Broadly speaking, most U.S. higher education institutions offer a mix of exchange, direct-enroll, provider, and faculty-led program models. Over time, and as a reflection of the zeitgeist in international education at any given moment, there have been particular trends towards one type of program over another. More recently, as our field shifts away from the epicenter of the pandemic, it is a judicious time to focus on how the global pandemic may have shifted students towards a particular model of education abroad program. A number of education abroad experts have postulated that students are emerging from the pandemic with a higher level of need and support, therefore spurring an increase in enrollment in the faculty-led program model. But does the data support this?
In this study, I gathered data from a small set of US-based institutions, considering a range of institutional sizes, types, and regions, regarding their program enrollment over the last five years. With data to highlight any potential emerging trends, I then spoke with the thought leaders that provided the data to better understand what the numbers mean and how to apply these lessons practically to our roles in the education abroad office.
Let’s first consider the numbers.
In combining data from the four institutions, it does appear as though faculty-led programs came back with a slight increase immediately upon resuming travel (with a growth of 9%). This was then followed by a very gradual decline at an average of 10% each subsequent year. Enrollment in exchanges and providers experienced the opposite trend. Exchanges saw a decline of 23% immediately upon resumption of travel, with average growth of 28% each subsequent year. Providers saw a decline of 17% upon resumption of travel, with average growth of 29% each subsequent year.
Data from individual institutions tell a different story.
Appalachian State University (App State) in Boone, North Carolina is a public master’s degree-granting institution of 22,000 students. App State’s enrollment in faculty-led programs – as an overall percentage of education abroad enrollment – declined drastically since pre-pandemic times and has yet to recover to pre-pandemic numbers. Interest in exchanges has only fluctuated slightly but proportional growth in provider programming has been notable.
Dr. Carmen Boggs-Parker, former Director of Education Abroad at App State, attributes these changes to an overall decline in faculty-led program offerings. A number of institutional processes were implemented since the onset of the pandemic, resulting in onerous administrative barriers. Already a resource-intensive model of programming, these barriers made the facilitation of faculty-led programs all the more difficult and ultimately resulted in a decrease in the number of programs offered (although not in the number of students participating in education abroad). However, overall education abroad enrollment numbers at App State quickly reached pre-pandemic numbers, fueled by an increase in exchange and provider program enrollment. Boggs-Parker speculated that more students were turning towards provider programs due to their higher level of support and their stronger online marketing efforts, an important consideration in this digital age.
Evergreen State College (Evergreen) in Olympia, Washington is a public master’s degree-granting institution of 2,000 students. They observed a drastic increase in enrollment in faculty-led programs as a proportion of overall education abroad programming once travel resumed. Enrollment in exchanges and provider programming saw immediate decreases but have slowly increased to [almost] pre-pandemic levels.
Brynn Smith, Assistant Director for International Programs and Services at Evergreen, credits the rise of faculty-led enrollment to a number of factors. Senior leadership, along with campus faculty, endorse faculty-led programs as an ideal way for students to gain a global education. For this reason, Smith has felt the push to promote these programs within her office. Additionally, she sees faculty-led programs as a unique way to cultivate community at a time when students might feel that this is lacking on campus. They are seeking opportunities to create a sense of community and faculty-led programs offer this in a safe and secure way.
Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts is a private institution serving 2,500 students. They facilitate very few traditional faculty-led programs but instead offer a unique program type known as Smith Programs Abroad. In this integrated education abroad center model, local directors in select European locations are hired to facilitate logistics and programming, liaising with local universities for enrollment. Branded as Smith programs, they are considered to be institutionally-led, as opposed to faculty-led, while offering a similar level of support. While this model of program saw an immediate decrease in percentage of enrollment, it has now surpassed its pre-pandemic proportional enrollment.
Kevin Morrison, Director of the Lewis Global Studies Center at Smith College, reports that he has fewer students traveling now than before the pandemic. Among this smaller cohort, students are choosing Smith Programs Abroad more often than providers. Morrison predicts that there might be greater interest in provider programs moving forward.
The University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) is a public, doctoral degree-granting institution serving 33,500 students. Their data suggest that while their overall participation numbers have increased, their students are making very similar programmatic choices as compared to pre-pandemic enrollment. Their stronger emphasis on faculty-led programs has allowed them to increase the number of programs offered and entice more students to study abroad without drastic changes in enrollment in any one program model.
Dr. Kyle Rausch serves as the Executive Director of Study Abroad & International Travel Safety at UIC. In his role, he has been tasked with growing the number of faculty-led programs that are offered to UIC students. At the same time that his team was cultivating their portfolio of faculty-led programming, they were also creating a new office structure based around college liaisons, which allowed for more curriculum integration and the development of new partnerships to fill academic gaps. This has led to an overall increase in education abroad participation, surpassing pre-pandemic total enrollment numbers.
The data itself tells an interesting story. But perhaps what’s more interesting is to consider the impact that trends in student choice have on the professional practice. So what do these trends mean for our work in the education abroad office? Our thought leaders have advanced several interesting ideas.
The role that office structure plays in supporting students, programs, and campus stakeholders
The institutions represented in this data set varied in terms of institutional size, type, and region. But perhaps most importantly, there was a notable difference in size and structure of the education abroad office. Broadly speaking, education abroad offices are structured in one of three ways: functionally (with processes and positions designed around the type of programs administered), academically (with processes and positions designed around specific disciplines), and regionally (with processes and positions designed around specific geographic locations).
The education abroad team at App State has a functional structure model which has positioned them well to navigate the institutional hurdles introduced to the administrative process of faculty-led programs. As a field, we are starting to understand more deeply how the management of a faculty-led portfolio requires a very different skill set than does the traditional education abroad advisor position. The functional model serves to reinforce and support this notion.
The team at UIC has moved towards an academic structure model. This has allowed them to strengthen the integration of education abroad into the curriculum; it has also allowed them to identify academic deficits in education abroad programming and to address the deficits by refining their portfolio.
Small or one-person education abroad offices don’t always have the luxury of adapting an office structure to suit the needs of their students, programs, or campus stakeholders. In this way, both Evergreen and Smith College have had to rely on other methods to ensure they are meeting their goals, including marketing efforts, cross-training of staff, etc.
The importance of articulating the value of all education abroad program models
Education abroad professionals are aware of the strengths and challenges of various program models and the type of student that is best served by one model over another. In my conversations with education abroad thought leaders, we discussed the program needs of students using the GI Bill, of students who are registered for disability accommodations, of students who have mental health concerns, and of students who are going abroad to become more proficient in another language (among many others!). The process of education abroad advising and program selection is an art; the education abroad advisor learns how to listen to the students’ goals and to suggest appropriate programs. Intrinsically, we know that all programs have value; we emphasize one program model over the other depending on the individual student in our office and their unique needs.
Many education abroad professionals are given mandates to increase enrollment or programming of one program model over another. This may come from bias towards a certain program model based on someone’s experience with that model or from bias against another program model based on lack of information about that particular model. While the education abroad manager knows there is value to each program model, they must learn to articulate this to senior leadership.
In the case of Evergreen and UIC, Smith and Rausch have mandates from senior leadership to increase enrollment and/or programming of one particular program model. They have had to grow these programs while at the same time providing support structures for – and access to – other program models.
Operational cost vs enrollment impact of education abroad programs
In terms of resource needs and return on investment, not all education abroad programs are created equal. If the capacity of an education abroad office is stretched thin, it is important to consider the operational cost and the enrollment impact of different program models and to prioritize accordingly.
In the NAFSA workshop Management Essentials of the Education Abroad Office, a framework is introduced that discusses this notion. It posits that faculty-led programs have both a high operational cost (in terms of resources, personnel, time, and money) and a high enrollment impact (they tend to enroll more students than other program models). Exchange programs have a high operational cost and typically have a low enrollment impact. Program providers have a low operational cost and varying enrollment impact. If an education abroad manager were asked to grow enrollment overall without additional resources, it would be prudent to consider programs that require low operational costs while yielding high enrollment. Were an education abroad manager to be asked to strictly grow a portfolio of one type of program, it is helpful for them to consider the operational costs required of that portfolio and the enrollment yield they can expect.
In the case of Smith College, Morrison works with a two-person education abroad team. With the Smith Programs Abroad model, on-site directors take on a bulk of the work; however some of the centers require his team to provide visa assistance, making them a more resource-intensive program. As Morrison anticipates an increase in interest in provider programming, he is considering opportunities for cross-training so that the members of his team can better support each other and their students. He is also taking advantage of support provided by providers such as remote advising sessions and marketing materials, leveraging the lower operational cost of working with providers with the higher enrollment impact that this program model affords.
App State has traditionally had very strong enrollment in faculty-led programs. Even though the number of programs has decreased recently due to institutional barriers, overall education abroad numbers remain quite high. The education abroad team has dedicated considerable time to the administration of faculty-led programs and has reinforced its functional structure to strengthen its support of this program model. In this way, the education abroad office has experienced both the high operational cost and the high enrollment impact of the faculty-led program portfolio.
So is it true that the field of education abroad is seeing a shift towards faculty-led enrollment since travel has resumed? Not necessarily. But the data and ideas expressed here do indicate that students are seeking out more support (whether from the education abroad office or from their program model of choice) and easier access to information about available programs. While this shift did not necessarily come about as a result of the pandemic (education abroad professionals have speculated that this could be a continuation of a shift that began well before the pandemic), this does give the education abroad office an opportunity to rethink their processes, structures, and programs so that they are better serving the needs of their students, campus partners, and host communities.
