Retreat Wrap-up

We just had our annual department retreat and I thought it would be useful to post the results so that we can keep these ideas in mind as we move forward with our planning.

One of the goals of the retreat was to identify qualities of a Successful Integration Experience. It was an interesting review.

Folks confessed to a certain amount of fatigue with the amount of planning which goes into each activity; a consensus seemed to emerge that intermittent single or double-period activities may not deliver much value proportionate to the preparation they require. Support seemed to grow for more sustained projects that bring groups of students together for longer periods of time (at least 3 days). These longer projects have the virtue of being deeply woven into the curriculum instead of just tucked in the corners. This is important in terms of making the activities feel authentic and relevant and not just "tacked on." Because more sustained projects bring the same students together for several days, they offer more opportunities for students to get used to each other and for the teacher to assess and improve the model. Best of all, these projects may not require much more team-planning time than activities which only last one period.

There was also some discomfort expressed with student groups which are organized wholly according to teacher criteria. Might it increase student investment if their interests factored into the way the groups were organized? Would international students participate more actively if there were more of them in each group--and only one or two regular program kids? This would mean that some groups would be domestic-students only, but it might lead to international students taking the lead in the groups where they found themselves in the majority.

In general, some of the commonalities of integration projects which felt successful were:

• These are substantial projects which unfold over a period of days
  


• They are highly structured.
  


• Each student plays a specific role, which they have to prepare on their own.


• Each student is evaluated for their own contribution.

In addition, we also clarified our priorities in terms of the kinds of integration experiences we want to offer in Humanities and in terms of the skills we feel it makes sense to emphasize for English Language Learners in our department. We all acknowledged that it is somewhat artificial to separate these skills. As Adina and John observed, ideally, we would be creating a shared background for our students by offering all of these experiences and skills in concert.

However, I pushed folks to prioritize what is most important to emphasize, given the limits on our time and given that Humanities, while important, is not the only opportunity international students have to arrive at these outcomes.

Overwhelmingly, it seems, the department would like to see skills be our first priority, then content understanding and finally a shared experience.

In terms of skills, many commented on the inter-connection between reading and writing, listening and speaking. However, it was interesting that reading and writing were the clear top priorities, with reading coming in first according to all voters, except one. Speaking came in third and listening was in last place in terms of how the Humanities program should focus its efforts when working with international students.