Undergraduate students from GMIT Mayo Campus in Ireland and the University of Applied Sciences Leeuwarden in the Netherlands collaborated on international social care research projects using technology. The initiative aimed to develop students' research, teamwork, intercultural, and career skills. While communication issues emerged initially due to cultural differences, interventions by faculty helped get the projects back on track. Student feedback was very positive about learning about different cultures and approaches to social care. The initiative was considered a success and will be repeated.
2011 Conference Proceedings - Enhancing the learning experience: Learning for...
Undergraduate Student Collaboration in International Social Care Research Projects: an Innovative Approach
1. Undergraduate student collaboration
in international social care research
projects: an innovative approach.
Dr. Mark Garavan & Mr. Hugh Mc Bride
Mayo Campus (MC), GMIT
LIN Conference, October 2012
2. Origins of the initiative:
Grew out of an evolving partnership between
Mayo Campus (MC), GMIT
and
University of Applied
Sciences, Hogeschool
Leeuwarden, Netherlands (NHL).
3. NHL: a 4 year degree in social work, with a
minor elective component in the final year.
One minor is in international social care.
MC: a ‘3+1’ structure.
Level 7 degree after 3 years, Level 8 degree
after 1 further add-on year.
4. Initiative agreed during MC lecturer
exchange visit to NHL in March 2011, for
implementation in academic year 2011/12.
5. Concept
Multi-national student teams (Dutch and
Irish), who may have never met,
working together on student-
driven, research-based projects
enabled by the use of ICT and social media.
‘Hands-off’ oversight by academics, but
structured context.
6. In this case, in comparative international
social care.
7. Expected project outputs:
A written report.
Presentation at student-conference, to be
held simultaneously in NHL and MC, linked
by live video conference.
Presentation to incorporate a film or other
‘visual report’ to illustrate research.
8. Purposes? Intended learning outcomes?
Enriched knowledge and
understanding, with comparative
international dimension.
Develop research abilities and skills.
Develop transferable skills set (for e.g., in
team working, communications, ICT).
9. Develop critical awareness of inter-cultural
difference, and of the nature and value of
peer learning.
Enriched basis for a long-term career as a
professional practitioner.
10. Pioneered as a pilot study:
to test feasibility;
to better understand process and issues;
to contribute to closer links;
a learning process for curious academics.
Envisaged that initiative be extended to
include other international partners.
11. At NHL: an accredited module as part of
international social care minor.
At MC: an element of CA for year 3, Level
7, students (no Level 8 students at that time).
Accredited Level 8 module to be developed
at MC if pilot successful.
12. 18 students participated: 8 NHL, 10 MC
4 teams of 4 or 5 (2 NHL + 2/3 MC)
2 lead ‘supervisory’ academics.
Commenced in late December 2011, ended
May 2012.
13. In Dec. 2011, initial introductory exchange
of e-mails by students.
In Jan. 2012, formed self-selecting teams
and agreed topics through processes of
speed-dating and horse-trading.
14. Each team agreed a methodology for the
research process, a ‘working contract’.
This the first formal requirement to be met.
Submitted to lead academics.
15. The four projects were:
Comparative early child-care policies.
Early-teenage perspectives on alcohol use.
Second-level student attitudes towards
homosexuality (acceptance of homosexual
youngsters).
Asylum-seeker care provision.
16. Good initial enthusiastic start, but serious
‘grumbles’ quickly began to emerge – from
both sets of students.
About poor communication, unrealistic
expectations, poor commitment, work ethic
and habits etc.
Initiative in danger of ‘going off the rails’!
17. In retrospect, this not surprising.
‘Grumbles’ essentially reflecting deep-
seated cultural and value differences, that
shape ‘ways of being, thinking and doing’.
18. Source of difficulties included:
Differing:
conceptual, socio-political and
institutional frameworks;
epistemological and pedagogical
frameworks;
ways of working;
modes of social interaction.
19. Difficulties arising from language (English
and how we speak it!).
Age profile and life-experiences of students.
Expectations re work level involved.
‘High stakes’ for the students, especially in
NHL.
20. ICT and social media may have contributed
to a false sense of ‘we are all the same’,
masking cultural and value differences - and
reinforcing pre-formed stereotypes and
prejudice,
obscuring and distorting the complexity of
the inter-personal and inter-cultural
challenges posed by communication.
22. Mutual trust and confidence engendered by
the established collegial relationship
between academics, and their shared sense
of ownership and responsibility.
23. Visit coincided with an international social
care conference at NHL.
MC students active participation by VC.
Two MC students on exchange to NHL in
April.
Initiative back on track!
24. Student-conference was very successful.
High quality presentations, incorporating
imaginative use of technology, and tight co-
ordination to ensure a seamless process.
Research reports of a high standard for the
level.
25. The work was assessed jointly by NHL (2)
and MC (3) academics.
Assessment process, culminating in a skype
conference call, also posed some interesting
cultural challenges.
26. Student feedback through formal evaluation
survey.
Very positive and strongly affirmed the
value of the initiative.
27. I feel there are very strong learning
opportunities – both in working with
strangers and forming strong working
relationships; and in learning about a
different culture and different approaches to
social care work; and also different
approaches to academic works.
(Comment by Irish Student)
28. It helps me to make my vision bigger and
think more wide about social work.
(Comment by Dutch student)
29. Overall, the initiative considered to have
been very successful, with hugely positive
learning outcomes, exceeding expectations.
A significant and enriching learning
experience for both students and academics.
30. Will be repeated.
Module since validated at Level 8.
Model is replicable in other disciplinary
areas.
32. All the usual challenges inherent in student-
driven research-project group work remain,
but some added issues,
arising from international
dimension, distance, and reliance on
technology rather than personal contact.
33. Critical importance of sensitivity to, and
respect for, cultural and linguistic difference.
Need for initial series of ‘framing’
seminars/lectures.
Students need time to get to know and
understand and trust each other.
34. Critical importance of mutual
knowledge, inter-personal relationships and
goodwill in fostering international
collaboration.
Quality of personal relationship, and of
professional trust and respect among
collaborating academics key.
35. Trust in the students and let them get on
with it.
But need for some structure and active
‘hands-off’ oversight.
Having accredited module important.
36. In addition to the predicted and assessed
learning outputs, the process gave rise to
emergent, unspecified and valuable learning
outcomes,
that will resonate over the long-term in
students’ encounter with experience.
37. Undertaking the project … obliged the
students to recognize and understand
underlying cultural differences between the
Netherlands and Ireland regarding social
work in terms of language, historical
contexts, values and methodologies.
While this was initially disconcerting for the
students (and indeed for the academics
also), this in fact proved the most valuable
learning aspect of the project.
(M.Garavan, draft paper with W. Blok, 2012)
38. Affirmation of the quality:
of our students, education, and professional
approach;
of the standards of our programme and
award in international comparison.
Building student confidence in themselves
and in our ways of doing things.
39. Its not about the technology!
A key enabler, a critical ‘hygiene’ factor.
But technology is not what makes it work.
Technology: a siren song for
communication?
40. What did make it work serves as an
affirmation of traditional academic
values, processes and modes of working
together.
Collegiality and shared ownership;
understanding of, and respect for difference;
curiosity and openness to the ‘new’;
preparation to take risks, confident in one’s
knowledge and experience; appropriate
support and intervention.
41. Successful innovations require ‘going back
to the future’.
Involvement of experienced academics
helps.
Will get better at anticipating what might
work, and at dealing with issues that arise.
But no template for this.
