The Debate: Language Learning in Study Abroad

A student sits in a café abroad, ordering in English, navigating daily life with translation apps and a friendly host culture willing to meet them halfway. It works—efficiently, even comfortably. But is something missing?

For education abroad (EA) professionals, that “something” has led to a pressing design question: How central should language learning be in the study abroad experience?

The issue is hardly new, but it has taken on new urgency in recent years. Expanded access, driven in part by English-medium programs and fewer language prerequisites, has opened doors for more students. At the same time, some in the field worry that removing language expectations risks compromising the immersion that makes study abroad transformative.

“Access gets students there. Language and design determine how deeply they experience it,” says Fabiola Riobé, founder and principal strategist of Satis Sum Consulting, LLC.

Access or Obstacle

For some educators, language learning is inseparable from cultural understanding. “Language is simultaneously a driver and mirror of culture,” shares Allegra O’Donoghue, director of Europe and Middle East programs at CET Academic Programs. “It is the means through which we communicate our cultures. I don’t think it’s possible to deeply understand a culture without some knowledge of its language(s). Without language, students experience culture in translation, at a surface level.”

That idea becomes clearer in practice. “Students who achieve advanced levels of Chinese, for example, cannot help but learn a lot about Chinese culture,” says Mark Lenhart, CET’s president. “The two are inseparable. Students don’t just study Chinese holidays or cuisine in class; they learn cultural values from the language itself.

I don’t think it’s possible to deeply understand a culture without some knowledge of its language(s). Without language, students experience culture in translation, at a surface level. —Allegra O’Donoghue

“When I studied Chinese in Beijing in the 1980s, I learned about Chinese concepts of ‘face,’ greetings like ‘Have you eaten yet?,’ and a range of honorifics and specific kinship terms,” reflects Lenhart. “I could not have developed a deep understanding or appreciation of these concepts without studying them in Chinese.”

Viewed through this lens, language proficiency isn’t just a skill, it provides an entry point into learning about values, relationships, and meaning. “Students can absolutely have meaningful international experiences without prior language proficiency,” says Riobé. “However, language is not just a communication tool, it is a gateway to understanding power, identity, and culture at a deeper level. Without language, students often remain in proximity to culture rather than truly engaging with it.”

The student perspective often reveals a similarly nuanced view of the language learning debate. “I think students can gain a meaningful level of cultural immersion even without a language component, because simply living abroad and engaging with a new environment, even for a few weeks, can shift perspectives and strengthen intercultural competence,” shares Olivia Rose, a program management student intern at Pepperdine International Programs at Pepperdine University.

“That said, my eight months in a Buenos Aires homestay showed me how learning the language transforms the experience,” emphasizes Rose. “Speaking Spanish deepened my understanding of the culture and the people, and it made the entire immersion far more impactful and personally significant.”

Language is not just a communication tool, it is a gateway to understanding power, identity, and culture at a deeper level. Without language, students often remain in proximity to culture rather than truly engaging with it. —Fabiola Riobé

Put simply, students can gain something without the language component, but they often benefit even more with it.

The Confidence Gap

Language requirements can deepen immersion, but they can also discourage participation. Concerns about intimidation and preparedness are not hypothetical. In CET’s 2025 surveys, “The program element students said they were most apprehensive about was language learning, and 39 percent of all CET students chose this as their biggest worry,” explains Lenhart.

At the same time, nearly 80 percent of those students said they looked forward to engaging with culture and acquiring language skills. “I’d say today’s students recognize that language and [cultural] skills are … big benefits of studying abroad, and they’re excited about that,” shares Lenhart. “But they also worry about making mistakes or being put in uncomfortable situations.”

When it comes to studying abroad and language learning, students’ concerns are often layered and varied. “For many students, especially those balancing work, family, and academics, the idea of learning a new language can feel overwhelming,” cautions Riobé. “What I see most often is not resistance, but uncertainty. Students are asking, ‘Can I succeed in that environment?’”

What can outwardly appear as disinterest may instead signal an internal lack of confidence or a need for enhanced support. The mix of anticipation and anxiety sits at the center of program design, but some education abroad professionals challenge this framing.

“I disagree that there is a tension and think that positing language immersion as a barrier to access is a disservice to students,” says O’Donoghue. She recommends structural solutions like eliminating prerequisites while embedding “robust, proficiency-based language courses” that allow beginners to start from scratch.

This is not an either-or decision. It is a design challenge. If we frame language as a barrier, we limit who participates. If we ignore language altogether, we limit the depth of the experience.—Fabiola Riobé

CET’s model provides a case study in this approach. In Jordan, students can begin learning Arabic with no prior experience, studying the alphabet when they arrive, supported by coursework and opportunities for immersion. The result: increased access and robust language learning.

O’Donoghue places the issue in a broader U.S. context. “U.S. public elementary education has completely failed Americans when it comes to second language acquisition,” she says. “We are behind the entire world because of a deep devaluing of foreign language in our mainstream culture and a defunding of our public education system, so our college students are largely monolingual unlike their peers worldwide. Studying language in college and/or abroad may be the most impactful opportunity for our students to build proficiency in a second language in their lifetimes.”

Like O'Donoghue, Riobé emphasizes the importance of properly framing the debate. “This is not an either-or decision. It is a design challenge,” suggests Riobé. “If we frame language as a barrier, we limit who participates. If we ignore language altogether, we limit the depth of the experience.”

From that perspective, solutions look less like requirements and more like pathways. Riobé says, “The most effective programs build on-ramps such as predeparture exposure, in-country support, and structured cultural engagement [opportunities] that allow students to enter at different levels and still grow.”

This approach puts the focus squarely on how programs are built. The question isn’t about whether a language component is included, but how intentionally it is woven into the student experience.

Designing for Engagement

Different programmatic approaches to language learning can all be effective, but across models, educators agree that students engage more deeply when language unlocks something tangible.

“Peer engagement and field experiences are great ways to motivate students to learn and practice language,” suggests O’Donoghue. “When language becomes the key to [unlocking] access to a unique experience, like making a local friend or learning from local experts in a professional field, students understand the importance of building proficiency.”

That principle can come to life through engagement with local roommates or language learning partners and participating in service projects with host-country students. “The inclusion of local students [in program activities] has a huge impact on students’ engagement with the language,” says Lenhart.

Homestays, in particular, create a daily incentive to build language proficiency. “Living with a local family encourages, if not requires, [students] to pick up at least the basics of the language,” says Rose. “Everyday interactions become opportunities to learn, adapt, and engage more authentically with the culture.”

In each case, language moves beyond the classroom and into daily life. “The most effective programs embed language into lived experience rather than treating it as a separate academic requirement,” explains Riobé. “When language is tied to relationship and relevance, students lean in. When it feels abstract or disconnected, they disengage.”

Even small interventions matter. O’Donoghue recalls a short-term program in Amman, Jordan, where students with no prior knowledge of Arabic received just 10 hours of informal Arabic instruction. “They enjoyed these lessons so much, they asked for more!”

The takeaway is less about mandates and more about connection. When language is embedded in relationships and daily life, engagement tends to follow.

The Role of the Adviser

Today’s students arrive with new assumptions. Translation apps, shifting career priorities, and declining language enrollment have all influenced expectations. “Students think they can rely on Google Translate while abroad, or they convince themselves that foreign languages won’t be useful in their future careers,” acknowledges Lenhart.

When students are ambivalent, advisers play a critical role in shaping their expectations. “I think encouragement is very important,” advises O’Donoghue. “Studying language in situ will be a wholly different experience … the struggle is an important part of the process.”

Students are telling us where they feel unprepared or unsupported. That is valuable information. Advisers should absolutely encourage language engagement, but in a way that is grounded in possibility, not pressure. —Fabiola Riobé

Some professionals take a firmer stance. “EA professionals should not acquiesce when students tell us they don’t need to study language,” says Lenhart. “We should push students to take on this challenge.”

But “push” does not have to mean prescribe. Alumni voices, flexible program models, and transparent framing of both challenges and benefits can help students make informed choices.

“I do not approach [student opposition to language learning] as resistance. I approach it as a signal,” says Riobé. “Students are telling us where they feel unprepared or unsupported. That is valuable information. Advisers should absolutely encourage language engagement, but in a way that is grounded in possibility, not pressure. When students understand that language is a tool for connection rather than a measure of intelligence, they begin to see it differently.”

The role of the adviser, then, is less about pushing a certain course of action for students and more about expanding what they believe is possible.

The Middle Path

Increasingly, programs are moving toward hybrid models that balance access and immersion.

In CET’s Jordan program, students can choose between full and limited language pledges or vary the intensity of their language coursework and how it balances with their other academic interests. Notably, many still opt for the more intensive option when given the choice.

“In both cases, students are committing to speaking only Arabic, but the limited pledge offers students some flexibility and clearly identified breaks,” shares O'Donoghue. “That says an overwhelming majority of students choose the full pledge. We offer content coursework in Arabic and English, encouraging students to challenge themselves and choose Arabic, [while] giving them options and flexibility.”

This suggests that flexibility does not dilute engagement but rather, enhances it. “We need to move from a compliance mindset to a design mindset,” suggests Riobé. “Language should not be treated as a prerequisite that filters students out. It should be integrated as part of the developmental experience.”

She cautions, “English-medium programs have expanded access and increased participation. However, they can also create environments where students remain in English-speaking bubbles.”

This concern again points to the need for intentional design.

The Takeaway

Language learning can be a gateway to deeper cultural understanding, a source of anxiety, a tool for connection, or all three at once. Removing language requirements can expand access; embedding them can deepen impact. The most effective programs are not choosing one approach over the other. They are designing with both perspectives in mind.

Perhaps that café scene is the right place to end: a student, menu in hand, deciding whether to point, translate, or venture speaking in the local language. In that moment, the question isn’t whether the language component belongs in study abroad. It’s how intentionally language learning is integrated into the student experience and to what extent students are willing to be challenged. •