Developing the quality and relevance of Exchange Programs between a SEN vocational college in Finland and a vocational college in Britain

Jane Rose, Student on Special Needs Teacher Education programme at JAMK, Teacher Education College

It is equally as important for SEN colleges to be part of international exchange programs as it is for students from other colleges in Finland.  These visits and exchanges give students the possibility to actually meet and interact with young people of their own age from another country and to use (practice) their hard earned language skills (usually English) at whatever level of ability they are. Even saying ‘hello’ to someone they have never met before can be a significant experience, and one which is so much more real than in the language classroom. International exchanges also strengthen students’ own cultural, national and international identity.

Luovi SEN vocational college in Muhos and Askham Bryan College near York in northern England have been conducting student exchange programs since 2004.  This program was set up to enable Luovi students to have contact with vocational students in Britain who are studying in similar disciplines. Overall the whole program has been of considerable benefit to the staff and students involved on a personal level and much has been learned through observation of how life is lived and vocational education organised in two different cultures. When the British students have visited Luovi it has provided a huge language impetus to the whole school, from the catering students who write menus in English, to the drivers who transport the visitors, to the staff who can talk with visiting staff, to the groups where the visitors are placed and who can have chance to listen to language and respond in a natural situation as well as other students who are naturally curious and want to use their language skills with the visitors.

The initial exchanges were for a month and involved 6-8 Finnish students going to Britain. Two members of staff were generally involved in the exchange; with each staff member accompanying the students for two weeks with a ‘handover’ weekend on the middle weekend. The final exchange was for three weeks with 4 students and the accompanying two staff members present for the whole time. The reciprocating exchanges when British students came to northern Finland involved 8-12 students coming for either a month or two weeks. For practical reasons, after the first exchange, the British students were accommodated in Oulu and transported to Muhos daily.

The ongoing nature of the exchanges with one particular college has meant there has been time for relationships to build and for more people to have the confidence to get involved. Many aspects of the program have undergone development during the last six years following our understanding and learning about what makes a good exchange from all points of view: the students; accompanying staff; the receiving organisation; the recruiting, preparation and coordination team; the coordinator for funding applications. Initial energy went into planning the students’ working day, the focus then progressed to free time activities and achieving the right kind of balance between organised trips and students planning their own activities in the local area. It has always been an open question as to how much time the accompanying staff members should/could be available for the students when away from home. Other issues which have come up have concerned things like the optimum length of time for students and staff to be away; the appropriate number of accompanying staff, given that on the one hand the Finnish students are SEN students but on the other hand funding is limited; matters of confidentiality when corresponding with the receiving organisation. Another important area is student and staff preparation for an exchange once the selection has been made. Part of the framework for this is laid down in the Leonardo de Vinci program requirements on which the funding depends, but each school is also able to tailor the preparation program content to their own situation.

As we have progressed in our experience as a college and as a staff in the various stages and aspects of international student exchange in this particular context (Luovi and Askham Bryan) it has become clear that one particular matter for development stands out. That is the matter of ‘visiting’ and ‘home’ students interacting much more in both a ‘work/school’ situation and a free time situation. Comments in a review of the exchanges by the Askham staff stated:

…we feel that in 2006 and 2008 whilst it was good that the engineering students had a wide variety of enjoyable vocational experiences, they could have made more of their opportunities to integrate culturally.

The question remains as to how we can set up the exchanges in such a way that cultural exchange and integration take place naturally and meaningfully given that there are:

1. marked differences in language skills between the two student groups: Finns who speak/understand English as a foreign language.
2. Finns who have studied English for several years but may not be very confident in their speaking/understanding skills in English.
3. Finns who are culturally shy and may take a long time to ‘warm up’.
4. British students who have few words of Finnish and have little experience of what it is like to be speaking a foreign language in meaningful interaction
5. British students who as well as being native speakers of English may also speak unintentionally rapidly and with a marked local accent.

One of the ways forward has been to set up some kind of a buddy system prior to the exchange and have some training sessions for the buddies or KV Kamut as they are called in Luovi. So far our direct experience has only been in setting up such a system for English students visiting Luovi Muhos. In the training sessions the students who have volunteered and been selected as buddies have an opportunity to learn about what it means to be a buddy (and what things do not belong to being a buddy) for a visiting student, and to practise some of the language skills that might be needed: like small talk, asking questions, giving directions and checking that their buddy is OK with the program for that day/evening or whatever.

For the most recent exchange we had two boys as buddies in each of the two groups where the visitors were placed (metal work and logistics). We noticed that the training went quite well (two sessions of two hours prior to the visit) and two of the four Finnish students really tried to communicate with their guests, although it was still apparent that the four visitors usually sat and had lunch as a group with no Finns around them and that in the break times they were left to their own resources while the Finns went off to smoke!

After the visit I interviewed three Finnish students who had been in a group with two visitors (but only one was a designated buddy) and asked them about the experience and how to make it better. The Finns felt that a month would have been a more realistic time for the exchange so there would be more time for barriers to come down. These particular logistics students felt language difference was the main barrier to communicating and that they were like diesel engines in cold weather, needing time to warm up! They felt there should be more specific activities in the first week to promote bonding, like a film evening or particularly sports activities which would offer the chance to integrate without being so dependent on language.

It seems as if the buddy system has much potential for helping cultural integration in student exchange work. This is hopeful, for these kind of exchanges bring enriching opportunities and are a kind of bridge between the language classroom and the world outside Finland. It is important that the buddy training is specifically related to an upcoming exchange, although there is benefit in doing the training as part of general preparation for visiting students. It is also important that students know what their responsibility is as a buddy but that they only have as much responsibility as they can personally cope with and that there are staff in the wings as back-up. It would also seem to be important to listen to what students involved in the groups hosting visitors say, as they are the ones who ‘view it from the inside’.

This buddy system and the training for it will continue to be developed in Luovi Muhos.