Summary of Monmouth/ Coe (Re)Orientation Program for Exchange Students hosted by Coe College, April 20, 2002 by John Chaimov of Coe College.

18 students from Coe and Monmouth assembled at the neighborhood art center CSPS to hear a word of welcome by Coe Vice President Laura Skandera-Trombley.

As in the fall we began with an ice-breaker game, BARNGA, that forces participants to adjust without the benefit of speech to new cultural rules. Respondents to the evaluation forms gave it 3s and 4s out of 5, with most finding it useful but many wishing for a game that allowed more communication for the first introduction to new people. One student suggested the game “The Chinese Portrait.”

There followed two student-to-student discussions, first in small breakout groups and then recapping the whole as an assembled group. The first student group discussion concerned the topic “If I Knew Then What I Know Now.” Most students gave it 3s and 5s out of 5. Every respondent found something worth remembering during the discussion and was able to list it on the evaluation form. Less enthusiastic respondents (and even some who liked the session quite well) said it could be improved upon by giving the students more guidance, a list of micro-topics to cover, several questions to work through. We facilitators could tell as well that we didn’t give them enough guidance: all too quickly the groups ran out of things to say and claimed “to have discussed everything.”

The second student-to-student discussion treated the issue of how Americans are perceived abroad. Responses to the evaluation averaged about a 3 out of 5, with quite a few 2s. A couple of the best suggestions for improvement are tactics that we use with our students on a daily basis and just forgot to employ at the orientation: having students prepare an initial written statement on how they think others see Americans and how Americans “really are”; and afterwards having students compose written protocols of their discussions. Clearly, students will benefit from more guidance at these breakout sessions.

We didn’t include the lunch hour as an item on the evaluation form, but next time it would make sense to do so, as it was very likely the most profitable session of the day. A number of students mentioned lunch in the space on the evaluation where they were asked what they liked best about the orientation. Some students had never eaten Indian food before and this provided a convenient starting point for some conversations. Very quickly students from the two colleges intermixed in larger and smaller groups, most including both domestic and international students. They asked one another questions and shared stories, advice, fears, experiences. Seeing the success of the lunchtime discussions, we wisely extended the hour.

After lunch we convened a session on issues of health and safety. This session offered many photocopied handouts on a wide array of travel concerns. Topics discussed included overseas medical insurance, seeking medical treatment, emotional health, financial emergencies, diet, gathering safety information from CIEE and NAFSA as well as from State Department websites, and contacting overseas embassies in an emergency. Only about half the students evaluated this session, but those who did gave it high marks, 4s and 5s, noting particularly the tips given about credit cards and ATM machines as valuable.

We scheduled the day’s final discussion as an open topic forum and truncated it to get guests on the road promptly. Respondents to the evaluation gave the session good marks, mostly 3s and 4s, some appreciating its conciseness. Students liked learning about airport travel, both how to manage mishaps and how to handle post-9/11 security. Students found a wide variety of tips to remember.

 Some favorable summative comments on the day: “I liked having the opportunity to talk to a diverse bunch of students & faculty. I really benefitted from all the different input.” “It was a great experience and eased some of my anxiety about studying abroad.”

On the negative side several students reemphasized their dislike of the BARNGA game; a couple said the day was too long and one said it was too short; at least one desired still more interaction between students.

A final note: there were twice as many Monmouth students as Coe students present, despite Coe’s having announced the seminar at the time the students were accepted for study abroad. The difference is that Monmouth required their students to attend, something Coe will have to consider doing if Coe wants the seminar to benefit a worthwhile proportion of those students going on exchanges. As an optional invitation it is currently only reaching about a fifth of the students who could and should be participating.

Submitted 6/14/02,

John Chaimov

Coe