Study Abroad in a New Global Century

Study Abroad in a New Global Century: Renewing the Promise, Refining the Purpose

Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction or translation of any part of this work beyond that permitted by Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act without permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to the Permissions Department, c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River St., Hoboken, NJ 07030; (201) 748-8789, fax (201) 748-6326, www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The ASHE Higher Education Report is part of the Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published six times a year by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, at Jossey-Bass, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, California 94104-4594.

Individual subscription rate (in USD): $174 per year US/Can/Mex, $210 rest of world; institutional subscription rate: $307 US, $367 Can/Mex, $418 rest of world. Single copy rate: $29. Electronic only–all regions: $174 individual, $307 institutional; Print & Electronic–US: $192 individual, $353 institutional; Print & Electronic–Canada/Mexico: $192 individual, $413 institutional; Print & Electronic– Rest of World: $228 individual, $464 institutional.

CALL FOR PROPOSALS: Prospective authors are strongly encouraged to contact Kelly Ward (kaward@wsu.edu) or Lisa Wolf-Wendel (lwolf@ku.edu). See “About the ASHE Higher Education Report Series” in the back of this volume.

The ASHE Higher Education Report is indexed in CIJE: Current Index to Journals in Education (ERIC), Education Index/Abstracts (H.W. Wilson), ERIC Database (Education Resources Information Center), Higher Education Abstracts (Claremont Graduate University), IBR & IBZ: International Bibliographies of Periodical Literature (K.G. Saur), and Resources in Education (ERIC).

The ASHE Higher Education Report Series is sponsored by the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), which provides an editorial advisory board of ASHE members.

Ben Baez

Florida International University

Amy Bergerson

University of Utah

Edna Chun

University of North Carolina Greensboro

Susan K. Gardner

University of Maine

MaryBeth Gasman

University of Pennsylvania

Karri Holley

University of Alabama

Adrianna Kezar

University of Southern California

Kevin Kinser

SUNY – Albany

Dina Maramba

Binghamton University

Robert Palmer

Binghamton University

Barbara Tobolowsky

University of Texas at Arlington

Susan Twombly

University of Kansas

Marybeth Walpole

Rowan University

Rachelle Winkle-Wagner

University of Nebraska – Lincoln

In the context of an increasingly global society, study abroad has taken on an especially important role for colleges and universities. The education, government, and business communities are united in the call for college graduates to be competent to function in a global economy. Although a very small number of American college students have traveled abroad for educational purposes, study abroad has taken on added importance in the twenty-first century as the main way to accomplish this goal through its potential to develop a variety of intercultural competencies. Parents and students expect study abroad options, and institutions gladly offer them. Although the ambitious goal of the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, a congressionally established commission, to send one million students abroad annually is far from being met, the number of students studying abroad has increased steadily, reaching a high of nearly 271,000 in 2010–2011.

The push for study abroad is premised on the notion that study abroad is uniquely positioned to develop the kinds of intercultural skills needed to compete in a global economy. The expectations are high for both participation rates and outcomes. Despite the overwhelmingly positive view Americans have of the potential of study abroad, there are nagging concerns: the study abroad population remains relatively homogeneous and outcomes may have more to do with who participates than program activities. There are also critics who suggest that study abroad providers are merely promoting a twenty-first-century form of American imperialism and who even question what study abroad means in an increasingly homogeneous, flat world.

In light of these intersecting forces that position study abroad as a crucial educational tool, albeit one that is not easily available to all students, this monograph sets out to review the increasingly vast literature on study abroad. Two fundamental questions are at the center of our review: (1) who studies abroad (or who does not) and why? and (2) what are the outcomes of studying abroad? Stated differently, we seek to determine whether the outcomes of study abroad are sufficiently positive to warrant the significant investment it would take to reach the Lincoln Commission’s ambitious participation goal. Our review is framed by the notion that study abroad outcomes are influenced by participant characteristics, program characteristics, and student experiences in the host culture. In order to contextualize the research addressing our two central questions, we place study abroad in historical context as well as consider critiques of it. Importantly, we include a critique of the research methods used to study the impact of study abroad.

History and Purposes

The U.S. approach to study abroad emerged between the two world wars as an extension of the European Grand Tour especially adapted for women. In its early years, the Junior Year Abroad and faculty-led study tours were the dominant form of study abroad. Over the course of the twentieth century and especially following World War II, aided by a national organizational infrastructure such as the Institute of International Education, study abroad began to expand in all ways: the number of institutions providing study abroad, the types of programs, and the number of students participating. This expansion has been aided in the post-9/11 era by national attention to the importance of study abroad in the form of blue ribbon reports and initiatives on the part of the federal government and organizations such as the American Council on Colleges and Universities and the Forum on Education Abroad. Throughout its history, the purposes of study abroad and types of programs have adapted to national objectives and to a variety of forces affecting higher education generally and institutions specifically.

Types of Programs and Providers

Identifying types of study abroad programs, once a simple task, has become a complicated affair. Most organizations categorize study abroad programs by a primary single defining characteristic, such as length, location, or who directs the program. These simple descriptors may no longer accurately capture the complexity of an individual program or its outcomes. As a result, new schemes have been proposed that allow providers and researchers to map program characteristics onto levels of immersion or some other way of differentiating program expectations. The resulting mapping has the potential to better capture the complex expectations of study abroad and to differentiate outcomes between, for example, a junior abroad immersion experience and a short-term study abroad experience. Providers of study abroad programs continue to include higher education institutions as well as third-party providers.

Who Studies Abroad and Who Does Not

Despite all of the attention study abroad has received, it remains an activity in which a tiny percentage of U.S. undergraduate students participate. Moreover, although there have been some slight changes in percentages of men, students of color, and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) majors participating in study abroad, study abroad participation remains the domain of women, white students, and humanities and social science majors. The one notable departure from this pattern is an increase in participation among business majors. Reasons for these participation patterns are complex and vary by gender and race/ethnicity and major. Cost, or perceived cost, is a universal and expected obstacle. A more surprising deterrent for male students involves peer interactions.

Outcomes

Numerous studies link study abroad participation to a wide range of positive outcomes, including intercultural competence, global perspectives, personal growth and identity, academic interest, graduate degrees, and career success. Recent studies also show that study abroad participation does not deter graduation or delay graduating on time and may actually improve rates of both. Research on study abroad outcomes must be understood in light of methodological weaknesses, such as small, single institution studies and inability to control for all of the variables one needs to control for in order to isolate the unique contribution of study abroad apart from individual student characteristics, and to understand how the different types of study abroad experiences affect outcomes.

Critical Perspectives

Counteracting the positive vision of study abroad, critics raise important questions about the purpose, the homogeneity of study abroad participants, and the experience of study abroad. Those who question the purpose of study abroad challenge its role as an instrument of American imperialism and commercialism, suggesting that the objective of creating “global citizens” is an imperialistic act of the United States. Others challenge the very meaning of study abroad in a globalized world. Qualitative researchers who have studied the experience raise important questions about the experience itself and provide implications for understanding the outcomes of study abroad.

Conclusions, Final Thoughts, and Recommendations

Policymakers and educators have high hopes and expectations for study abroad. And, while much of the research suggests positive outcomes, this review suggests that the outcomes may not be as overwhelmingly positive as educators wish to believe or as warranted by the substantial investment of time and resources required by institutions and individuals. In order to meet the educational challenges of the twenty-first century, study abroad must shift from a focus on perpetually increased participation to purposefully designed educational impact. This can be done by explicitly designing and delivering each study abroad program around clearly identified educational outcomes; by not assuming that any and all study abroad experiences improve intercultural competence; by aligning study abroad outcomes with an appropriate developmental model of learning; by reconceptualizing study abroad as part of an integrated educational experience; by reframing how institutions assess the impact of study abroad; by asking whether study abroad, as currently defined, is the best means of accomplishing specific learning outcomes; and finally, by changing the metric by which study abroad participation is judged from how many to which students.

There are few formal college activities that are seen by almost everyone—including the broader public—as being uniformly positive. Study abroad is one such activity. Positive outcomes seemingly abound from participating in study abroad—it improves retention, it improves academic performance, it helps students learn language and culture, it deepens students’ openness to diversity, it broadens students’ horizons, it helps them develop into adulthood, it even might be a key to attaining world peace. Study abroad is included by many on the short list of activities that all but ensure college success (along with service learning, learning communities, internships, and undergraduate research). Indeed, I can think of few other college activities that are so uniformly positively regarded as is study abroad. The audience who thinks positively about study abroad is also vast—the U.S. government, foreign governments, businesses, students, faculty, administrators, and even the general public tout the positive outcomes of study abroad. But, questions remain unanswered about study abroad. It is the ultimate black box—a student participates and somehow positive outcomes are accrued. How does this happen? What is it about study abroad that leads to such outcomes? How much time does one need to spend abroad to benefit? Does it take a week, a month, a full term, or a full academic year? Does spending more time lead to more benefits? Are there certain aspects of a study abroad program that lead to more positive outcomes—for instance, is it better to live in a residence hall or with a family, to immerse oneself in the culture, or hang out with other American students? Is coursework necessary—if yes, what kind? Is it better to take courses at the university in the foreign country or can a class taught with U.S. faculty on foreign soil suffice? Based on the research conducted to date, it appears that we do not really know the answers to these questions. The present monograph, however, does help to lay out answers to some of these questions and to highlight what we still don’t yet know about this popular college program.

Susan Twombly, Mark Salisbury, Shannon Tumanut, and Paul Klute, in this monograph on study abroad titled “Study Abroad in a New Global Century: Renewing the Promise, Refining the Purpose,” have brought a much needed critical lens to this important topic. As noted by the authors, methodological problems abound with researching study abroad. It is difficult to determine who one should compare participants with—what kind of appropriate control group is there when it comes to study abroad? Further, since every study abroad program has different components, it is difficult to find studies that look at more than one program at a time. Among the helpful components of this monograph include a mapping of types of study abroad and a discussion of who provides and organizes the activities. The monograph also explores who does and does not study abroad. As noted by the authors, study abroad programs and their positive outcomes are largely influenced by the high quality though homogenous nature of students who participate—trying to make study abroad more accessible to a wider array of students has thus far been relatively ineffective due to issues such as cost, time, and other resources. Further, although the authors clearly are positive about study abroad and its benefits, they are among the first to offer a critical perspective of these programs. These critical perspectives are largely absent from the mainstream literature that looks at study abroad in a higher education context.

This monograph, like others in the series, is written for a host of audiences. It will be of interest to those who work in study abroad programs, those who fund such programs on college campuses, as well as to those who study their outcomes. It will be useful to both scholars and practitioners. It is written to appeal to a broad audience—simplifying the landscape of research on study abroad and complicating it at the same time. While there are no other ASHE Higher Education Reports on this same topic, there are some that might be of relevant interest to those who read this monograph. These include the recent monograph on Engaged Diversity in the Classroom by Amy Lee and her colleagues, Reinventing Undergraduate Education by Shouping Hu and colleagues, and Piecing Together the Study Success Puzzle by George Kuh and his colleagues.

DURING THE PAST DECADE the entire U.S. higher education enterprise, from community colleges to umbrella associations such as the American Association of Colleges and Universities, as well as the federal government and the business community, have promoted and encouraged study abroad as a means for colleges and universities to graduate students who are interculturally competent. Such competence is vital, these stakeholders argue, for all manner of future success—be it personal or professional, individual or societal. The literature of a wide range of higher education institutions, as well as those of higher education associations such as the American Council on Education (ACE), is replete with terms such as global society, international awareness, and interconnected world (Lewin, 2009). Colleges and universities have responded by internationalizing their programs. One has only to peruse institutional websites to conclude that regardless of institutional size or mission, the international dimension is front and center.

Although this commitment to academic internationalization varies from college to college, study abroad consistently appears as a primary means of developing global and intercultural competence among American students. By 2006 over 90 percent of all colleges and universities offered study abroad (Hoffa and DePaul, 2010). Moreover, each college offers many programs of different types and in many different countries. The University of Kansas claims, “Over 100 programs of international study and cooperative research are available for KU students and faculty at sites throughout the world” (University of Kansas, n.d.). Mount Holyoke encourages “language immersion, field studies, or traditional classroom based programs in more than 50 countries” (Mount Holyoke College, n.d.).

A segment of American undergraduate college students has always spent some portion of their college years studying in a foreign country to learn languages and gain cultural refinement, to experience adventure and learn about oneself, and to develop intercultural competence (Bowman, 1987; Hoffa, 2007). Graduate students have gone abroad to acquire professional education or in the nineteenth century to earn a PhD (Lucas, 2006). Aspects of each of these individual motivations for studying abroad have remained constant even as the rationales for study abroad have shifted in concert with the changing landscape of American higher education and international dynamics. At various times the rationales have emphasized study abroad as a means to promote peace through understanding or to promote democracy and counteract Communism. Today the rationale for colleges to encourage study abroad and for students to take part is frequently cast in economic terms. In the “flat world” Thomas Friedman describes, individuals must be globally competent not to prevent war but to compete economically (Friedman, 2005). Such competence is portrayed as essential, not an option (Fischer, 2007). From the institutional point of view, reasons for offering study abroad have also shifted over time from providing students with a sort of culturally elite “finishing school” to demonstrating to an increasingly savvy public the degree to which an institution is proactively preparing its students for a globally interconnected future (Bolen, 2001).

Calls for increasing global awareness and global competency through study abroad have come from far and wide: former president Clinton, scholars such as Martha Nussbaum and former Harvard president Derek Bok, and nearly every higher education association. In the past decade, the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), and the American Council on Education (ACE) have all engaged in major projects to promote an increase in global awareness, including study abroad options. The federal government, long a promoter of international exchange including study abroad, also sees renewed value in having a globally competent citizenry to ensure that the United States remains a vital and stable society. In its final report, the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program (2005), a congressionally appointed commission, argued that there is a national need to “[c]reate a more globally informed American citizenry; increase participation in quality study abroad programs; encourage diversity in student participation in study abroad; diversify locations of study abroad, particularly in developing countries; create an innovative partnership with higher education to open more doors for study abroad, and internationalize U.S. higher education by making study abroad a cornerstone of undergraduate education” (NAFSA, 2009a).

Accordingly, the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Act was introduced to Congress. The Act proposed making available considerable resources for students to study abroad, specifically students from community colleges and minority-serving institutions (NAFSA, 2009b). The Lincoln Commission and Senator Paul Act (H.R. 1469/S. 991, 2007; S. 473, 2009), although not funded, both provided important rhetorical statements about the critical importance of the study abroad experience, albeit one best paid for by the students themselves rather than the federal government. Perhaps most important, they set new and ambitious goals for the number of students that should study abroad.

Colleges and universities as well as students and their parents seem to have responded to the message advocating the importance of study abroad. The number of U.S. students participating continues to increase at a steady clip regardless of fluctuations in the economy, reaching a record 270,604 students in 2009–2010 (Institute of International Education [IIE], 2011). This represents a 44 percent increase since 2000–2001 and a 72 percent increase since 1989–1990 (IIE, 2011). In addition, the number of institutions offering study abroad has increased. By 2006 over 90 percent of all colleges and universities offered study abroad (Hoffa and DePaul, 2010). In recent years even U.S. community colleges have begun study abroad programs (Hoffa, 2007). Since 2003/2004, community colleges have been sending students abroad at the rate of about 6,000 students per year (IIE, n.d.e). Not surprisingly, the array of available programs has also increased substantially as students seek out more exotic locations in which to study. In 1998–1999, the majority of students studied in Europe—England in particular. Although European countries still remain some of the most popular study abroad destinations, the countries seeing the greatest increases as destination sights in 2009–2010 were India and Israel (IIE, 2011).

Moreover, as study abroad has come to occupy a more central role in undergraduate education in the twenty-first century, institutions have increasingly highlighted their efforts to promote study abroad, touting the percentage of students studying abroad as an important indicator of institutional global engagement. IIE now provides rankings of the “top colleges” for study abroad (IIE, n.d.a). This, in turn, has surely contributed to the broader perception—if not outright reality—that study abroad has emerged as a core academic offering with substantial benefits for the individuals who participate, the institutions that successfully foster that participation, and the global economic positioning of the United States.

A reading of the research literature suggests that the investment in study abroad is a good one. Research suggests that study abroad has significant beneficial outcomes for students. Students who have studied abroad become more globally aware (in addition to many other positive outcomes) after a study abroad experience (Clarke, Flaherty, Wright, and McMillen, 2009; Dessoff, 2006; Dolby, 2004, 2007; Fuller, 2007; Hadis, 2005; Jessup-Anger, 2008; Kitsantas and Meyers, 2001; Kitsantas, 2004; Olson and Kroeger, 2001; Younes and Asay, 2003). In most cases, studying abroad has a positive impact on academic performance post-sojourn as students become more interested in academics (Malmgren and Galvin, 2008). However, there is a literature that raises questions about the commercialization of study abroad and its effects on the purposes and outcomes of study abroad programs (Bolen, 2001; Engle and Engle, 2002; Zemach-Bersin, 2007), the outcomes of study abroad (Citron, 2002; Salisbury, 2011; Talburt and Stewart, 1999; Twombly, 1995; Wilkinson, 1998a, 1998b, 2000), and the very meaning of study abroad in a post-nation state, more globalized and interconnected world (Engle and Engle, 2002; Hoffa, 2002). Certainly, while the number of study abroad participants has increased, the goals of the Lincoln Commission and the Paul Simon Act are far from reach.

Monograph Purpose

In light of these intersecting forces positioning study abroad as a crucial educational tool for achieving ambitious outcomes, this review seeks to answer two central questions: (1) who studies abroad (or who does not) and why? and (2) what are the outcomes of studying abroad? Stated somewhat differently, are the outcomes of study abroad sufficiently positive to warrant the significant investment it would take to reach the Lincoln Commission’s ambitious participation goal? That is, does the research provide information that will help to improve participation, and does participation lead to the globally competent citizens that the Lincoln Commission’s recommendations assume?

Participation in study abroad and outcomes of study abroad must be considered in context. Consequently, who participates and the expected outcomes are framed by the reality that, in addition to being influenced by participant characteristics, study abroad outcomes are influenced in no small way by program characteristics and student experiences in the host culture. Participation and program types and characteristics are in turn shaped by the history and purposes of study abroad. To this end, the monograph also addresses the question of how the history of study abroad has shaped the purposes of study abroad and program types. Because the literature on study abroad is so overwhelmingly positive in its tone, sometimes in the face of modest results, we also look to the critiques of study abroad research as well as to the critiques of purpose and experience to examine how insights from these voices might inform the promise of preparing globally competent citizens.

The concluding chapter of this monograph addresses three questions based on findings from the review:

1. Does study abroad meet the lofty goals of preparing interculturally competent citizens?

2. Can it reasonably be expected to do so?

3. How might study abroad be organized differently to achieve these goals?

Conceptual Framework

1. Stephenson’s “thematic triad: sojourner,1 host culture and program” (2002, p. 89) provides a framework for thinking about the factors that impact study abroad outcomes.

2. Rodman and Merrill’s (2010) conceptualization of study abroad design resulting from three levels of influence on study abroad programs—the macro (societal), mezzo (higher education), and micro (institutional/program)—focuses on factors that influence program design.

3. Paulsen and St. John’s (2002) student choice construct helps us understand who plans to study abroad.

In attempting to understand and explain why some study abroad students achieve “cross-cultural deepening” while others do not, Stephenson (2002) identifies three sets of factors “that serve to influence the process and outcome of the cross-cultural experience for study abroad students” (p. 90). The areas or sets of factors are: individual characteristics, characteristics of and opportunities to interact with the host culture, and characteristics of the study abroad program and its staff (pp. 90–93). Within each area, Stephenson posits a series of characteristics along continuums of having more or less impact on cross-cultural deepening. For example, among individual factors, she lists “less language skill vs. more language skill” (p. 91). In the area of host culture characteristics, she includes such things as “less exposure to events that promote cultural questioning vs. more exposure to events that promote cultural questioning [questioning one’s own as well as the host culture]” (pp. 91–92). For program characteristics and personnel, she posits such factors as “shorter program vs. longer program,” and “living arrangements with other foreigners vs. living arrangements with host nationals” (p. 93). The specific variables in each area are less important for us than the notion that outcomes of study abroad are affected by the “synergistic relationship within the thematic triad” (p. 93). Similar to the more familiar (e.g., Astin, 1977) Input-Environment-Output model, Stephenson’s “thematic triad” asserts that the educational outcomes of study abroad, which for Stephenson are subsumed under the concept of cross-cultural deepening, are influenced by the intersection of individual characteristics with the environment.

Rodman and Merrill’s (2010) contribution is to provide a framework for understanding how the program design component of Stephenson’s (2002) thematic triad comes to be. For Rodman and Merrill, macro-level influences include broad social, economic, and political influences. Mezzo influences include those pressures and factors affecting higher education more specifically. Examples include increasing tuition, changing demographics, and the accountability movement. Micro-level influences are those peculiar to an individual institution, its students, and its faculty and particularly to the vision and energy of individual leaders at that institution. Rodman and Merrill argue that program design is a product of how the factors at these three levels interact at a particular time and place. In much the same way that Pascarella (1985) uncovered the way that specific differences in institutional type, mission, environment, and context shaped student experiences, Rodman and Merrill (2010) highlight the notion that the type of study abroad program matters. Furthermore, the types of study abroad programs are a function of societal, higher education, and institutional forces.

Finally, Paulsen and St. John’s (2002) student choice model will be employed as a framework to help us think about who studies abroad and who does not. We will elaborate on this model in our chapter on who studies abroad.

Sources

As mentioned earlier, the literature on study abroad is widely dispersed. Multiple contributors have extended the bibliography “Research and Literature on U.S. Students Abroad to 1987” begun by Henry Weaver (1989): (Biscarra, n.d.; Comp, n.d.a; Comp, n.d.b). The Forum on Education Abroad has recently published a comprehensive two-volume history (Hoffa, 2007; Hoffa and DePaul, 2010) that also discusses some contemporary issues. We examined the articles and data contained therein and on the websites of the major professional organizations promoting study abroad, most specifically IIE, the Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE), and more recently the Forum on Education Abroad; academic databases, and journals. The Forum on Education Abroad publishes Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, dedicated to research about study abroad. Our focus is primarily on studies published since 2000, although to establish a baseline we will examine some research published prior to that date. Grounded in this extensive literature foundation, we focus on the works that are most relevant and meaningful to the topics considered with an attempt to inform the readers with rich and insightful information concerning research and practice on study abroad in the United States.

The literature on study abroad poses an interesting challenge. The master narrative running through public discussion (and much research) of study abroad is one of heroic motives (international understanding, global citizenry) and glowingly beneficial outcomes for students, institutions, and participating countries. Much of the literature on some topics, for example, histories of study abroad, is written or commissioned by past leaders of the major organizations promoting study abroad such as IIE and CIEE, by leaders of professional associations such as the Forum on Education Abroad, or institutional study abroad directors. These histories often do not critique the larger national interests served by study abroad and some if its sponsors, such as IIE and CIEE. As we discuss later, many of the studies of outcomes suffer from significant methodological weaknesses.

Audience

This monograph primarily targets faculty and administrators interested in better understanding study abroad and its outcomes. Researchers interested in conducting further qualitative or quantitative research on the topic may find this monograph useful as well. This includes scholars, program administrators, students, and policymakers who have an interest in shaping the future of study abroad in the United States. While this monograph is targeted to study abroad program administrators, it may also be of interest to researchers of general education and cocurricular programs that support the general education experience.