Ski – resort and regional development: profile of visitors ... - E-Journal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Language travel or language tourism: have educational trips changed so much? Travel agency Ticketing General information Schedule planning Local / international guides Housing & Food Destination services Short trasportation / Passes Schools: Teachers, books Intercultural activities: Family meetings, parties, shopping Free time: sports, coffee meetings, local cultural visits Excursions Travel services related to language trips Diagram 1: Travel services in Language trips Receptive Services Quality in families / residences Half / full day trips Quality in language schools Entertainment, additional activities Customer demands L2 Learning (as expected) Unforgettable experience Fun & Entertainment Feeling of good investment Good overall product Creating contacts The diagram above clarifies only a very small part of the total process carried by the organization of language travel. However, it shows very clearly that while the main reason for the trip, which is the language course, has decreased its importance; many other services are now considered fundamental when only 20 years ago the companies’ interest in them was very limited. In spite of all these changes any reader interested in the topic of language travel will still find two main types of language travel organizations: language tourism organizations (i.e. EF) and summer School organizations (although some of them are operative all year round) (i.e. Hilderston College, Kent). At this point it would be desirable to mention what makes the difference between one and the others. Language tourism organizations pose their interest in the enjoyment. In general, classes tend to be an average of 16-18 hours a week (there is usually a break in both types of thirty minutes), have sport and social activities during the week and, most often, a half day excursion (on a weekday) and a full day excursion (Saturday), evening activities run from games for under 18-years-old students to pub meetings or even dance activities for the older students. As opposed, summer Schools usually have an average of 24 class hours a week and their social activities are limited to cultural visits and cinema activities although many also include social events or pub reunions (mainly moved Tourism Today - Fall 2007 - Full Paper 33
34 by the competition withy other programs). Summer Schools also organise day trips but are usually full day and give more freedom to the students. Diagram 2 exemplifies these differences. Overall, although both types tend to include students of all ages, Language tourism is usually aimed at younger kids who go in groups while Summer Schools are mostly devoted to adults who go as individuals. Time or period Language tourism Language Travel in (usually young kids) Language schools (usually adults) 8:30 – 13:00 (30 minutes recess) Classes Lunch Classes 14:30-16:30 Sports, games, half day trips Classes (If students have (all included in the price) Dinner a different optional activity, they usually need to pay extra) 19:00 – 21:00 Evening games, disco Cine Forums, Pub evening Diagram 2: A typical day in a language program according to the type of trip (according to She Spanish Heritage for language trips to the UK and Ireland). The key question is how some language trips have become language tourism. The explanation is probably not as easy as expected. The first reason is that the participants in language tourism companies usually go with groups that have been put together through hiring the trip in a language company and who may feel that want to experience more the local culture or want to enjoy as much as they want to learn the language (sometimes even more). On the other hand, participants in the summer School programs tend to value the language learning as their first goal but, in the end, would like to get the same feeling of relevance (the feeling that their investment is worth) and also enjoyment in their trip. CURRENT ISSUES ASSOCIATED TO LANGUAGE TOURISM In a recent study, Capellino Ciscar (2004) analysed the typical causes of complaints in many language tourism companies. Furthermore, Capellino discovered that most complaints after return were centred in the families. After analyzing a questionnaire that was distributed to 15 companies all over Spain, she found that most problems could be limited to 3 groups: families, local organizations or schools and organizations in the country of origin. According to her findings these problems could be summarized in the following 11 (although some of them could have many different variations). Tourism Today - Fall 2007 - Full Paper
Page 1 and 2: THE JOURNAL OF THE COLLEGE OF TOURI
Page 3 and 4: Editorial Board Board Founder: Anto
Page 5 and 6: 4 Contents Contents Editorial board
Page 7 and 8: 6 Note from the editor Note from th
Page 9 and 10: 8 Carmel Foley and Bruce Hayllar le
Page 11 and 12: 10 Carmel Foley and Bruce Hayllar t
Page 13 and 14: 12 Carmel Foley and Bruce Hayllar p
Page 15 and 16: 14 Carmel Foley and Bruce Hayllar M
Page 17 and 18: 16 Carmel Foley and Bruce Hayllar T
Page 19 and 20: 18 Carmel Foley and Bruce Hayllar M
Page 23 and 24: 22 Carmel Foley and Bruce Hayllar g
Page 25 and 26: 24 Carmel Foley and Bruce Hayllar a
Page 29 and 30: 28 Carmel Foley and Bruce Hayllar
Page 31 and 32: 30 trip; the evolution of intrinsic
Page 33: 32 also varied accordingly, while a
Page 37 and 38: 36 rates! Some tour leaders (or tou
Page 39 and 40: 38 professionals consider these pra
Page 41 and 42: 40 Overall, language tourism can me
Page 43 and 44: 42 • Pearce, P. L. (1995). From c
Page 45 and 46: 44 Filio Lazana, Diana Draganescu,
Page 63 and 64: 62 Jaume Garau-Taberner competitive
Page 65 and 66: 64 Jaume Garau-Taberner 2.1.4 Other
Page 67 and 68: 66 Jaume Garau-Taberner The next st
Page 69 and 70: 68 Jaume Garau-Taberner 4.2 Results
Page 71 and 72: 70 Jaume Garau-Taberner In continua
Page 73 and 74: 72 Jaume Garau-Taberner Figure 5. T
Page 75 and 76: 74 Jaume Garau-Taberner for each of
Page 77 and 78: 76 Jaume Garau-Taberner The results
Page 79 and 80: 78 Jaume Garau-Taberner • Papathe
Page 81 and 82: 80 Onome Daniel Awaritefe 2001; Gar
Page 83 and 84: 82 Onome Daniel Awaritefe were also
Page 85 and 86:
84 Onome Daniel Awaritefe Fig 1: St
Page 87 and 88:
86 Onome Daniel Awaritefe Variable
Page 89 and 90:
88 Onome Daniel Awaritefe RESULT PR
Page 91 and 92:
90 Onome Daniel Awaritefe differed
Page 93 and 94:
92 Onome Daniel Awaritefe character
Page 95 and 96:
94 Onome Daniel Awaritefe The findi
Page 97 and 98:
96 Onome Daniel Awaritefe • Leopo
Page 99 and 100:
98 Onome Daniel Awaritefe Table 3:D
Page 101 and 102:
100 Stanislav Ivanov Dynamic overbo
Page 103 and 104:
102 Stanislav Ivanov Tourism Today
Page 105 and 106:
104 Stanislav Ivanov (11) The total
Page 107 and 108:
106 Stanislav Ivanov If, for exampl
Page 109 and 110:
108 Stanislav Ivanov Tourism Today
Page 111 and 112:
110 Garyfallos Arabatzis, Serafeim
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
126 Yao-Yi Fu, Amanda K. Cecil, Suo
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
150 Ski - resort and regional devel
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
164 Olga Christopoulou, Garyfallos
Page 167 and 168:
166 Olga Christopoulou, Garyfallos
Page 169 and 170:
168 The european journal of tourism
Page 171 and 172:
170 Contributors Amanda K. Cecil De
Page 173 and 174:
172 Contributors Jesús García Lab
Page 175 and 176:
174 Notes For Contributors Notes Fo
Page 177:
176 Notes For Contributors must be
show all

Ski – resort and regional development: profile of visitors ... - E-Journal

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?