have

motivation and drive and don't just

want to do things the easy way. Then

there's what you got out of your

experience, which might be leadership

skills, independence, time management

skills, organisational skills, cultural

awareness and appreciation, etc

16 Experiencing different

cultures, engaging with other

students, different food,

different lifestyle. Seeing

amazing wonders of the

world...

Believe it stands out to employers. The

shame with architecture is that we

have limited options in studying

abroad, so the only program I could

do was the Monash Campus which

isn't as attractive to employers becaue

although it is in Italy, it isn't associated

with any other campus and we didn't

get to engage with any other students,

Italian or International.

It is great to have it on a CV, however I

am disappointed I have to have

"Monash Campus" Italy and not another

instituion, different from my regular

institution.

21 Being able to adapt and work

with people from a different

cultural and language

background. Adapting to

these new differences.

Improvisation skills,

communication skills, working

and learning in adverse

conditions.

Better employability, both in Australia

and abroad.

"Communication skills Independence in

a foreign setting. Ability to work alone

and in groups. Achieving set goals"

25 A deeper experience of a

foreign culture in a more 'real',

settled environment; academic

and general background life

exposure to another vantage

point on international affairs;

just good fun!

I haven't particularly considered the

specific professional advantages of an

inter-Campus exchange previously. I

suppose it demonstrates a willingness

to act independently and take

initiative. Unless you have a freakishly

charmed run, I agree that it will

enhance your resilience, simply by

having shown you that you can in fact

deal with problems on your own, in a

foreign place, by acting sensibly and

rationally. I am not so confident about

these factors so would probably not

bring them up in my own volition in a

job interview, but I usually mention

the study experiences as hints to these

underlying factors!

I am unsure how the study

abroad/exchange experiences would

translate into specific, concrete CV bullet

points. I think it is probably

presumptous to just state - 'increased

resilience' or 'greater intercultural

communication'. I think it probably just

speaks to the applicant being a more

engaged, interested, adventurous type,

which are all qualities I would be proud

to have ascribed to me.

43. A real sense of independence

and a humbling

understanding of our place in

the world

While this wasn't the primary factor

motivating me to study abroad, I

believe employers would look fondly

upon applicants who have abroad

experience as it demonstrates

independence, willingness to

challenge oneself and adaptability.

It offers clear demonstrated evidence of

willingness to take on challenges and

push boundaries, and to work

independently.

24

The limited samples presented here indicate both the variety of attitudes and

perceptions held by respondents, as well as the overlaps and similarities. As was also

evident from the quantitative data collected in Question 7 (see Figure 7), Monash’s

mobile students understand their international experience on both the personal and

professional levels and sometimes both. Moreover, several respondents candidly stated

they had not previously considered the linkage between their study abroad and

graduate employability (as a potential candidate for a position and quite specifically

how it could add value to a CV):

[25] “I haven't particularly considered the specific professional advantages of an inter-Campus exchange

previously”

For others, in making this linkage, they were quite definite as to the advantages of an

international experience and enhancing employment prospects:

[3] “I think that a lot of employers look for international experience. Certainly, now that I plan to work in

International Aid, my experience both on exchange in Africa and the subsequent travel I undertook will

make me a more attractive candidate when applying for jobs.”

“I think in two ways - one, just in the simple fact that having lived, travelled, and studied in another

country is in itself an advantage, shows you have motivation and drive and don't just want to do things

the easy way”.

Overall, out of the 92 respondents, 60 (65%) had already had some form of overseas

experience (not necessarily in a study context). All of these respondents reported

positive outcomes from this experience, for example, often in terms of the development

of ‘soft skills’:

[74] “..becoming more flexible, understanding other cultures, self confidence.”

[59] “Yes - as part of this Monash exchange program. I gained independence and confidence.”

The key question for us was to what extent our mobile students would link their

international experience to the development/enhancement of their soft skill sets and the

linkages between this outcome/potential and their graduate employability? In other

words, would Monash’s mobile students understand their international experience

relative to their employability in terms other than just content? As it turned out, the

characterization of the mobility-employability nexus in terms of the content of students’

learning and teaching programs was reported quite infrequently in this qualitative data,

[4] “Employability for having worked on a site and being given practical skills rather than just academic

study.”

Only slightly more frequent was reference to the benefits of mobility, which might

occur as a result of – and for want of a better phrase -- “namedropping”:

25

[10] “It is impressive and makes you look more interresting, but in music the ability to say you studied

opera in Italy is certianly impressive, but only if you have the skills from your experience, and not just it

written on paper.”

[20] “Greater employability having King's College London on my resume.”

In response to Question 15 “In what ways do you think a study abroad/exchange

experience might be useful to enhancing your professional CV?”: 8 respondents did not

respond to the question (8.6%); 81 responded positively (89%): for example,

[27] “Companies nowadays look for open-minded, innovative individuals who can adapt quickly. Stating

participation in study abroad gives you the edge over other applicants.”

2 respondents expressed a lack of surety about the issue: for example,

[89] “It may be useful if I were applying for a position abroad, as it can demonstrate my ability to live and

study abroad comfortably.”

and 1 respondent was quite negative:

[90] "I've never thought about it as professional development. I suppose if I did think about it I could say

it might make me seem like an interesting person on my resume, someone that an employer may want to

interview. Maybe an employer had a great time themselves abroad and thinks they could relate to and

want to work with someone else who likes to do it. Maybe they went to the same uni abroad and you hit

the jackpot. I really don't think that it will improve my professional skills in any relevant way. When I

get a job, my skills will improve by practicing that job. Not because I went to the Netherlands for 6

months while I was at uni."

Significantly, in the majority of participants’ responses to Question 15, specific mention

was made of several of the key ‘soft’ skills seen to be on offer from students’

international experiences in terms of their employability. For example,

[17] “It might be useful in that it provides insight into my soft skills, such as: adaptibility,

interpersonal skills, cultural sensitivity and independence.” [emphases added]

[27] “Companies nowadays look for open-minded, innovative individuals who can adapt quickly.

Stating participation in study abroad gives you the edge over other applicants.” [emphases added]

Indeed, the linkage between study abroad and enhancement of mobile students’

adaptive capabilities in relation to their employability vis a vis their professional CVs

was most common, appearing in some form (adapt, adaptation, adaptability) in 24

responses to this question. Other frequently identified skills seen to be beneficial in

terms of respondents’ CVs included independence (12 mentions); enhanced cultural

capacities (10 mentions: for example, cultural sensitivity, intercultural communication,

cultural sensitivity); resilience (4 mentions) and problem solving (4 mentions).

To our initial surprise and even sense of satisfaction, a great many of the qualitative

responses showed familiarity with the expert terminology of the discourse, in this case

26

‘soft’ skills and employability, terms such as resilience, intercultural communication, and

leadership. It is conjectured some form of ‘Hawthorne Effect’ may have occurred in this

case, as some respondents may have shaped their responses according to the elements

of the Explanatory Statement. The following discussion presents and briefly analyzes

qualitative data samples from focus groups conducted in June/July at Monash Clayton,

Sunway and Prato.

Qualitative (focus groups)

A substantial quantity of qualitative data was collected from the focus group sessions

(approx. 60,000 words of transcript). However, the composition of the groups in terms

of ‘home’ faculty and gender was quite homogenous:

LOCATION/DATE NUMBER PRIMARY

COMPOSITION

GENDER

Clayton 1 4 MIXED FACULTIES M = 1 ; F = 3

Clayton 2 4 MIXED FACULTIES M = 1 ; F = 3

KL Sunway 3 ARTS (mixed) M = 1 ; F = 2

Prato 1 4 ARTS (mixed) M = 0 ; F = 4

Prato 2 3 ARTS (mixed) M = 0 ; F = 3

Prato 3 4 ARTS/Archaeology M = 0 ; F = 4

Prato 4 7 ARTS/ Archaeology M = 2 ; F = 5

This homogeneity does not render the focus group data unusable. However, I think it

does qualify its usefulness. From one perspective, the data mostly tells of the thoughts

and insights of young female Monash Arts students in discussion with peers into the

linkage between their study abroad experience and their graduate employability

outlook. In and of itself, these perspectives and insight are, of course, valuable. Care

should obviously be taken in the extent to which findings drawn from this data is

considered generalizable.

In what follows, samples of the qualitative data drawn from the focus groups are drawn

exclusively from the two sessions conducted at Monash Prato Centre by the CI. The

reasons for this are (1) expediency in completing this draft Report; (2) the Sunway

group was limited to 3 participants only; (3) on reading the transcripts, the Clayton

groups’ facilitators perhaps prompted too much of the discussion, and (4) the

discussion on-site between the focus groups at the archaeological dig often became

27

distracted by internal group dynamics and material concerns and complaints about

physical conditions and organizational matters not directly related to the study’s focus.

In the two Monash Prato Centre focus groups, as the CI implemented what I term a ‘set

& forget’ technique. After outlining the Explanatory Statement to both groups, I

basically ‘left them to it’ with a list of prompts on a printout if required. I then retired to

a seat in the room, within earshot but far away so as not to be in immediate proximity.

In terms of the discussion, I would tentatively argue that the data produced is less

forced or overtly managed and perhaps, therefore, more relevant.

As the following excerpts show, participants could identify positive correlations

between their international experience and graduate employability prospects and

benefits. Of course, not all the group’s discussion focused in on issues exactly relevant

to the study. There was substantial discussion of practical issues related to their

program, as well as a range of interesting reflections of the pedagogical benefits they

felt the study abroad experience had generated, including deeper experiential learning

outcomes and an advantageous sense of rapport and closeness to their instructors

which had encouraged their intellectual engagement. When discussion did turn to

issues of mobility and employability, one of the noteworthy aspects of the exchanges

was the linkage to specific vocations and industries and the skills seen to be promoted

by an international study experience:

[Prato2P2]: “Yeah, I think a lot of businesses nowadays are international so you’re exposed to people

from different countries who may not speak the same language. There are these communication barriers,

um, different cultural barriers that the first time you encounter them, you find them a bit difficult but it

makes you a bit more adaptable to them.”

[Prato2P1]: “I also think that there are so many service based industries, so I work in Hotels, so for me

having the travel experience behind me and learning about different cultures is very important, because,

um, I’ve had conversations with people from anywhere and essential when I can’t speak Mandarin and

can’t speak Japanese, there are so many languages I can’t speak, but because you know how they work you

understand them better, you understand their culture what they.”

Also encouragingly, focus group members recognized a range of soft skills on offer for

enhancement as a result of their study abroad:

[Prato2P1]: “I think also that on this point of leadership development, living and travelling with other

people forces you to make compromises which you can take into the workplace. If you become a manager,

or if um, you’re leading a team that’s so essential as you have to take everyone’s point of view on board

and work with that and be flexible.”

[Prato2P3]: “I know not everyone is going to get along with everyone, you have to learn to be able to cope

with that.”

[Prato2P1]: “You just have to throw yourself out there, if you came and you didn’t know anyone, it’s

really important because if you go into a work place and you don’t know anyone.”

28

[Prato2P3]: “And that is the reality of getting a job”

In summation of discussion of the data analysis, in spite of some initial logistical/

organizational issues as noted above, the extent and richness of the data collected, both

quantitative and qualitative, has provided more than sufficient resources from which to

develop findings for the study. Only a fraction of the qualitative data has been sampled.

The range of issues and insights reflected in the qualitative data especially also provides

the CI with an opportunity to broaden the project’s scope in the future, beyond a focus

just on participants’ perceived linkages between their study abroad experience and

employability. Other areas of research interest which the present study’s data collection

could inform include,

Mobile students’ reflections on the pedagogical benefits of their international

learning experience

What matters most? Practical issues for mobile students in study abroad

programs.

A general survey of a mobile Australian students’ motives for study abroad

and their perceptions of the value of this experience.

FINDINGS

Based on analysis of the data and relative to the study’s overarching aims and

objectives, I would proffer the following findings as supported by this research:

Students can and do make meaningful connections between their international

experience and their graduate employability

The connections students make in terms of the types of benefits of an international

experience are varied and may refer primarily to the content of their study and

practical skills and experience gained relative to employment in a particular field,

the prestige of studying abroad relative to the focus of their study program and

future employment in a particular field, networking opportunities that may

advantage future employability prospects, as well as enhancement of specific soft

skills valuable for graduates in an increasingly globalized and international

graduate employment environment

Aside from the study abroad programs of the participants in the study that have an

explicitly articulated graduate career focus, I would suggest that employability

benefits (especially soft skill enhancement) are typically NOT the first and very

often NOT the second motivation for undertaking a study abroad program or the

benefit perceived on reflection of such an international study experience for

many if not most of the participants in the study.

29

Primarily, for participants in study abroad programs that do not have an explicitly

articulated graduate career focus, initial motives for many mobile students ranged

from recreation and adventure, to acquiring general life experience (including

personal growth and sometimes even aspirations towards membership in a global

citizenry), the unique content of the international learning experience, as well as an

opportunity to study in different tertiary education systems.

In response to the survey questions or in focus group discussion, many students

clearly understood and could articulate very successfully how their international

experience did enhance a whole range of what is often termed ‘soft skills’:

intercultural and interpersonal communication skills, adaptability and resilience,

independence and problem solving abilities, time and financial management skills.

When encouraged or prompted, I think it is clear that many participants could very

effectively establish the linkages between this ‘soft skill’ enhancement as a feature

of their study abroad experience and employability.

Although speculative, my general sense is that many of the participants indeed had a

muted or under-explored, dormant almost, realization that developing their soft skills

set as a result of their international experience would occur, was occurring or had

occurred. Similarly, almost sub-consciously, they sensed the benefits of this in terms of

their employability. My point is that I don’t think this linkage is often at the forefront of

their thinking about their study abroad programs either before, during or on return.

Before setting out a small number of recommendations, it is important to return with

these findings to aspects of the literature surveyed earlier in the Report.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

“The aim of this study is to explore linkages between Monash students’ international

experiences on outward mobility programs and the enhancement of these students’

employability skills, in particular, ‘resilience’ and inter-cultural negotiation and

communication skills and problem solving.”

Our findings have suggested show that many Monash students who have attended

overseas study programs have found them useful, valuable in a variety of ways:

pedagogically, personally and professionally. Although many students were not quite

aware of the full complex of benefits available as a result of their mobility, when

prompted, students could see a wide range of ancillary linkages, and they could

effectively articulate how study abroad relates to their graduate employability, to the

presentation and justification of several key graduate and professional attributes.

As samples of the data selected show, students could address/recognise their

international study experience in terms of gaining soft skills: interpersonal skills, such

as resilience, adaptability, financial responsibility, inner growth, personal development,

30

along with greater cultural sensitivity and inter-cultural communication skills.

Leadership and organizational skills were also suggested by many participants as major

skills relevant to their graduate employability and significant outcomes of a study

abroad program. As one student reflected,

“I suppose it demonstrates a willingness to act independently and take initiative.

Unless you have a freakishly charmed run, I agree that it will enhance your

resilience, simply by having shown you that you can in fact deal with problems on

your own, in a foreign place, by acting sensibly and rationally. I am not so confident

about these factors so would probably not bring them up in my own volition in a

job interview, but I usually mention the study experiences as hints to these

underlying factors!” [emphases added]

This participant’s response in particular highlights what I consider is the key issue in

this specific discussion. Yes, mobile students are mainly aware they accrue a range of

soft skills from their international experience. Yes, mobile students do appreciate these

soft skills as valuable. No, not all students immediately or self understand how they can

be related to their graduate employability outlook…until prompted. Returning to

Bentley and Broons’ (2009) conclusion:

There was a strong feeling in the minds of the students that they were equipped with

an employability edge yet they had not been able to identify how to extract the

maximum value from their experiences. (2009: 7)

Herein lies the challenge. One final set of samples from the qualitative data illustrate the

dimensions of this challenge. As I see it, and this is aligned with noteworthy elements of

the literature, part of the challenge is how to go from this:

[Online survey: 42] I am unsure how the study abroad/exchange experiences would translate into

specific, concrete CV bullet points. I think it is probably presumptous to just state - 'increased resilience'

or 'greater intercultural communication'.

To this: [Online survey: 16] Experience studying abroad gives you the chance to demonstrate your adaptability

and experience to potential employers. It also gives you a wider and more global view, and unique

experiences to draw on when responding to Key Selection Criteria.

Possibly via this:

[P1_CL1]. Assistance would be great on a discourse we could have access to, to best reflect our

experiences in relation to the current job market. How we can translate it so we can put ourselves apart

from the mainstream.

And, once this has been successfully navigated, we are confronted with this:

[P1_CL1]. I was in the middle of Tahir square in the middle of a revolution, and I had to get out of there

and the whole time I was in, I went to Egypt 3 times and one time I had to constantly negotiate my way

around the city because they would come, the men, after me. So you had to negotiate to keep yourself safe.

In the end I had a minder with two guns, so I was able to do my job, so I wasn’t subject to prey. Then I

worked with a BBC Oxford graduate, we were negotiating with the UN to get food into Gaza via tunnels.

Language was a big issue. Try and tell this to McDonalds in Australia, even I can’t articulate it, it’s an

out of body experience, how do you put this into three bullet points on a resume.

31

It is of course tempting to suggest to this mobile Monash student that such a range of

soft skills identified here (problem solving, negotiation and leadership) could be put to

excellent advantage in a Resume in application to an organization quite different to

McDonalds (!).

Summary

According to our literature review, a gap has been identified regarding higher

education, student mobility and employability, especially in the Australian context

(Crossman & Clarke, 2010). To some extent, the present study contributes to the

narrowing of this gap. According to the literature review, when working in an

internationally teamed environment, it is vital to be able to have negotiation,

communication and conflict solving skills along with a great sense of cultural

understanding (De Anca and Va´zquez 2007, p. 6; Dubrin et al. 2006, p. 428; Tung and

Thomas 2003, p. 116 cited in Crossman & Clarke 2010: 600).

What is termed ‘cultural sensitivity’ (Earley et al., 2006; Thomas and Inkson 2004 cited in

Crossman & Clarke, 2010: 601) -- described as a person’s capability to reconcile and

familiarize to a new cultural condition -- is also sought in prospective graduate

employees. Many of our participants suggested that they acknowledge their gain of

cultural sensitivity and respect for cultural diversity. Our participants also recognised

their advantageous position regarding employability upon graduation in terms of

international team working, networking and life-long learning.

When we asked participants how they consider their international experience could

enhance their graduate attributes, they responded, apart from necessary soft skills they

suggested they have gained, that their networking skills and their international

credibility is greater compared to those students who studied entirely at home.

According to the literature, employers regard international networking as a major

positive in graduate roles. As Crossman and Clarke’s (2010) study shows, a senior

manager stated how overseas experience is relevant in the process of recruiting and that

it is something they, as a company, consider important. Another manager of a major

global company also remarked that graduates’ international experiences “really stand

out on CV’ (Crossman & Clarke, 2010: 605).

The voices of Australian local students and insights into their international experiences

are relatively scarce in the contemporary literature of internationalization in Australian

HE. Enabling some of these voices has been a particularly positive aspect of the

Fellowship. Nunan (2006) emphasizes the importance of student mobility for Australian

students, not simply at an individual level, but also at a national and a global level.

However, she points out that Australian student participation in mobility programs is

low. Contemporary Federal government as well as ongoing institutional/sector support

for Australian tertiary student mobility programs is clearly evident. Given such support

and enthusiasm at all levels, given the clearly articulated range of benefits for

participating students (including employability), the relatively low participation rate of

Australian university students in sometimes very generously funded mobility

programs is again brought into focus.

32

Financial status is often considered as a constraint regarding student mobility from

students’ perspectives. Yet, during one of our focus groups at Clayton campus, all

agreed that ‘the experience was worth their money.’ Our participants in this focus

group (June 2013) stated that although they acknowledge that the study fees were costly,

they considered their experiences as a worthwhile investment in terms of their personal

growth, development, graduate credibility: their futures. It is tempting, but I think

misguided, to argue that ineffective communication of the benefits of study abroad lies

at the core of the issue of low participatory rates. Personally, I do not think this is the

case. The issue is ‘historical’ (Bell, 2008). I actually also consider it to be fairly intractable.

10% participation is a real achievement; 20% of Australian university graduates

participating in study abroad, almost utopian. Why?

Understanding the issue at hand, I believe, requires us to look deep and realistically

into the nature of the endeavour with which we are engaged on a macro level:

education in general and then higher education more specifically. In spite of our

passion for higher education, our recognition of the complementary benefits study

abroad so clearly adds to the basic experience of higher education, the fact of the matter

is that not everyone shares this passion, our passion. Perhaps most mystifying for us as

educators, those who appear to sometimes share it least are those for whom we ‘work’:

our students. It is an almost beautiful irony. And, this irony occurs in many if not most

facets of the higher education experience; indeed, all the way down to students’ erratic

attendance and their sometimes superficial interest in the content of lectures and

tutorials, tardiness in completing readings and even in handing assignments in on time.

To partially invoke John Biggs’ analogy of the intrinsically motivated ‘Susan’ and the

extrinsically motivated ‘John’ (Biggs, 1999), not all students are so enamoured with the

intrinsic potentials of their higher education that they want to risk their comfort zones

by participating in student mobility programs. Not all students can afford to. Not all

students have the time to take off essential part time work or be far from a whole host

of incredibly sensitive personal/real world commitments, even for a short term program.

Not all students are mature enough for study abroad and not all parents are ready for

their children to commit to a study abroad experience. Not all students actually want to

participate in or see the value of gaining an international experience, even when all the

intrinsic AND extrinsic benefits (enhanced employability, for example) are made

obvious: the ‘stay-at-homes’. And, I have to say, THAT’S OK. I still hold on to a

sometimes contested view, that as educators, we are here for those who present for

education! Not to be accepting, understanding (sometimes impatient of course) of the

incredible heterogeneity of the higher education student population is not an optimal

mindset to bring along with the necessary desire to teach and to inspire in others that

same passion we feel for whichever branch of inquiry, of knowledge production we

have become so excited about. Sometimes, just our passion for higher education itself.

I might well be criticized here for presenting an overly resigned, even pessimistic

perspective. No. I say let’s continue to go for the 20%. Some form of the possible is

essential in getting us out of bed each workday morning to present again. Working

around issues connected to encouraging students to participate in and then optimize

33

their international study experience, no different. A couple of thoughts to close this

discussion.

Academics almost by nature are incredibly international, mobile ‘creatures’. Perhaps,

some of the most mobile people on the planet. The ease with which we consider travel

and the appeal of an international experience for us perhaps shouldn’t automatically be

conferred on a student who might even be a First in Family participant at university; let

alone the FiF to consider or be presented with an opportunity to go outside Australia. A

little like ‘charity’, ‘internationalization’ of higher education and even in respect of

encouraging students to partake of a study abroad experience, ironically enough, can

and perhaps is best commenced from ‘home’.

Curriculum, which begins to engage students with global, multi-cultural and multi-

dimensional perspectives on content, is always a valuable place to start a student

mobility engagement process. Of course, imperatives to internationalize the curriculum

are theoretically well established; less so in practice, in spite of the extensive work

undertaken by key exponents in the field (Leask, 2013). One of the outcomes for me

from a symposium held recently, and in part funded by the Fellowship, is that the

rhetoric of theoretical issues related to internationalization of higher education can

sometimes overpower what appears to be the omnipresent ‘ask’ of especially the

teaching academics in attendance. These are practitioners who want to implement some

form of internationalized curriculum in their classrooms and laboratories: please show

me how to do it?

What else became clear from the Symposium’s discussion is that at the theoretical level,

and again in spite of so much expended effort over the last 20 years at least – at least

since Jane Knight’s work in 1994 -- there remains terminological confusion, fuzziness

about key theoretical concepts in the discourse to which student mobility and

employability is connected. It is therefore hardly surprising that at the site of

justification and practice, the realization of some of the key aspirations of the

internationalization mission, confusion also seems to reign. In terms of student mobility

in Australian higher education, then, perhaps it is worth exploring the benefits of

disconnecting it from a rationale that still largely draws on the discourse of the

internationalization of HE? Perhaps.

To continue with the theme of ‘internationalization’ can begin at ‘home’, it is also

important to consider broadening the framework within which we at Monash consider

issues of internationalization and student mobility and, therefore, graduate

employability. One of the very inspiring events I participated in recently as a mainly

teaching academic was the 2013 Monash-Warwick Undergraduate Conference. The

energy of the student driven engagement was ‘fantastic’. As far as I could see, it

represented another form of ‘academic’ student mobility. Given the ever increasing

opportunities afforded by online communication technologies, the sort of ‘virtual’

mobility displayed at this Conference presented a great model for advancing existing

initiatives and encouraging new ones. Students taking a heightened degree of

ownership in the conceptualization and facilitation of these types of international

‘virtual’ events surely can enhance almost the full range of soft skills we typically

34

believe require an ‘out of country’ context.

Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, I would also urge consideration be given to

realizing all the potentials broached here in terms of Monash student mobility in areas

that are not firstly deemed ‘academic’. The wealth of mobility potentials that exist for

Monash students in acquiring international experiences as members of special interest

groups travelling abroad, sporting teams and cultural groups is perhaps an option to

add to the overall mix? I can see as many benefits in terms of graduate employability,

via soft skill enhancement, for participants in a Monash 1st Eleven’s cricket tour of

universities in the Sub-Continent, as I can in a 2 week, intensive ‘in-country’ program.

The international success of the Monash Student Debaters may stand as an exemplary

model here?

DISSEMINATION

Dissemination commenced with the establishment of the project’s Reference Team in

March and discussions held with individual team members since. The primary

dissemination strategy was to cultivate a community of practice via the two main

symposia and use this as the platform for distribution of key outputs (eg. The Report)

post-completion.

Workshops/seminars will also be offered to Monash Abroad and Monash Career staff at

Clayton and a seminar is also planned for Monash Abroad Sunway staff, as well as

interested Faculty and other Professional staff in Malaysia in November or December.

Dissemination of the project’s findings to a broader audience should be achieved with

the successful publication of papers in relevant journals, anticipated for 2014.

Two 3 hour videos of the symposia staged on February 13th and September 30th

and accessible via YouTube.

A final report, research data sets & annotated bibliography of relevant literature

A website with copies of the symposia presentations available for download

(ongoing) http://profiles.arts.monash.edu.au/matthew-piscioneri/creating-spaces-symposium/

3 papers for publication in scholarly journals (anticipated)

35

LIMITATIONS & FUTURE DIRECTIONS

These issues have mostly been addressed in the CI’s statement at the beginning of the

report. Overall, the project progressed relatively smoothly. The CI’s unexpected

teaching workload in semester 2 was compensated for by additional time being spent

on the project ‘after hours’ and the recruitment of additional research assistance, albeit

costly and time consuming. A particular area of interest to be explored in 2014 would be

to solicit data from Monash Alumni who have participated in study abroad programs to

assess their perceptions of the benefits their international experience as Monash

students has brought to their careers.

CONCLUSION

The data collected via the online survey and focus groups are mostly synchronous with

the current literature in the context of internationalization, student mobility and

employability in higher education in Australia. Although, domestic Australian student

mobility is relatively low, and Monash is no exception, our research shows that once

prompted our mobile students see great value in their international experience and can

make the connection between this experience and their graduate employability.

36

REFERENCES

AEI (2013). “AsiaBound” https://aei.gov.au/international-

network/australia/asiabound/pages/asiabound-grants-program.aspx, viewed

10/1013

Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). “The internationalization of higher education:

Motivations and realities”. Journal of studies in international education, 11(3-4), pp.

290-305.

Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1997). Teaching international students: A brief guide for lecturers

and supervisors. Canberra, Australia: IDP Education Australia.

Bell, M (2008). “Exploring Fieldwork for Study Abroad Sojourners” in Eds., Hellsten, M.

& Reid, A. Researching International Pedagogies. Springer : Dordrecht

Bentley, J & Broons, J. (1999). "Benefits of the international co-op experience relating to

employability and future studies." 11th World Conference on Cooperative Education.

Washington DC. http://www.waceinc.org/papers/Bentley_Broons_6_18_00.pdf

viewed 10/10/13.

Biggs, J. (1997, July). Teaching across and within cultures: The issue of international

students. In Learning and teaching in higher education: Advancing 114 Journal of

Studies in International Education Summer 2001international perspectives (pp. 1-22).

Proceedings of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of

Australasia Conference

Cacioppe, R. (1998). Leaders developing leaders: an effective way to enhance leadership

development programs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19(4), pp.

194-198.

Crossman J., & Clarke, M. (2010). “International Experience and Graduate

Employability: Stakeholder Perceptions on the Connection”, Higher Education,

Vol 59. pp. 599–613

De Anca, C., & Vega, A. V. (2006). Managing Diversity in the Global Organisation: creating

new business values. Palgrave Macmillan : London.

Dickmann, M., & Harris, H. (2005). “Developing career capital for global careers: The

role of international assignments”. Journal of World Business, 40(4), pp. 399-408.

DuBrin, A., Dalglish, C., & Miller, P. J. (2006). Leadership: 2nd Asia-Pacific edition.

Earley, P. C. (2006). Leading cultural research in the future: A matter of paradigms and

taste. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), pp. 922-931.

37

Edwards, J. (2008). “Study at Home after Study Abroad”, in Meeri Hellsten & Anna

Reid (Eds.) Researching International Pedagogies. Springer : Dordrecht, pp. 115-128.

Forsey, M., Broomhall, S., & Davis, J. (2012). “Broadening the Mind? Australian Student

Reflections on the Experience of Overseas Study”. Journal of Studies in

International Education. Vol. 16., No. (2). Pp. 128-139.

Goddard, T. (2013). “The Monash Abroad Experience”

http://moodle.vle.monash.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=1298095 viewed

10/10/13.

Hellstén, M., & Prescott, A. (2004). Learning at university: The international student

experience. International Education Journal, 5(3), pp. 344-351.

Hellsten, M. (2008). “Researching International Pedagogy and the Forming of New

Academic Identities”, in Meeri Hellsten & Anna Reid (Eds.) Researching

International Pedagogies. Springer : Dordrecht, pp. 83-98.

Ingraham, E. C., & Peterson, D. L. (2004). “Assessing the Impact of Study Abroad on

Student Learning at Michigan State University”. Frontiers: The interdisciplinary

journal of study abroad, 10, pp. 83-100.

Inkson, K., & Arthur, M. B. (2001). “How to be a successful career capitalist”.

Organizational Dynamics, 30(1), pp. 48-61.

Joseph, C. (2008). "Difference, subjectivities and power: (De) colonizing practices in

internationalizing the curriculum". Intercultural Education 19.1, pp. 29-39.

Joseph, C. (2012). “Internationalizing the curriculum: Pedagogy for social justice”.

Current Sociology, 60(2), pp. 239-257.

Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and checkpoints (Vol. 7). Canadian Bureau

for International Education Research.

Knight, J. (1997). “A shared vision? Stakeholders' perspectives on the

internationalization of higher education in Canada”. Journal of Studies in

International Education, 1(1), pp. 27-44.

Knight, J. (2004). “Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and

rationales”. Journal of studies in international education, 8(1), pp. 5-31.

Knight, J. (2009). “Internationalization: unintended consequences”. International Higher

Education, 54, pp. 8-10.

Leask, B. (1999). Internationalisation of the curriculum: Key challenges and strategies.

The State of the Art in Internationalising the Curriculum International Perspectives.

38

Leask, B. (2001). “Bridging the Gap: Internationalizing University Curricula”. Journal of

Studies in International Education Summer, 5, pp, 100-115.

Leask, B. (2005). “Internationalisation of the Curriculum”. Teaching international students,

pp. 119-29.

Leask, B. (2008). “Internationalisation, Globalisation and Curriculum Innovation”, in

Meeri Hellsten & Anna Reid (Eds.) Researching International Pedagogies. Springer :

Dordrecht, pp. 9-26.

Leask, Betty. (2009). "Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions

between home and international students." Journal of Studies in International

Education 13.2, pp. 205-221.

Leask,B. (2013). “Internationalisation of the curriculum in action”.

http://www.ioc.net.au/main/course/view.php?id=2 viewed 10/10/13.

Liberal-N. (2013) “New Columbo Plan”. http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-

news/2013/08/30/coalitions-policy-new-colombo-plan viewed 10/10/13.

Marginson, S. (1999). “After globalization: emerging politics of education”. Journal of

Education Policy, 14(1), pp. 19-31.

Marginson, S. (2002). “Nation-building universities in a global environment: The case of

Australia”. Higher Education, 43(3), pp. 409-428.

Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and

reinvention in Australia. Cambridge University Press.

Mitchell, A. (2013). “Cut down on conflict zone field trips”.

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130924135043713) viewed

30/9/13.

Monash (2013). “Monash Abroad”. http://monash.edu/study-abroad/ viewed 10/10/13.

Normand-Marconnet, N. & Goddard, T. (n.d) “Monash Intercampus Exchange Between

Australia, Malaysia and South Africa: a Case Study on Cross-cultural Experience

and the Mobile Student” (unpublished).

Nunan, P. (2006). “An Exploration of the Long Term Effects of Student Exchange

Experiences”. University of Melbourne, Australian International Education

Conference 2006 – www.idp.com/aiec viewed 10/10/13.

Rizvi, F., & Walsh. L. "Difference, Globalisation and the Internationalisation of

Curriculum." Australian Universities' Review 41.2 (1998): pp. 7-11.

39

Rizvi, F. (2000). “International education and the production of global imagination”.

Globalization and education: Critical perspectives, pp. 205-225.

Rizvi, F. (2005). “Rethinking “brain drain” in the era of globalisation”. Asia Pacific

Journal of Education, 25(2), pp. 175-192.

Rizvi, F. (2011). “Theorizing student mobility in an era of globalization”. Teachers and

Teaching, 17(6), pp. 693-701.

Sanderson, G. (2008). "A foundation for the internationalization of the academic self."

Journal of Studies in International Education 12.3, pp. 276-307.

Sanderson, G. (2011). "Internationalisation and teaching in higher education." Higher

Education Research & Development 30, no. 5, pp. 661-676.

Sawir, E. (2005). Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The effects

of prior learning experience. International Education Journal, 6(5), pp. 567-580.

Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). “Loneliness and

international students: An Australian study”. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 12(2), pp. 148-180.

Singh, M., Kenway, J., & Apple, M. (2005). Globalizing education: Perspectives from

above and below.

Singh, M., & Shrestha, M. (2008). “International Pedagogiacl Structures”, in Meeri

Hellsten & Anna Reid (Eds.) Researching International Pedagogies. Springer :

Dordrecht, pp. 65-82.

UniMelb. (2013). “Melbourne Global Mobility”. http://www.mobility.unimelb.edu.au/

viewed 10/10/13.

UQ. (2013). “Study Abroad and Incoming Exchange”.

http://www.uq.edu.au/studyabroad/ viewed 10/10/13.

Volet, S. E., & Ang, G. (1998). “Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An

opportunity for inter‐cultural learning”. Higher Education Research & Development,

17(1), pp. 5-23.

Volet, S.E. & Ang, G. (2012). “Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: an

opportunity for inter-cultural learning”. Higher Education Research & Development,

Vol. 31, No. 1, February 2012, pp. 21–37.