University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Cultural intelligence and self-efficacy of trip leaders on short-term international educational programs

(USC Thesis Other)

Cultural intelligence and self-efficacy of trip leaders on short-term international educational programs

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

iv

Cultural Intelligence and Self-Efficacy of Trip Leaders on Short-Term International
Educational Programs
by
Dan Skimin

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Dan Skimin 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Dan Skimin certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Darline Robles
David Cash
Lawrence Picus, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
iv
Abstract
Scholars have studied the benefits and ways to improve educational travel for college-age
students. There is a gap in the literature on benefits and practices to improve educational travel
for high school students. This dissertation reviews the literature on the benefits of this
educational travel and identifies ways to improve the quality of the education provided on short-
term educational travel. The framework for this study stems from educational travel, cultural
intelligence, self-efficacy, and experiential learning. The qualitative study examined the
correlation between the Cultural Intelligence scale, including the factors of CQ (Metacognitive
CQ, Cognitive CQ, Motivational CQ, and Behavioral CQ) with the general self-efficacy (GSE)
scale of the faculty that led the travel experiences. The study's main results showed that there is a
significant positive correlation between a teacher’s cultural intelligence and their self-efficacy.
As previous research has shown the positive correlation between self-efficacy and improved
student learning, this study concludes that one way to improve student learning on trips is to
strengthen the cultural intelligence of the trip leaders.

v
v
Dedication
To Sachiko, thank you for giving me the vast support to take on this project. There is no way I
would have been able to complete this work without your ears, eyes, and heart. I love that you are
as excited as I am to teach our children how to develop cultural intelligence and implement it in
their lives.
To Hiro and Emma, you will never know how much I appreciate the late-night walks and great
conversations. You made for great listeners as I mentally processed the course work and the most
challenging parts of this dissertation. Hiro, you are almost three, and Emma, you are nearly one.
You always seemed to know when papa needed some late-night time to think. During our walks,
we also processed our future plans, Mom and I look forward to making those a reality.

vi
Acknowledgments
I have been lucky to have strong family support during my educational, professional, and
personal journey. This support has provided a level of insurance that allows me to take certain
risks when exploring new opportunities. I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank
them for their support and inspiration. Dad, you always said that education was our job as kids.
This quote has stuck in the back of my mind all these years, and I continue to make it my job.
Mom, you have been an inspiration for how you handled Dad’s passing with grace and
positivity. Ed, Mike, and Nyree, I have great admiration for the success of your business and the
perseverance you have shown to make it happen.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 5
Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................... 7
The Importance of the Study ............................................................................................... 8
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions ..................................................................... 9
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 13
Transformative Learning Theory (TLT) ........................................................................... 13
Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) ................................................................................ 15
Educational Tourism ......................................................................................................... 17
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 32
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 32
Instruments ........................................................................................................................ 33
Descriptive Data ................................................................................................................ 33
Cultural Intelligence Scale ................................................................................................ 34
New General Self-Efficacy Scale ..................................................................................... 35
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 37
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 38

viii
Researcher’s Positionality ................................................................................................. 40
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 42
Demographic Data ............................................................................................................ 42
Analysis of Research Questions ........................................................................................ 44
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusion, and Implications ............................................................... 58
Discussions of Main Findings ........................................................................................... 58
Implication for Practice ..................................................................................................... 60
Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................... 62
Recommendations for Future Study ................................................................................. 64
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 65
References ......................................................................................................................... 66
Appendix A: Participant Survey Message .................................................................................... 80
Appendix B: Participant Survey Message Second Reminder ....................................................... 81
Appendix C: The 20-Item Four Factor Cultural Intelligence Scale .............................................. 82
Cultural Intelligence Scale ................................................................................................ 83
Appendix D: New General Self-Efficacy Scale ............................................................................ 85
New General Self-Efficacy Scale ..................................................................................... 86
Appendix E: Demographic Survey ............................................................................................... 87

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Power Analysis for a One-Way ANOVA: Cultural Intelligence

39
Table 2: Power Analysis for a One-Way ANOVA: Self-Efficacy

40
Table 3: Age Ranges

42
Table 4: Sample Teaching Departments

44
Table 5: Correlations for the Sample

46
Table 6: Measures of Central Tendency by Factor of Cultural Intelligence

53
Table 7: One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Effect of
Factor of Cultural Intelligence on Self-Efficacy

54
Table 8: One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Effect of
Demographic Factors on the Summed Score of Cultural Intelligence

56
Table 9: One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Effect of
Demographic Factors on Self Efficacy

57
Table C1: Cultural Intelligence Scale Questions 83
Table D1: New General Self-Efficacy Scale Questions 86
Table E1: Demographic Survey Questions 87

x
List of Figures
Figure 1:

Conceptual Framework 8
Figure 2:

The Experiential Learning Cycle (Kolb et al. 1999)

16
Figure 3:

CQ, according to Early and Ang’s (2003) and Thomas et al.’s
(2008) conceptualizations

21
Figure 4:

Cultural Intelligence and Experiential Learning for Global
Leadership Development (Ng et al., 2009)

25

Figure 5:

Correlation Matrix of the Continuous Variables 46
Figure 6:

Normal Q-Q Plot of Cognitive Cultural Intelligence 49
Figure 7:

Normal Q-Q Plot of Behavioral Cultural Intelligence 50
Figure 8:

Normal Q-Q Plot of Motivational Cultural Intelligence 50
Figure 9:

Normal Q-Q Plot of Metacognitive Cultural Intelligence 51
Figure 10:

Histograms of the Cognitive Factor of Cultural Intelligence 51
Figure 11:

Histograms of the Behavioral Factor of Cultural Intelligence 52
Figure 12:

Histograms of the Motivational Factor of Cultural Intelligence 52
Figure 13:

Histograms of the Metacognitive Factor of Cultural Intelligence 53
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Simple exchanges can break down walls between us, for when people come together and
speak to one another and share a common experience, then their common humanity is
revealed. We are reminded that we're joined together by our pursuit of a life that's
productive and purposeful, and when that happens, mistrust begins to fade, and our
smaller differences no longer overshadow the things that we share. And that's where
progress begins.
—Barack Obama, Remarks in a Discussion With Students in Istanbul, Turkey
Contact between culturally diverse individuals is as old as recorded history. People
brought up in one culture have always visited other societies to trade with, learn from, or exert
influence in foreign lands. Most societies have experienced visitors from abroad, welcoming
them if their motives were seen as benevolent, or resisting the newcomers if they come to invade,
village, or exploit. The journals of Xenophon, Marco Polo, Columbus, Drake, Captain Cook,
Burton, and Lafcadio Hearn provide excellent accounts of what we nowadays call intercultural
contact (Ward et al., 2001). The experience of traveling to far-off lands searching for new
knowledge and experiences continues to this day and takes several different forms. Family
vacations, language immersion programs, and gap years are just some of the many ways
individuals travel these days, seeking new knowledge and experiences.
Many scholars have studied the positive impacts of travel on individuals. Chickering and
Braskamp (2009) asserted that traveling overseas led to individuals becoming more responsible.
Engberg (2013) concluded that traveling helped develop a more holistic purpose in life and
increased empathy toward those in diverse circumstances. Smith and Jenner (1997) noted that
traveling broadens personal horizons, and therefore all tourism should be considered educational.
2

Stone and Petrick (2013) stated that no other human experience had the potential to completely
change one’s personal perspectives like travel.
The benefits of travel were not lost on students. Educational travel is based on the idea
that students learn through experiences in ways they otherwise would not learn (Dewey, 1938;
Kolb, 1984). Student travel has many forms, including backpacking, study abroad, holiday, and
participation in cultural and sporting events (Pabel & Brideaux, 2013). Increasingly, students see
travel experiences as essential elements in preparation for working and living in a new global
socio-economic and political reality (Niser, 2010). Educational tourism has been shown to have
many positive effects on travelers. Tarrant and Lyons (2012) found that educational travel leads
to enhanced life-skill development. Additionally, several positive learning outcomes of youth
travel have been identified, including increased interpersonal skills, greater social and cultural
awareness, higher levels of self-confidence, and refined problem-solving and thinking skills
(Pearce & Foster, 2007; Richards & Wilson, 2003).
As students recognized the importance of international travel for their development,
many educational institutions have added international educational tourism (IET) opportunities
in their curricula to be competitive (Kenway & Fahey, 2014). These educational travel
opportunities took the form of study abroad programs, semester abroad, and the focus of this
study, short-term faculty lead educational tourism. The World Tourism Organization (2016)
estimated the youth travel market accounts for 23% of international travelers and represents a
market worth USD 286 billion. It has been estimated that 20% of all international travelers are
students (Llwewllyn-Smith & McCabe, 2008). With the size of the market and the importance of
educational travel, there has been a lot of research on study abroad programs focused on
3

university students. However, very little research on the travel of high school students has been
produced (Green, 2019).
In their book, Managing Educational Tourism, Ritchie et al. (2003) combined the
concepts of education and tourism to define educational tourism as tourist activity undertaken by
those who are undertaking an overnight vacation and those who are undertaking an excursion for
whom education and learning is a primary or secondary part of their trip. Tourist activities can
include general educational tourism and adult study tours, international and domestic university
and school students’ travel, including language schools, school excursions, and exchange
programs. Educational tourism can be independently or formally organized and can be
undertaken in various national or human-made settings (Ritchie et al., 2003, p. 18)
Also, in this book, Ritchie et al. (2003) put forth a conceptualization of educational tourism
broken into two segments: tourism first and travel first. One segment, “tourism first,” defines
travelers as those whose primary motivation is travel and purposeful learning is secondary. The
“tourism first” segment includes trips for adults or seniors, ecotourism, and cultural tourism. In
contrast to the “travel first” segment, Ritchie (2003) included language schools, school
excursions, and exchange programs as an “educational first” segment. In the “education first”
segment of the educational travel market, tourist experiences are secondary to the educational
aspects of the travel intentions.
Pitman et al. (2010) put forth an alternative conceptualization of educational tourism after
surveying over 850 educational tourists, tour operators, and sponsors of educational tours in
Australia. They found that educational tourism involves a conscious and explicit learning
experience. Pitman et al. (2010) also identified three key ideas about defining educational tourist
trips. First, the journeys are intentionally taken to broaden horizons or enhance knowledge.
4

Second, the trips focus on experiential learning. Third, the trip is designed to combine travel and
structured educational activities.
Both Ritchie’s (2003) and Putman et al.’s (2010) conceptualizations help define the
educational travel experiences under study in this dissertation. This study is focused on
“education first” travel experiences, referring to trips taken to broaden horizons and enhance
knowledge. The trips are focused on experiential learning and designed with a combination of
travel and structured educational experiences. The focus of this study is short-term faculty-led
educational travel programs of 7–10 days sponsored by an international school for students aged
14 to 18.
Statement of the Problem
Scholars have written extensively about the educational benefits of travel in study abroad
programs, gap year programs, and educational travel for university students and adults (Chieffo,
2007; Dwyer, 2004; Paige et al., 2009). There is limited research on educational travel for high
school students aged 14 to 18 (Green, 2019). Along with a lack of research, there is evidence that
teacher preparation programs are not equipping educators with the tools to lead and teach in a
global context. According to the Longview Foundation (2008), “most teachers begin their careers
with little more than a superficial knowledge of the world” (p. 6). Scholars believe teacher
training and professional development are not preparing teachers for a global society (O’Conner
& Zeichner, 2011). Poole and Russell (2015) found that “preservice teachers in all certification
fields reported relatively low rates of participation in global context courses and co-curricular
cross-cultural and study abroad experience” (p. 51). It has also been observed that in the United
States, when global education is taught, it is often from a lens of American exceptionalism,
promoting an “American versus the rest of the world” perspective (Hong & Halvorsen, 2010).
5

The focus of teacher professional development and pre-service training is to improve the
teacher’s content knowledge, which leaves teachers ill-prepared to guide students on intercultural
topics or experiences.
One of the many goals for educational travel is for students to have transformative
experiences that help students develop a global perspective and openness to different cultures.
This study looks to experiential learning theory to give the context of the importance of
educational travel. The start of the experiential learning process is a concrete experience that the
learner has. Transformative learning theory is used in this study to provide background into the
concrete experiences the learner faces. The literature review focuses on using these learning
theories to highlight the role that teachers leading the trips play in creating the experiences and
helping students reflect, conceptualize, and use experimentation to develop new learning. This
study looks at ways to improve the educators leading the trips so that they themselves can create,
identify, and define the intercultural exchanges that can lead to concrete learning experiences. It
is hypothesized that teachers with higher cultural intelligence will have a higher self-efficacy.
Research has shown that higher teacher self-efficacy leads to greater learning for students.
Therefore, if higher cultural intelligence leads to higher teacher self-efficacy, improving teachers'
cultural intelligence can enhance students’ learning.
Purpose of the Study
The focus of this study is to determine if improving teacher cultural intelligence will have
a knock-on improvement in student learning on short-term faculty-led educational travel. The
problem many schools face when running overseas educational programs is that the teachers are
often tasked with leading the programs. The teachers at most schools are hired solely for their
ability in the classroom. They are expected to be content experts in the subject they teach. They
6

generally have little preparation for the specific work of leading an intercultural experience. This
study aims to see if the teachers with higher levels of cultural intelligence who lead these trips
also have higher self-efficacy in their abilities to educate students during the travel experience.
The study looks at the history, benefits and harms, and importance of short-term faculty-led
educational travel experiences and how the faculty leaders’ knowledge and cultural intelligence
(CQ) affect outcomes for the students.
Schools allocate financial resources and accept certain levels of health and safety risks.
The trade-off of the costs and risks is providing unique and, hopefully, meaningful educational
experiences. One area that schools can look to improve these programs is by improving the
abilities of faculty to lead the educational travel experiences. If a correlation between a faculty
member's cultural intelligence and self-efficacy exists, we can allocate resources to improving
cultural intelligence and, therefore, self-efficacy and potentially the educational value students
receive from the travel experience.
This study answers the following research questions:
1. Is there a relationship between a trip leader's cultural intelligence and their self-
efficacy?
2. Is there a relationship between any of the four factors of cultural intelligence;
metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral, and self-efficacy?
3. Is there a relationship between cultural intelligence and the demographics (age,
gender identification, department teaching, and experience) of the teachers leading
the educational travel program?
7

4. Is there a relationship between self-efficacy and the demographics (age, gender
identification, department teaching, and experience) of the teachers leading the
educational travel program?
Conceptual Framework
Transformational learning is the process where a novel or disorienting experience begins
a revaluation of thinking. Kolb (1984) defined experiential learning as the process where
knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Educational travel is one way of
providing experiential learning opportunities and, therefore, the novel experience that can lead to
transformational learning. One of the key components of educational travel is the quality of the
educators leading the programs. It is hypothesized in this study that if the leaders of educational
travel programs have a higher cultural intelligence, they will have higher self-efficacy, and this
can lead to improved student learning.

8

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

The Importance of the Study
Teacher self-efficacy has shown to have positive effects on student learning (Armor et
al., 1976). Knowing the positive impact of teacher self-efficacy on student learning, my study
will investigate the relationship between teachers' cultural intelligence and their self-efficacy.
Suppose a teacher leading a short-term overseas educational trip has high cultural intelligence.
Do they also have higher self-efficacy beliefs in their ability to lead a meaningful educational
experience for the students? Suppose this is found to be the case. In that case, school
9

administrators can allocate resources to improve the cultural intelligence of the teachers, as this
will have a positive impact on student learning on educational trips.
Scholars have published widely on the impact of study abroad, gap year, and semester
overseas programs (Coryell, 2011; Richards & Wilson, 2003; Scarinci & Pearce, 2011). These
studies add to the body of knowledge on the benefits of travel for post-secondary students. There
is a gap in the literature on travel for secondary students. Green (2019) has added a study on
teacher perception of the outcomes of international travel. Olsen (2016) investigated the impact
of educational travel on minority middle school students from low-income neighborhoods. While
these studies are focused on school-aged children, they do not address this study’s question on
improving the quality of the teachers leading educational travel.
For some schools, the cost of international educational travel is up to 10% of the school
fees. School communities feel so strongly about the educational benefits of educational travel
they will shut down classes for a week and send the entire school overseas. Lots of work is put
into finding the best educational tour operations to help plan the logistics and educational
activities. However, very few resources are allocated to improving the quality of the teachers that
are leading these trips. Teachers leading educational travel in secondary schools is an
understudied area in scholarship. Therefore, this study aims to identify ways to improve the
quality of the teachers and hopefully have a knock-on effect on student learning.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
This research study was subject to the following limitations. First, this study was started
as the extent to which the global travel shutdown caused by COVID-19 was beginning. This
means that the participants in the survey will not have led any short-term educational travel for
around 18 months. This length of absence from an experience may impact the participants'
10

reflections. Second, the survey participants are limited to teachers from a specific international
school. Third, perceptions of the trip leaders' self-efficacy may be influenced by other variables
than cultural intelligence. Fourth, the survey participants all live and work overseas, which may
impact their beliefs in interacting cross-culturally.
This research study is based on the following research assumptions. First, it is assumed
that the sponsors leading overseas trips will honestly complete the survey and accurately assess
their cultural intelligence and self-efficacy. Second, it is assumed that the instruments that
measure cultural intelligence and self-efficacy will combine to provide insights into improving
students’ educational travel experience. Third, it is assumed that the teachers completing the self-
efficacy survey will reflect on their experiences leading short-term educational travel programs.
Forth, due to the lack of research on high school travel, the researcher has looked to the
scholarship from study abroad programs in colleges for the literature review.
The research study is very contextualized to measure a specific group of participants at a
specific educational institution. Due to the specific context of the school, the generalizability to
other schools with different types of experiential learning programs is limited. The study results
provide administrators running educational travel programs with valuable information on ways
to improve students' learning experience.
Definitions
• Behavioral CQ refers to
an individual’s capability to exhibit verbal and nonverbal behavior when
interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds. Behavioral CQ is
based on having and using a broad repertoire or range of behaviors. Behavioral
11

CQ is a critical component of CQ because behavior is often the most visible
characteristic of social interactions. (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 17)
• Cognitive CQ is an individual’s mental map of norms, practice, and conventions in
different cultural settings (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). This includes knowledge about
language, political, economic, legal systems, aesthetic and religious beliefs, and
values/norms for social interactions (Earley & Ang, 2003).
• Culture is a set of attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors that are imperfectly shared
by a group of people and are communicated from one generation to the next through
language or some other communication means (Earley & Ang, 2003).
• Cultural intelligence (CQ) is “a person’s capability for successful adaptation to new
cultural settings, that is, for unfamiliar settings attributable to cultural context”
(Earley & Ang, 2003, p. 9). Cultural Intelligence consists of three aspects: cognitive,
motivational, and behavioral (Earley & Ang, 2003).
• Educational travel is the act of learning by combining kinesthetic experiences with
cognitive knowledge previously acquired through educational means while in other
countries (Stone & Petrick, 2013).
• Experiential learning is “the process whereby knowledge is created through the
transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping
and transforming experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 41).
• Metacognitive CQ is
an individual’s cultural consciousness and awareness during interactions with
those from different cultural backgrounds. Metacognitive CQ: (1) promotes active
thinking about people and situations when cultural backgrounds differ; (2)
12

triggers critical thinking about habits, assumptions, and culturally bound thinking;
(3) allows individuals to evaluate and revise their mental maps, consequently
increasing the accuracy of their understanding (Earley & Ang, 2003).
• Motivational CQ is the process that individuals use to obtain and comprehend cultural
knowledge, involving how individuals ‘make sense’ of intercultural experiences,
making judgments about their own and others’ thought processes, and strategizing
before and during an intercultural encounter (Earley & Ang, 2003).
• Secondary travel is travel that is taken as an educational endeavor and involves
students in middle or high school (Angwenyi, 2014).
• Self-efficacy is “a judgment of one’s capability to accomplish a certain level of
performance” (Bandura, 1986, p.391).
• Study abroad is the act of participating in credit-bearing curricular experiences
outside the political and/or cultural borders of one's host country.
• Short-term educational travel, for the purpose of this study, refers to travel abroad for
a period of between 7 and 10 days.
• Trip sponsors/leaders, for the purpose of this study, the terms trip sponsor and leaders
are used interchangeably. They refer to the teachers from the study school that lead
students on overseas travel experiences. Each trip has two sponsors/leaders and
travels with 20 students.
• Transformational learning is the learning through a personally dynamic and
independent co-cultural process begins with a disorienting dilemma, begins a
permanent change to identity constraints, and causes a continued shift in thinking and
reflection to do a novel experience (Ross, 2010).
13

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review focuses on three topics. As much of the scholarship on educational
travel is grounded in transformational learning and experiential learning theory, the first portion
of this review defines these terms and reviews their importance in educational travel. The second
portion examines the historical background of educational travel and the benefits to students who
participate in these trips. The final part of the literature review discusses cultural intelligence and
self-efficacy to establish a connection between cultural intelligence and teacher self-efficacy.
Transformative Learning Theory (TLT)
Tarrant (2010) proposed that transformative learning theory has the potential to provide a
critical framework to evaluate the appropriateness of aspects of educational travel. Mezirow
(1991) noted that only through reflection, active learning, and placing ourselves in
uncomfortable situations are we able to develop an understanding of the world and ourselves
fully. Transformative learning occurs when events change our frame of reference (Mezirow,
1991). Once there is a change in our frame of reference, we can expect a change in action, which
is transformative learning.
Mezirow (1991) noted that transformations in frames of reference occur through critical
reflection and may result from the gradual transformations in points of view. Mezirow (1991)
identified four stages in the process of changing the frame of reference: (a) elaborate our existing
point of view; (b) establish a new point of view; (c) transform our point of view, and (d) become
aware of the world around us and be critically reflective our environment and actions. The ability
to change our frame of reference allows for growth in areas such as analytical problem solving,
planning, communication, teamwork, and global understanding (Strange & Gibson, 2017).
14

Mezirow (1991) articulated that perspective transformation or the process of altering our
meaning structures is an outcome of transformative learning. He noted a phase through which a
change in meaning structures is achieved: (a) a disorienting dilemma; (b) self-examination; (c) a
critical assessment of epistemic, sociocultural, or psychic assumptions; (d) recognition that one’s
discontent and the process of transformation are shared, and others have negotiated a similar
change; (e) exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions; (f) planning of a
course of action; (g) acquisition of knowledge and skills for implementing one’s plans; (h)
provisional trying of new roles; (i) building competence and self-confidence in new roles and
relationships; (j) a reintegration into one’s life based on conditions dictated by one’s new
perspective. Researchers have suggested that these phases do not need to occur sequentially
(Kitchenham, 2008) or completely (Brock, 2010) to produce transformational learning.
Mezirow first conceptualized transformational learning as a study of adult learning
(Stone et al., 2017). Over the years, the theory has been applied to diverse student groups and
educational settings, including overseas educational travel programs (Brock, 2010; Trilokekar &
Kukar, 2011). Stone and Duffy (2015) showed evidence suggesting experiences on educational
travel programs align well with the 10 phases of transformation learning. Stone et al. (2017) felt
that overseas educational travel programs may be ideal for achieving transformational learning
due to the unique opportunities for disorienting dilemmas and the integration of facilitated
reflection.
Transformational learning theory focuses on the processes involved in changing
individuals’ frames of reference. In comparison, experiential learning theory provides direction
for how we can develop the action-oriented experience that is likely to induce this transformation
15

(Strange & Gibson, 2017). The next portion of this literature review examines experiential
learning theory and how the theory can impact short-term international travel experiences.
Experiential Learning Theory (ELT)
Experiential learning theory (ELT) has its origins in the 20th-century scholars who
valued human experience in their theory of development and learning, namely John Dewey,
Kurth Lewin, and Jean Piaget (Kolb & Kolb, 2018). Kolb (2014) defined learning as “the process
whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from
the combination of grasping and transforming experience” (p. 41). As a model, ELT has two
dietetically related modes of grasping experience; concrete experience (CE) and abstract
conceptualization (AC). According to Kolb et al. (2014) also consists of two modes of
transforming experience; reflective observation (RO) and active experimentation (AE). The 4-
stage cycle starts with the learner using concrete experiences as the basis for observations and
reflections. These reflections are assimilated into abstract concepts from which new knowledge
is derived (See Figure 2).
Many scholars who research international educational tourism (IET) point to Kolb’s
(2014) experiential learning theory (ELT) to evaluate the transformative potential of these travel
learning experiences (Stone & Petrick, 2013). ELT is defined as the process whereby knowledge
is created through a combination of grasping and transforming experience (Kolb, 1984). While
much of the literature on ELT has focused on formal education, experiential learning can occur
through any form of travel (Stone & Petrick, 2013). One of the critical aspects of Kolb’s model
(2014) is that of reflection because travel is an opportunity to reflect on personal experiences and
thus create new learning opportunities (Mouton, 2002).

16

Figure 2
The Experiential Learning Cycle

Note. From Eight important things to know about the experiential learning cycle. Australian
educational leader, 40(3), 8–14. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2018).

Experiential learning theory has had a significant impact on learning theory and practice.
There are, however, several criticisms of Kolb’s (2014) model. One of the main criticisms is that
Kolb’s interpretation of key works does not provide a complete picture of the model (Miettinen,
2000). In their book, Experiential Learning: A Handbook for Education, Training, and
Coaching, Beard and Wilson (2013) showed 10 evolving definitions of experiential learning over
26 years.
An additional critique of Kolb’s model questions what constitutes a concrete learning
experience (Morris, 2020). Blenkinsop et al. (2016) noted that one university asked professors to
submit the experiential portions of their course. The results included science labs, job
17

placements, service learning, field trips, and role-plays without mentioning lectures, readings, or
discussions. Regardless of the critiques, Kolb’s model remains the widely influential model of
ELT (Seaman et al., 2017).
Educational Tourism
Much of the scholarly literature points to the Grand Tour as the start of educational
tourism (Adler, 1985; Ritchie, 2003). Adler (1985) pointed out that travel histories have
conventionally traced the origins of tourism to the Grand Tour of young aristocrats in the 17th
and 18th centuries. Unlike many scholars who write about educational travel and the Grand
Tour, Adler (1985) pointed out that not only aristocrats traveling but also a trampling system was
developed among the popular classes as a response to economic necessity. This system may have
been sustained at the level of motivation because, like the Grand Tour, it served as a ritual aid in
accomplishing the separation from home and family required by Western styles of adulthood
while offering young men an opportunity for sightseeing, adventure, and education (Adler, 1985,
p. 336).
From the 18th century until the first half of the 20th-century, colonialism was the factor
driving the internationalization of higher education as the European university model was
imposed on colonial subjects from around the world (Klooster, 2014). In colonial fashion, the
elites from the colonies traveled to the colonizing countries to be educated in an attempt to teach
them western values (Klooster, 2014). After World War I, there were many drives to promote
international peace with educational exchanges, including the Institute of International Education
(Bu, 2003). This trend continued following World War II when the Fulbright Program and
Council on International Educational Exchange were founded (Bu, 2003). By this time, the U.S.
18

government assumed the leadership in promoting international education and cultural activities
as efforts in the cold war to promote American values (Bu, 2003).
Benefits of Educational Travel
One method to evaluate educational travel and the learning that occurs on the trips is to
use Kolb’s (1984) model of experiential learning (Stone & Petrick, 2013). Kolb’s model
combines concrete experiences, perception, cognition, and behaviors to create learning. One of
the key features of Kolb’s model is that reflection is a vital part of the learning process (Stone &
Petrick, 2013). The concrete experience of travel combined with reflection can thus create
learning (Mouton, 2002). The following paragraphs review the literature on the benefits of
educational travel.
Chieffo and Griffiths (2004) compared around 1,500 students who participated in a short-
term travel program with over 800 who did not and found that the students who traveled longer
had increased functional knowledge, intercultural awareness, and personal growth. Dwyer (2004)
showed that the vast majority of students on short-term educational journeys acquired
educational benefits. These benefits included a lasting impact on worldview, increased self-
confidence, and understanding of one's own cultural values. Ingraham and Peterson (2004) found
that longer trips resulted in higher personal growth, intercultural awareness, and academic
performance; they also pointed out that development was shown regardless of the length of the
program.
Harms of Educational Travel
It would be naive only to point out the positives of educational travel. Hale (2019)
acknowledged that while educational travel effectively teaches students sustainable development
and positive environmental behaviors, a growing amount of scholarship shows that educational
19

travel may harm the host communities. Concern over the harms of educational travel led The
Forum on Education Abroad (2018) published the Guidelines for Community Engagement,
Service-Learning, and Volunteering Experiences Abroad. In the document, 16 best practices
identified include how best to engage with local communities and ensure the safety of students
who volunteer.
Vann Nabi and Estes Brewer (2021) used the 2018 Guidelines as a reference point to
analyze marketing materials for vendors that provide volunteering opportunities to college
students. They found that much of the marketing materials reinforce paternalistic attitudes about
doing service while leaving the local communities out of the planning. The most troubling
finding from Vann Nabi’s and Estes Brewer’s (2021) study was that the marketing material
lacked any acknowledgment of the criticism levied at international volunteerism. Using Kolb’s
model, we can also look at the harms of service on educational travel. Volunteering provides a
concrete learning experience; however, if this learning experience does not include the local
perspective, new learning may not include these significant lessons.
Interim Semester Programs
Schools that value experiential learning and have value educational travel have developed
several models for their programs. These have various names including Interim Semester, Week
Without Walls, Discovery Week, and Outdoor Ed Week. The school that is the focus of this
study uses Interim Semester to name its experiential learning program. Interim Semester
programs have their roots in the 1960s. Universities looked to “enrich or rejuvenate their
educational programs by providing a special new kind of learning experience for the entire
college” (Armstrong, 1969, p. 1). At the time, there was debate about how to best structure the
academic year for college students. Florida Presbyterian College was the first to adopt a 4-1-4
20

calendar (Armstrong, 1969), two 4-month semesters with a 1-month “Interim Semester” in
January. January was generally viewed as an awkward-lame duck time” (Centra & Sobol, 1974,
p. 231), so it provided an excellent opportunity for a new way of teaching and learning. By 1972,
the 4-1-4 and Interim Semester trend had caught on, but each university had its own approach.
Stark (1972) wrote that “describing current national trends among schools which have adopted
the 4-1-4 academic calendar is quite like Charles Darwin’s attempt to describe the many varieties
of finches which adaptively evolved on Galapagos Islands” (p. 381).
Cultural Intelligence
General intelligence, or the ability to grasp and reason correctly with abstractions
(concepts) and solve problems (Schmidt, 2000), has been divided into various forms, such as
social intelligence (Thorndike & Stein, 1937), emotional intelligence (Mayer et al., 1999), and
practical intelligence (Sternberg et al., 2000). Cultural intelligence (CQ) is a specific form of
intelligence focused on an individual’s ability to grasp and reason correctly in situations
characterized by cultural diversity (Ang & Dyne, 2008).
The roots of CQ stemmed from the globalization of the late 20th century, when it became
increasingly important to understand why some individuals were more effective than others in
culturally diverse situations (Erez & Earley, 1993). Researchers have defined CQ in slightly
different ways. Earley and Ang (2003) defined CQ as a person’s capability to function
effectively in culturally diverse contexts. Thomas (2008) described CQ as a system of interacting
knowledge and skills linked by cultural metacognition that allows people to adapt to, collect, and
shape the cultural aspects of their environment. An illustration of the two conceptualizations of
CQ and brief descriptions of each factor is provided in Figure 3.

21

Figure 3
Cultural Intelligence (CQ)

Note. From Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University
Press. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). And Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment.
International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 8(2), 123–143. Thomas et al., 2008.
22

This dissertation measures CQ using the Cultural Intelligence scale (CQS) developed by
Ang et al. (2007). A recent literature review on the use of CQ in research found that the CQS is
by far the most commonly used tool for measuring CQ (Fong et al., 2018). Fong et al. (2018)
found that more than 90% of the quantitative studies they examined used CQS as its measuring
tool. Additionally, the instrument has been translated into Chinese, French, Korean, Portuguese,
Spanish, Turkish, and Vietnamese. Due to its wide use of the CSQ, this dissertation will use the
CSQ to measure the CQ of the trip sponsors. The following is a literature review aimed at
providing insights into the CQ as defined by Earley and Ang (2003), as this is the
conceptualization used to create the CQS.
Factors of Cultural Intelligence
CQ is based on Sternberg and Detterman’s (1986) framework of multiple foci of
intelligence. Sternberg and Detterman (1986) integrated the diverse views of intelligence to
propose four complementary ways to conceptualize individual-level intelligence. First,
metacognitive intelligence is the knowledge and control of cognition (the processes individuals
use to acquire and understand knowledge). Second, cognitive intelligence is the individuals’
knowledge and knowledge structures. Third, motivational intelligence acknowledges that most
cognition is motivated and thus focuses on the magnitude and direction of energy as a locus of
intelligence. Finally, behavioral intelligence focuses on individual capabilities at the action level
(behavior). The next section of this paper will unpack the application of these four factors in CQ.
Metacognitive CQ refers to an individual’s level of conscious cultural awareness during
cross-cultural interactions. It identifies the extent to which the individual will adapt and use
strategies that apply to the situation within which they operate (Ang & Dyne, 2008). Ang and
Dyne (2008) further noted that with high metacognitive CQ are consciously questioning and
23

reflecting on their assumptions about the skills and cultural knowledge needed in diverse cultural
situations. Ang et al. (2007) also noted that individuals with metacognitive CQ have capabilities
that include planning, monitoring, and making mental adjustments to the norms of countries.
Bogilovic and Sherlava (2016) found that individuals with high metacognitive CQ are more
creative in culturally diverse environments. Cultural creativity is important in this study as trip
sponsors face various interactions where creative problem solving will be necessary.
Cognitive CQ refers to one’s cultural knowledge of the culture in which they operate.
Cognitive CQ reflects knowledge of norms, practices, and conventions, including culture-
specific differences (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). According to Triandis (1994), cognitive CQ also
includes knowledge of the legal (formal law versus informal governance), economic systems
(capitalism versus socialism), political system (matriarchal versus democracy), religious beliefs,
and communication norms (direct versus indirect communications). Individuals with cognitive
CQ have a deep understanding of cultural differences and how to influence appropriate behaviors
(Ang et al., 2007).
Motivational CQ is the individual's ability to show interest and direct learning efforts to
understand and function effectively in different cultural situations (Ang & Dyne, 2008). Those
with high motivational CQ direct attention and energy toward cross-cultural citations based on
intrinsic interest and confidence in cross-cultural effectiveness (Van Dyne et al., 2012). Critical
to this paper is that self-efficacy is a sub-dimension of motivational CQ. Motivational self-
efficacy provides the confidence to adjust, while intrinsic and extrinsic interest offer compelling
reasons to get involved (Parker et al., 2010).
Behavioral CQ focuses on how individuals will modify their behavior to adapt to social
interactions with those different cultures (Ang & Dyne, 2008). Individuals with high behavioral
24

CQ can adjust their verbal and nonverbal actions to reflect the words, tones, gestures, and facial
expressions when in culturally diverse situations (Ang et al., 2007). Gooden et al. (2017) found
that individuals with higher metacognitive and motivational CQ will have higher behavioral CQ
tendencies. As behavioral CQ is the foci that most leads to the success of intercultural
experiences, we want to find ways to improve the behavioral CQ of our trip sponsors.
Cultural Intelligence and Experiential Learning
The experiential learning process creates the theoretical basis for examining individual
attributes that affect the extent of learning during international experiences (Ng et al., 2009). Ng
et al. (2009) proposed that CQ is an important set of learning capabilities that develop an
individual's ability to translate their intercultural experiences into learning outcomes via the
experiential learning process. Ng et al. (2009) articulated how experiential learning and
leadership development create a cycle of learning. Their research articulated how an
international experience creates the opportunities for the stages of experiential learning. The
reflection that occurs during the learning experience offers the opportunity to further reflect on
the aspects of cultural intelligence allowing for CQ development. This development will then
help in future cultural experiences (see Figure 4).

25

Figure 4
Cultural Intelligence and Experiential Learning for Global Leadership Development

Note. From Developing global leaders: The role of international experience and cultural
intelligence. In Advances in global leadership. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Ng et al.,
2009

26

Kurpis and Hunter (2017) found individual levels of CQ influence the ability to benefit
from intercultural experiential learning opportunities, but also experiential learning plays a
critical role in developing CQ. Kurpis and Hunter (2017) also point out that the tension between
the perceived abstract conceptualization and the concrete experience of overseas travel provides
the dialectical tension that leads to the creation of new knowledge and advancement of the
experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 2014).
While their work was directed at managers looking for international job opportunities, the
propositions that Ng et al. (2009) proposed apply to this study. In this study, I am looking for
ways to improve trip leaders on overseas trips, and the insights into how CQ is developed play a
critical role. Ng et al. (2009) viewed the experiential learning process as a key to developing CQ.
Using the 10 propositions listed below, Ng et al. (2009) showed how the four dimensions
of CQ; Motivational CQ, Cognitive CQ, Behavioral CQ, and Metacognitive CQ, enhance the
likelihood that individuals will be actively engaged in the four stages of experiential learning.
1. Motivational CQ enhances the likelihood that individuals will seek concrete cross-
cultural experiences during their international job assignments.
2. Behavioral CQ enhances the likelihood that individuals will seek concrete cross-
cultural experiences during their international job assignments.
3. Cognitive CQ enhances the likelihood that individuals will reflect on their cross-
cultural experiences during their international assignments.
4. Metacognitive CQ enhances the likelihood that individuals will reflect on their cross-
cultural experiences during their international assignments.
27

5. Cognitive CQ enhances the likelihood that individuals will detect patterns and
develop conceptual generalizations of cross-cultural experiences during their
international assignments.
6. Metacognitive CQ enhances the likelihood that individuals will detect patterns and
develop conceptual generalizations of cross-cultural experiences during their
international assignments.
7. Cognitive CQ enhances the likelihood that individuals will implement and test their
conceptual generalizations in cross-cultural interactions during their international
assignments.
8. Metacognitive CQ enhances the likelihood that individuals will implement and test
their conceptual generalizations in cross-cultural interactions during their
international assignments.
9. Motivational CQ enhances the likelihood that individuals will implement and test
their conceptual generalizations in cross-cultural international actions during their
international assignments.
10. Behavioral CQ enhances the likelihood that individuals will implement and test their
conceptual generalizations in cross-cultural interactions during their international
assignments.
This portion of the literature review has provided the background of cultural intelligence
and illustrates how experiential learning theory offers a framework to develop an individual’s
cultural intelligence. Next, the review will focus on self-efficacy and the importance of teachers’
self-efficacy on student learning.
28

Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy (SE) is defined as a person’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and
execute a course of action required to attain designed types of performance (Bandura, 1986). The
study of efficacy beliefs is grounded in Bandura's social cognitive theory (SCT). Social cognitive
theory addresses how humans, as individuals and as members of groups, exercise some level of
control over their futures (Goddard & Skrla, 2006). The three elements of SCT—environment,
cognition, and behavior—interact to determine a person’s belief in their ability to complete
prescribed tasks and actions (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1986) asserted no other area of self-
knowledge has a more significant influence on a person’s activities than SE. Bandura (1986) also
noted that individuals with high SE will persist longer and are less likely to give up or doubt their
abilities on a given task.
According to Bandura (1986, 1996), four factors help develop ES: mastery experiences,
vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and physiological reactions. For many people, the most
influential source of self-efficacy beliefs is the results of one’s own performance or mastery
experiences (Schunk & Pajares, 2009). In other words, individuals use the personal assessment
of the outcome from their effort and performance to create their efficacy belief. Vicarious
experiences are observations of others’ performance on given tasks (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007).
For example, watching others in a cohort make considerable progress on their dissertation builds
the efficacy in the individual that they are also capable of making progress. Social persuasion is
the verbal messages individuals receive from others, whether intentional or unintentional
(Schunk & Pajares, 2009). Social persuasion is most effective when those who convey the
efficacy information are viewed as competent and reliable (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007).
Physiological states such as anxiety and stress, along with mood, provide information about
29

efficacy beliefs. Optimism or a positive mindset enhances SE, while depression or despair
diminishes SE.
Teacher Self-Efficacy
Teacher self-efficacy (TSE) is often referred to as a teacher’s belief in their ability to
influence value student outcomes (Wheatley, 2005). The link between teacher self-efficacy and
positive student achievement date back to the 1970s (Armor et al., 1976). Midgley et al. (1989)
found some links between teacher self-efficacy and student academic achievement. Wheatley
(2005) noted that although teacher efficacy is easily confused with actual teaching effectiveness,
teachers’ efficacy may overestimate or accurately reflect actual teaching effectiveness. Teacher
self-efficacy beliefs are likely to change throughout a teaching career as teachers gain experience
(Hebert et al., 1998). It has also been noted that TSE is an elusive concept that is difficult to
assess with certainty (Hebert et al., 1998).
Teacher self-efficacy has been linked to several key studies over the past few years. In a
review of literature involving 43 scholarly articles, Klassen (2014) found that TSE is strongly
associated with evaluating teaching performance and modestly but significantly associated with
the achievement levels of students. A similar study by Zee and Koomen (2016) looked at 165
studies that found that TSE has positive links with students’ academic adjustment, patterns of
teacher behavior, practice related to classroom quality, and factors that underlie teachers’ well-
being, including personal accomplishment, job satisfaction, and commitment. Additional
evidence suggests that TSE is key to teacher work engagement (Granziera & Perera, 2019),
occupational commitment, and the quitting intention of practicing and pre-service teachers
(Klassen & Chiu, 2011). TSE has positively affected the student level, including increased
30

academic self-efficacy beliefs (Ross et al., 2001), job satisfaction, and student’s academic
achievement (Caprara et al., 2006).
Summary
Tarrant (2010) proposed that transformative learning theory has the potential to provide a
critical framework to evaluate the appropriateness of aspects of educational travel. Scholars who
research international educational tourism point to Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory to
evaluate the transformative potential of educational travel experiences (Stone & Petrick, 2013).
Kolb’s model combines reflection with concrete experiences, perception, cognition, and
behaviors to create learning experiences (Stone & Petrick, 2013). This literature review has
attempted to use the transformative learning potential of experiential learning theory to justify
the educational benefits for students during educational travel.
With the potential to have transformative experiential learning experiences during
educational travel, it is important to find ways to improve the student experiences during these
programs. Teacher self-efficacy is often referred to as a teachers’ belief in their ability to
influence value student outcomes (Wheatley, 2005). This study investigates if there is a link
between a teacher’s cultural intelligence, a specific form of intelligence focused on an
individual’s ability to grasp and reason correctly in situations characterized by cultural diversity
(Ang & Van Dyne, 2008), and the teacher’s self-efficacy. This literature reviews the scholarship
and application of cultural intelligence. One of the key parts of this review is the connection
between cultural intelligence and experiential learning. Finally, the literature review looks at
self-efficacy and, more specifically, teacher self-efficacy and its impact on student learning.
In summary, transformational learning theory builds on a disorienting dilemma. International
educational travel programs provide experiential learning opportunities for unique disorienting
31

dilemmas to start the transformational learning process. This paper looks at the leaders of the
educational travel programs with the hopes of finding ways to improve their ability to foster
transformational learning. The aim is to discover if teachers with higher cultural intelligence
have higher self-efficacy. With the links between teacher self-confidence and improved student
learning, it is theorized, if a link exists, then improving teacher cultural intelligence will improve
teacher self-efficacy and, therefore, student learning.

32

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between cultural intelligence and
the self-efficacy of teachers leading short-term international educational programs. This chapter
provides a profile of the population of the study, an introduction to the two instruments used to
collect the data, and a rationale for selecting the research methodology. The following research
questions guided this study:
1. Is there a relationship between a trip leader's cultural intelligence and their self-
efficacy?
2. Is there a relationship between any of the four factors of cultural intelligence;
metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral, and self-efficacy?
3. Is there a relationship between cultural intelligence and the demographics (age,
gender identification, department teaching, and experience) of the teachers leading
the educational travel program?
4. Is there a relationship between self-efficacy and the demographics (age, gender
identification, department teaching, and experience) of the teachers leading the
educational travel program?
The research questions ask if there is a relationship between cultural intelligence, the factors of
cultural intelligence (metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral), perceived self-
efficacy, and descriptive variables. These relationships will be explored using correlational
statistics.
Sample and Population
The proposed population in this study is high school teachers at a large international
private school in Singapore. These teachers have varying years of experience living, teaching,
33

and traveling overseas. The international private school serves the expatriated US families and
other families supporting U.S. entities (Annual Report, 2017). The school is a non-profit
institution registered with the Singapore Council of Private Education and is accredited by the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). The school has a high school student
population of approximately 1,190 students and 57 nationalities. The potential population of high
school teachers to survey is 135.
Instruments
The data collection instrument for this study combines a customized demographic survey
with established cultural intelligence and self-efficacy instruments. The researcher made the
demographic portion of the survey by adapting surveys that have been used by other researchers
(Appendix E). The descriptive data (age, gender identification, department teaching, and
experience) directly relate to the research questions being asked. The instruments selected are
based on the validity of the variables they assess and the level of reliability of their measures.
Descriptive Data
The descriptive section of the survey provides demographic and experience data on the
study participants. Participants will be asked to provide their age, gender identification, teaching
department, and experience leading educational travel programs. This information will be helpful
in answering the RQ3, is there a significant relationship between these variables and cultural
intelligence and self-efficacy. Robinson and Leonard (2019) pointed out that gender
identification questions in a survey should serve a “specific purpose,” and guide the wording
used. In this study, gender identification will help identify potential differences in cultural
intelligence and self-efficacy when leading overseas educational trips among those with different
gender identities.
34

Cultural Intelligence Scale
To measure the cultural intelligence of the trip leaders, the researcher will use the 20-
Item Four Factor Cultural Intelligence scale designed by Ang et al. (2004). This instrument uses
a 7-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) and can be used to
determine the participant’s overall cultural intelligence and provide an assessment of the four
factors of cultural intelligence (metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, and
behavioral CQ). The instrument is divided into four factors with multiple questions for each
factor. There are four questions on metacognitive CQ, an individual’s cultural consciousness and
awareness during interaction with those different from their cultural background. The
metacognitive CQ questions focus on how individuals are aware of the cultural differences
between themselves and others. There are six questions on cognitive CQ, an individual’s mental
map of norms, practice, and conventions in different cultural settings. The cognitive CQ
questions ask about knowledge of the cultural setting's legal, linguistic, cultural/religious,
marriage systems, and arts. The instrument has five questions on motivational CQ. Motivational
CQ is how individuals use to obtain and comprehend cultural knowledge, involving how
individuals ‘make sense’ of intercultural experiences. The motivational CQ questions focus on
the comfort, confidence, and enjoyment of different cultures. Finally, there are five questions on
the behavioral CQ. Behavioral CQ is when individuals exhibit verbal and nonverbal behavior
when interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds. The behavioral CQ questions
focus on pause and silence, speaking rate, nonverbal behaviors, and facial expressions when in
cross-cultural situations.
To develop the Cultural Intelligence scale, a group of 53 items was developed,
approximately 13 per factor. The 53 items were designed using literature and interviews with
35

international-minded faculty and professionals. The items were evaluated for readability and
clarity. The items were also compared to the definition of the four factors of cultural intelligence.
In the end, 40 items were selected, 10 for each of the four factors (Ang et al., 2004). This 40-item
instrument was given to a sample of 576 undergraduate business students in Singapore. Analysis
using “factor analysis with varimax rotation demonstrated clean loading factors for 24 items”
(Ang et al., 2004, p. 14). These 24 items were administered to a group of 181 students twice over
a 4-month period to test for generalizability over time. The second administration showed that
the 20 questions provided equivalent measurements over time and, therefore, could be accepted.
(Ang et al., 2004).
In an attempt to see if the Cultural Intelligence scale worked across cultures, the scale
was given to 337 undergraduate students in the United States. Using structural equation
modeling, the sample from Singapore was compared to the sample from the United States, and
no significant differences were found. This finding supported the hypothesis of equivalence
across the different cultural settings (Ang et al., 2004).
New General Self-Efficacy Scale
To measure the perceived self-efficacy of the trip leaders, the research will use the New
General Self-Efficacy (NGSE) scale developed by Chen et al. (2001; see Appendix D). The
NGSE is designed to provide a unidimensional measure of general self-efficacy. The instrument
consists of eight items that measure general self-efficacy using a Likert scale. The items measure
goal achievement, ability to accomplish difficult tasks, success on important outcomes,
succeeding at endeavors, overcoming challenges, effective task performance, and performance
on difficult tasks. Each item is scored with a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree).
36

Scherbaum et al. (2006) studied the reliability and item parameters of three measures of
general self-efficacy: Sherer et al.’s (1982) scale of general self-efficacy, Schwarzer’s (1995)
General Perceived Self-Efficacy scale, and Chen et al.’s (2001) NGSE scale. In the study,
Scherbaum et al. (2006) had all 606 participants take all three of the self-efficacy scales. The
results showed that Chen et al.’s (2001) NGSE scale had a slight advantage over the other
measures with respect to item discrimination, item information, and efficiency of the test
function.
In the development and construction of the NGSE (Chen et al., 2001) used seven
questions from Sherer’s scale of General Self-efficacy and created seven new items ensuring
there was consistency with theory and lacked redundancy. This 14-item instrument was
administered to 316 undergraduate psychology students three times within a semester, with 163
students completing all three surveys. The data from these administrators indicated that 6-items
were nearly redundant with other items and, therefore, eliminated. The “test-retest reliability
coefficients for the for the eight-item new general self-efficacy scale were high, rt1 – t2 = .65, rt2 – t3
= .66, and rt1 – t3 = .62. Thus, the final eight NGSE Items yielded a scale that is theory-based,
unidimensional, internally consistent, and stable over time” (Chen et al., 2001, p. 69).
To validate the scale (Chen, et al., 2001) had two independent panels of graduate students
examine the items on the NGSE to ensure that the definitions were consistent and the scale
measured self-efficacy and not self-esteem. The results provided evidence that the eight-item
NGSE has discriminant and content validity of the General Self-Efficacy and self-esteem
measures. Additionally, the results suggest that the NGSE items are more consistent with the
General Self-Efficacy scale than is the content of the scale of General Self-Efficacy.
37

A second study (Chen et al., 2001) examined the reliability and dimensionality of the
NGSE and the scale of General Self-Efficacy. In this study, 261 participants took the 17-item
scale of General Self-Efficacy and the eight-item NGSE scale. For the NGSE scale, the internal
consistency reliability was α = .86 and .90, and the scale of General Self-Efficacy r = .67 and .74,
respectively (Chen, et al., 2001, p.70). A third study was conducted with the goal of replicating
the findings from Study 1 and 2 in a different national culture and language. A group of 54
Israeli managers was given the Hebrew versions of the NGSE scale and the scale of General
Self-Efficacy. The study showed that the Hebrew versions of the scales “both yielded high
internal consistency at Time 1 (α = .85 and .88) and Time 2 (α = .86 and .91), and test-related
yielded high stability coefficients for both scales (r = .86 and .90, respectively)” (Chen, et al.,
2001, p. 76).
Data Collection
The survey with 20 questions measuring cultural intelligence, seven questions measuring
self-efficacy, and four demographic questions were sent electronically to all 135 high school
teachers at the private international school in Southeast Asia. An email (see Appendix A) was
sent once approval from the institutional review board was given. The survey was open for four
weeks, and the participants received a follow-up reminder two weeks after the survey was
opened (see Appendix B). The survey was anonymous, and the demographic information that
was collected is not sufficient to identify the individuals who provided the data. No other
identifying information will be collected. Of the 135 teachers asked to participate, 74 or 55.2%
of the teachers completed the survey. All of the teachers completed all of the questions;
therefore, all 74 responses were used in the study.
38

Data Analysis
The researcher used Qualtrics software to collect the survey data (“Qualtrics,” 2021) and
IBM’s Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyze the data (SPSS Statistics
Software, 2021). Research Question 1 looks for a relationship between cultural intelligence and
self-efficacy. Research Question 2 looks for a relationship between the factors of cultural
intelligence and self-efficacy. Both of these questions can be investigated using a correlation
between the variables. Research Questions 3 and 4 combine demographic information on the
survey participants with their cultural intelligence and self-efficacy. To do this, a one-way
independent analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done separately, comparing the demographic
information to both cultural intelligence and self-efficacy.
Cultural Intelligence ANOVA
A one-way independent analysis of variance (ANOVA) evaluates the independent
variance of cultural intelligence with four independent variables: (a) age (with five categories;
20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–70), (b) gender (with three categories; male, female, non-
binary), (c) teaching trips (with three categories; novice, experienced, expert), and (d)
department (with nine categories; English, FAP/art, health/PE, math, modern language, science,
other/admin, social studies, technology/learning support). A power analysis for the one-way
ANOVA was conducted to evaluate sample sizes necessary to achieve a power level of .80 and a
significance level of .05. Table 1 shows the power analysis for a one-way independent ANOVA
indicating the sample size needed for a small effect (f = .10), the sample size needed for a
medium effect (f = .25), and the sample size needed for a large effect (f = .40) according to Reid
(2013). Therefore, a sample size of n = 100 would yield a large effect size (f = .11) in the study
using these parameters for one-way ANOVA.
39

Table 1
Power Analysis for a One-Way ANOVA: Cultural Intelligence
Effect size Total N
Large 74
Medium 179
Small 1,095

Note. The above power analysis is based on a power level of .80, a significance (alpha) level of
.05, df = 3, and three groups. Power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 software (Faul et
al., 2007, 2009).

Self-Efficacy ANOVA
A one-way independent analysis of variance (ANOVA) will evaluate the independent
variables of self-efficacy with four independent variables: (a) age (with five categories; 20–29,
30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–70), (b) gender (with three categories; male, female, non-binary), (c)
teaching trips (with three categories; novice, experienced, expert), and (d) department (with nine
categories; English, FAP/art, health/PE, math, modern language, science, other/admin, social
studies, technology/learning support). A power analysis for the one-way ANOVA was conducted
to evaluate sample sizes necessary to achieve a power level of .80 and a significance level of .05.
Based on Reid (2013), Table 2 shows the power analysis for a one-way independent ANOVA
indicating the sample size needed for a small effect (f = .10), the sample size needed for a
medium effect (f = .25), and the sample size needed for a large effect (f = .40) Therefore, a
sample size of n = 100 would yield a large effect size (f = .11) in the study using these
parameters for one-way ANOVA.
40

Table 2
Power Analysis for a One-Way ANOVA: Self-Efficacy
Effect size Total N
Large 74
Medium 179
Small 1,095

Note. The above power analysis is based on a power level of .80, a significance (alpha) level of
.05, df = 3, and three groups. Power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 software (Faul et
al., 2007, 2009).

ANOVA Assumptions
In order to conduct a one-way ANOVA, the data must meet certain assumptions.
ANOVA is based on the assumptions that data have: (a) linearity, (b) homogeneity of variance,
and (c) normality. Assumptions will be tested by running initial descriptive statistics of the data.
Any violations of the assumptions will be corrected during the statistical analysis process.
Results of these assumption checks will be provided in the results section prior to running any
analyses.
Researcher’s Positionality
Being an international school teacher for the past 24 years, the researcher has had many
opportunities to lead international student travel programs. These opportunities have included
cycling trips in China, rafting trips in India, service trips in the Philippines, and cultural trips in
Senegal, to name a few. For the past 9 years, the researcher has overseen all of the high school
41

experiential learning trips at a large private international school in Southeast Asia. Each year the
school will send 120 teachers and 1,200 students on 60 trips to over 25 countries. The
researcher’s role in this program is to manage all aspects of the trips, including safety, finances,
educational objectives, and working with the trip leaders. It is within this context that the desire
to investigate ways to improve the quality of the teacher leaders on the trips.

42

Chapter Four: Results
Short-term teacher-led overseas educational travel is a feature in many schools at various
levels of education. In many of these schools, the teachers receive little training on how best to
lead and educate students while traveling. In a traditional 180-day school year, as little as 5 days
may be dedicated to these travel programs. This means that the travel program is one 36th of the
school year. It is understandable why schools do not hire teachers for the quality of overseas
programs they can run. For the most part, teachers are hired for the 35 out of 36 weeks they teach
their subject. It is also understandable that schools do not put a lot of resources into training
teachers for the week they are leading students overseas.
This study aims to determine if there is a way to improve student learning on short-term
teacher-led overseas educational travel that is time and cost-effective. This study looks at the
relationship between a teacher's cultural intelligence level and their self-efficacy. The study also
looks to see if a relationship exists between the four factors of cultural intelligence and self-
efficacy. Finally, the relationship between four demographic variables (age, gender, experience
leading trips, and teaching department) and cultural intelligence and self-efficacy was examined.
Demographic Data
The sample included 74 participants with completed surveys. Demographic data for the
sample are displayed in Tables 3–4. The 72 participants for this study were drawn from the 125
high school teachers at a large international school in Southeast Asia. The participating teachers
teach 10 different subjects and Table 3 provides a breakdown of participation by teaching
department. A majority of participants (n = 53; 74%) were aged between 40–59. The sample
consisted of one person aged 20–29, 15 people aged 30–39, 29 people aged 40–49, 24 people
aged 50–59, and three people aged 60–69. See Table 3.
43

Table 3
Age Ranges
Age n (%)
20–29 1 (1.4)
30–39 15 (20.8)
40–49 29 (40.3)
50–59 24 (33.3)
60–69 3 (4.3)

Although gender identification allowed for male, female, and non-binary, responses only
included male and female values, with the sample comprising 52.8% male (n = 38) and 47.2%
female (n = 34).
Perceived experience leading overseas educational trips included self-report values of
novice, experienced, and expert. The sample included 18.1% reported as novice (n = 13), 66.7%
reported as experienced (n = 48), and 15.3% reported as expert (n = 11). Lastly, participants
comprised ten different educational departments, as displayed in Table 4.

44

Table 4
Sample Teaching Departments
Department n (%)
English 11 (15.3)
Social Studies 9 (12.5)
Math 14 (19.4)
Science 10 (13.9)
World Language 4 (5.6)
Visual and Performing Arts 4 (5.6)
Health PE 4 (5.6)
Counseling 9 (12.5)
TEC/Learning Support/Quest 5 (6.9)
Other 2 (2.8)

Analysis of Research Questions
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: Is there a relationship between a trip leader's
cultural intelligence and their self-efficacy?
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to evaluate the strength of association or
relationship between the variables (Field, 2013), as shown in Table 5. Values ranging from -1 to
+1 determine the direction and strength of the relationship. Variables included (a) age (with five
categories; 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–70), (b) gender identification (with three categories;
male, female, non-binary), (c) experience sponsoring overseas trips (with three categories;
novice, experienced, expert), (d) teaching department (with nine categories; English, FAP/art,
45

health/PE, math, modern language, science, other/admin, social studies, technology/learning
support), (e) behavioral, (f) cognitive, (g) motivational), (h) metacognitive, (i) cultural
intelligence (summed scores of behavioral, cognitive, motivational, and metacognitive), and (j)
self-efficacy. However, categorical variables of age, gender identification, experience sponsoring
overseas trips, and teaching department were removed from the correlation analyses due to the
inability to measure correlations between categorical and continuous variables.
As displayed in Table 5, correlation coefficients indicated a significant correlation
between behavioral cultural intelligence and self-efficacy. Additionally, three of the four factors
of cultural intelligence (behavioral, motivational, and metacognitive) had a significant positive
relationship with self-efficacy. Only cognitive cultural intelligence did not have a significant
relationship with self-efficacy. As expected, the factors of cultural intelligence significantly
correlate with the overall cultural intelligence score as cultural intelligence is a sum of the
factors. A correlation matrix for all ordinal variables is displayed in Figure 5.

46

Table 5
Correlations for the Sample
Variable 1. Beh. 2. Cog. 3. Mot. 4. MC 5. CQ 6. SE
1. Beh. 1.000
2. Cog. .318** 1.000
3. Mot. .488** .359** 1.000
4. MC .205 .216 .129 1.000
5. CQ .705** .800** .692** .492** 1.000
6. SE .249* .196 .380** .304** .385** 1.000

Note. beh = behavioral, cog = cognitive, mot = motivational, MC = metacognitive, CQ = cultural
intelligence, SE = self-efficacy. CQ comprises a summed scores of behavioral, cognitive,
motivational, metacognitive factors of cultural intelligence.
* p < .05
** p < .01

47

Figure 5
Correlation Matrix of the Continuous Variables

In summary, Research Question 1, asked if there is a relationship between the trip
leader's cultural intelligence and their self-efficacy. The research shows that, in the sampled
individuals, there is a significant relationship between the trip leader's cultural intelligence and
their self-efficacy. In particular, the factors of behavioral, motivational, and metacognitive
cultural intelligence had a significant relationship with self-efficacy. This would indicate that if
we can improve a trip leader’s cultural intelligence, this would lead to greater self-efficacy.
Research has shown that higher teacher self-efficacy positively impacts student learning (Armor
et al., 1976). The implication is that if we want to improve student learning during overseas
48

experiential learning programs, one way to accomplish this is to improve the trip leaders' cultural
intelligence.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: Is there a relationship between any of the four
factors of cultural intelligence; metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral, and self-
efficacy?
To answer this questions, one-way ANOVA was run to evaluate the four factors of
cultural intelligence behavioral (five items on a seven-point scale from strongly disagree to
strongly agree), cognitive (six items on a seven-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly
agree), motivational (five items on a seven-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree),
and metacognitive (four items on a seven-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree)
on self-efficacy (seven items on a five-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree).
ANOVA Assumptions
In order to run a one-way ANOVA, the expectation is that the data have met certain
assumptions. To begin, the dependent variable of self-efficacy is continuous, and the
independent variables have four factors (behavioral, cognitive, motivational, and metacognitive).
The observations are independent, which is true for the current study since each response is
within the subject. Normality was analyzed using a Q-Q plot (see Figures 6 through 9) as well as
visually inspected using histograms (see Figures 10 through 13). The Q-Q plot demonstrates
slight left-skewed data across all three tasks; the closeness of points on the line suggests a normal
distribution. Mean scores for factors of cultural intelligence: behavioral (M = 28.19, SD = 3.47),
cognitive (M = 28.15, SD = 5.47), motivational (M = 30.39, SD = 3.19), and metacognitive (M
49

= 23.54, SD = 2.83) each met assumptions of normality (i.e., skew < |2.0| and kurtosis < |9.0|;
Schmider et al., 2010), as seen in Table 6.
Normality was analyzed for each factor of cultural intelligence using a Q-Q plot (see
Figures 6 to 9) as well as visually inspected with histograms (see Figures 10–13). The Q-Q plot
shows a left skew across all four factors. The histograms show normal distributions. Measures of
central tendency across all three platforms are displayed in Table 8 and show similar average
scores across all four factors.

Figure 6
Normal Q-Q Plot of Cognitive Cultural Intelligence

50

Figure 7
Normal Q-Q Plot of Behavioral Cultural Intelligence

Figure 8
Normal Q-Q Plot of Motivational Cultural Intelligence

51

Figure 9
Normal Q-Q Plot of Metacognitive Cultural Intelligence

Figure 10
Histograms of the Cognitive Factor of Cultural Intelligence

52

Figure 11
Histograms of Behavioral Factor of Cultural Intelligence

Figure 12
Histograms of Motivational Factor of Cultural Intelligence

53

Figure 13
Histograms of Metacognitive Factor of Cultural Intelligence

Table 6
Measures of Central Tendency by Factor of Cultural Intelligence
Task Items Potential
min–max
M(SE) SD Range Min-max
Behavioral 5 5–35 28.19 (0.41) 3.47 18 17–35
Cognitive 6 6–42 28.15 (0.65) 5.47 27 11–38
Motivational 5 5–35 30.39 (0.38) 3.19 17 18–35
Metacognitive 4 4–28 23.54 (0.33) 2.83 15 13–28

54

ANOVA Results
A one-way analysis of variance evaluated four factors of cultural intelligence (behavioral,
cognitive, motivational, metacognitive) on self-efficacy. Results from the one-way analysis of
variance are presented in Table 7. The dependent variable was self-efficacy. The independent
variables were the factors of cultural intelligence: (a) behavioral, (b) cognitive, (c) motivational,
and (d) metacognitive. The effect of factors of cultural intelligence on self-efficacy was
significant, F(4,71) = 4.50, p = .003.
In summary, RQ2 asks if there is a relationship between the four factors of cultural
intelligence and self-efficacy. To answer this question, a one-way analysis of variance was
completed showing which factors of cultural intelligence are significantly and positively related
to self-efficacy. This is hardly supposing as the cultural intelligence value used in RQ1 is the
sum of the factor values. The finding does add weight to the conclusion that cultural intelligence
is related to self-efficacy.

Table 7
One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Effect of Factor of Cultural Intelligence
on Self-Efficacy
Source df SS MS F p
Factor 4 158.676 39.67 4.5 .003
Error 67 590.199 8.81
Total 71 748.875

55

Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked the following: is there a relationship between cultural
intelligence and the demographics (age, gender identification, department teaching, and
experience) of the teachers leading the educational travel program?
A one-way ANOVA was run by way of a linear regression model to evaluate the
demographic variables of (a) age (with five categories; 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–70), (b)
gender identification (with three categories; male, female, non-binary), (c) teaching trips (with
three categories; novice, experienced, expert), and (d) department (with nine categories: English,
FAP/art, health/PE, math, modern language, science, other/admin, social studies,
technology/learning support) on the outcome variable of cultural intelligence (CQ; summed
scores of behavioral, cognitive, motivational, and metacognitive). No additional analyses were
run examining four factors of cultural intelligence (behavioral, cognitive, motivational,
metacognitive) since the four factors make up the outcome variable of CQ; thereby, the statistic
would have no random error.
ANOVA Results
A one-way analysis of variance evaluated four demographic variables (age, gender
identification, experience leading overseas trips, teaching department) on self-efficacy. Results
from the one-way analysis of variance are presented in Table 8. The effect of demographic
factors was significant, F(4,71) = 2.67, p = .040. The individual coefficient of sponsor
experience leading trips was significant (p = .005) in relation to cultural intelligence. The other
demographic coefficients (age, gender identification, and teaching department) were not
significantly related to a person’s cultural intelligence.

56

Table 8
One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Effect of Demographic Factors on the
Summed Score of Cultural Intelligence
Source df SS MS F p
Factor 4 1057.907 264.48 2.67 .040
Error 67 6648.538 99.23
Total 71 7706.444

In summary, RQ3 asks if there is a relationship between cultural intelligence and four
demographic factors (age, gender identification, department teaching, and experience). Using a
one-way analysis of variance, the researcher has identified that sponsor experience is
significantly and positively related to cultural intelligence. The demographic characteristics of
age, gender identification, and teaching department were not significantly related to a person’s
cultural intelligence. This finding shows the importance of experience when leading international
educational travel programs.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked the following: is there a relationship between self-efficacy
and the demographics (age, gender identification, department teaching, and experience) of the
teachers leading the educational travel program?
A one-way ANOVA was run by way of a linear regression model to evaluate the
demographic variables of (a) age (with five categories; 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–70), (b)
gender identification (with three categories; male, female, non-binary), (c) teaching trips (with
three categories; novice, experienced, expert), and (d) department (with nine categories: English,
57

FAP/art, health/PE, math, modern language, science, other/admin, social studies,
technology/learning support) on the outcome variable of self-efficacy (seven items on a five-
point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree).
A one-way analysis of variance evaluated four demographic variables (age, gender
identification, teaching trips, department) on self-efficacy. Results from the one-way analysis of
variance are presented in Table 9. The effect of demographic factors was significant, F(4,71) =
3.02, p = .024. Individual coefficients of age and experience leading trips were significant (p =
.038; p = .002, respectively), while individual coefficients of gender identification and
department were not significant (p =.504; p = .917, respectively).
In summary, RQ4 asks if there is a relationship between the demographic factors (age,
gender identification, department teaching, and experience) and the teachers' self-efficacy in
leading the educational travel programs. The results from the one-way analysis of variance
showed that age and experience coefficients were significantly and positively related to self-
efficacy, while gender identification and teaching department were not significant.

Table 9
One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Effect of Demographic Factors on Self
Efficacy
Source df SS MS F p
Factor 4 114.377 28.59 3.02 .024
Error 67 634.498 9.47
Total 71 748.875

58

Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusion, and Implications
This study aimed to determine if there is a way to improve student learning on short-term
teacher-led overseas educational travel that is time and cost-effective. This study looks at the
relationship between a teacher's cultural intelligence level and their self-efficacy. The study also
looks to see if a relationship exists between the four factors of cultural intelligence and self-
efficacy. Finally, the relationship between four demographic variables (age, gender, experience
leading trips, and teaching department) and cultural intelligence and self-efficacy was examined.
This chapter presents an interpretation of the results based on the research questions and the
literature review. Additionally, there is a discussion of the implications on educational practice,
limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research.
Discussions of Main Findings
The literature review summarized the transformative learning potential of experiential
learning theory to justify the educational benefits of educational travel. With the potential to
have transformative experiential learning during educational travel, it is important to find ways
to improve the student experiences during these programs. It was shown that teacher-self
efficacy leads to higher student learning (Armor et al., 1976). This study aimed to determine if
teachers with higher cultural intelligence had higher self-efficacy. This would then allow for a
link between a teacher's cultural intelligence and greater student learning during short-term
teacher-led educational programs. Therefore, it would also identify a way for educators to
improve their ability to foster student learning on trips by further developing their cultural
intelligence.
The first research question asked if there is a relationship between a trip leader’s cultural
intelligence and their self-efficacy. A correlational analysis between the cultural intelligence, an
59

individual’s ability to grasp and reason culturally in culturally diverse situations (Ang & Van
Dyne, 2008), and self-efficacy, a person’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute
a course of action required to attain designed types of performance (Bandura, 1986), indicated a
significant positive correlation between the variables. This finding is consistent with other
research on the relationship between cultural intelligence and self-efficacy (Regh et al., 2012).
The correlational analysis also indicated a significant and positive relationship between
self-efficacy and three of the four factors of cultural intelligence; metacognitive, motivational,
and behavioral. Metacognitive CQ identifies the extent to which the individual will adapt and use
strategies that apply to the situation within which they operate (Ang & Dyne, 2008).
Motivational CQ is the individual's ability to show interest and direct learning efforts to
understand and function effectively in a different cultural situation (Ang & Dyne, 2008).
Behavioral CQ focuses on how individuals will modify their behavior to adapt to social
interactions with those different cultures (Ang & Dyne, 2008).
To further add weight to the conclusion that cultural intelligence and self-efficacy are
significantly related, RQ2 compared the four factors of cultural intelligence (metacognitive,
cognitive, motivational, and behavioral) with self-efficacy. A one-way analysis of variance was
conducted to evaluate the four factors of cultural intelligence on self-efficacy. This ANOVA test
showed the effect of the factors of cultural intelligence on self-efficacy was significant and
positive. This is hardly surprising as the cultural intelligence score used in the correlation in RQ1
is the sum of the four factors.
This finding is important as it provides a meaningful way to focus resources on
improving student learning during educational travel. The study has shown that teachers with
higher cultural intelligence have greater self-efficacy. The literature review shows a positive
60

relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and student learning. The implication is that to
improve student learning during educational travel programs; schools can provide professional
development to trip leaders in cultural intelligence as this leads to greater teacher self-efficacy.
To identify other factors that lead to higher cultural intelligence, RQ3 compared a
teachers’ cultural intelligence to the teachers' demographics (age, gender identification, teaching
department, and experience). To answer RQ3, a one-way ANOVA was run by way of a linear
regression model. The dependent variable was cultural intelligence, while age, gender
identification, experience leading overseas trips, and teaching department were used as the
independent variables. As a group, the demographic variables were significantly and positively
related to cultural intelligence. Individually, only sponsor experience leading trips was
significant, and the relationship was also positive. This finding is consistent with research that
showed experience in culturally diverse contexts increased effectiveness (Ng et al., 2009).
Finally, RQ4 looked to see if there is a relationship between self-efficacy and the
demographics of the teacher (age, gender identification, teaching department, and experience). A
one-way ANOVA was run by way of a linear regression model. The dependent variable, in this
case, was self-efficacy based on the demographic variables of age, gender identification,
experience leading overseas trips, and teaching department. It was shown that the coefficients of
age and teaching tips were significant and positively related to self-efficacy. This finding is a
rational observation as the older you are, the more likely you are to have experience leading
educational programs overseas.
Implication for Practice
The problem of practice this dissertation is focused on is finding ways to improve
teachers who are sponsoring short-term overseas educational programs. It is well established that
61

teacher self-efficacy positively impacts student learning (Armor et al., 1976). This research has
shown a relationship between cultural intelligence and self-efficacy. The study has also shown
that experience is significantly associated with cultural intelligence and self-efficacy. This
finding leads to two conclusions that will improve student learning on overseas educational trips.
First, student learning can improve if teachers receive more cultural intelligence training.
Secondly, encourage young educators to lead as many overseas educational programs as
possible. The following are the researcher’s thoughts on how to implement these goals.
This research has identified the relationship between cultural intelligence and self-
efficacy and the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and improved student learning. This
finding implies that if teachers improve their cultural intelligence, it can also improve student
learning during overseas educational trips. The next question is, how do schools improve the
cultural intelligence of the educators that are sponsoring the overseas educational trips? The
following are the researcher’s ideas on how this can be accomplished.
An easy solution would be to engage consultants such as the Cultural Intelligence Center
(https://culturalq.com) to design and lead professional development programs for teachers. These
programs can introduce cultural intelligence and educate teachers about the factors of cultural
intelligence. The professional development should be designed specifically for educators that
will be leading overseas educational trips. These lessons should focus on teaching the teachers
how to educate their students about cultural intelligence. Ultimately, one of the big aims of
overseas educational travel is to build capability in students for successful adaptation to new
cultural settings, that is, unfamiliar settings attributable to cultural context. This observation is
precisely the definition of cultural intelligence that Early and Ang provided in 2003.
62

An additional way to improve the cultural intelligence of the teachers would be to have
the students take a role in educating others about their culture. Most international schools have a
student body that comes from a variety of backgrounds and cultures. As a get-to-know-you
activity at the start of the year students can do research into their cultural backgrounds and
present this to the other students. These presentations could focus on the four factors of cultural
intelligence. In the process, students learn from each other and the teachers gain insights that
may be valuable when leading school trips.
Limitations of the Study
Several limitations to the study must be considered. Scholars have established that survey
responses can be influenced by personal factors that may impact the scores and validity of the
interpretations (Cronbach, 1946; Furnham, 1986). The influence on the survey of personal
factors is known as response bias and refers to any individual tendency to respond independently
of the content that the item is evaluating, distorting the score in the trait being measured (Suárez-
Alvarez et al., 2018). In the Handbook of Cultural Intelligence Theory Measurement and
Application Handbook of Cultural Intelligence Theory Measurement and Application, Aug et al.
(2008) noted that the Cultural Intelligence scale, like other self-report instruments, shares the
program of response biases. More specifically, they point out that CQ measures ask respondents
to describe aspects of their cultural intelligence rather than to demonstrate it objectively. In the
development of the New General Self-Efficacy scale (Chen, 2011) completed various tests to
ensure the reliability of the questions. Additionally, in Bandura’s (2006) Guide for Constructing
Self-Efficacy Scales, methods are discussed to minimize response bias in the construction of self-
efficacy scales.
63

A convenience sample was used for this study. Lockmiller and Lester (2017) identified
two main problems with convenience samples; they are not random samples, are not
representative, and can be more problematic in terms of research ethics. The first of these is
evident in this study. The lack of a random sample population is also a limitation of this study.
The teachers in the study have all been through a rigorous hiring process that selects teachers that
will function well in the particular school. This sample is not a reflection of all teachers. This
study would benefit from a wider variety of educators participating. For example, if the study
were given to teachers at multiple schools, this would have allowed for greater generalizability.
Another limitation is that most of the participants live and work in a different culture. For
the vast majority of international educators, living overseas is a requirement of the job. The
sample in this study falls into this category. Many of the participants have lived in, worked in,
and traveled to multiple countries and, from this experience, have developed higher cultural
intelligence than others with less international experience. It would be interesting to see if the
results change if the participants have less experience living overseas.
The sample size also contributed to some of the limitations of the study. While there was
good participation from the sample population, there was not enough participation to identify any
trends in the demographic variables. For example, determining if the teaching department of the
participants has an impact on cultural intelligence or self-efficacy. There were just too few
teachers in each of these departments at one school for meaningful conclusions from this data.
Expanding the study to include multiple schools may lead to meaningful conclusions from this
data.
64

Recommendations for Future Study
This study showed the relationship between cultural intelligence and self-efficacy for
teachers leading overseas educational programs. It builds on the idea that teachers with high self-
efficacy positively impact student learning. This concept could be more rigorously studied using
a control group study. Before educational travel, a researcher could divide a teaching staff into
two groups. One group of educators is provided a series of classes and activities focused on
developing cultural intelligence. The second group will not receive any training before leading
the overseas travel. Following the travel, the researcher could survey or interview students to
determine if there are any significant differences in the learning experience on trips led by
teachers based if they did or did not participate in the cultural intelligence classes.
Another area for future study is to do a longevity study of changes in teacher’s cultural
intelligence as they gain more experience leading international educational travel programs. Start
by measuring the teachers' cultural intelligence and then give them training on cultural
intelligence. The next step would be to track the teachers over a few years as they lead more
groups overseas. It will be interesting to observe whether or not there are changes in CQ based
on demographic factors and experience for these teachers, and how that changes as teachers gain
more experience with leading overseas trips. In addition, such a study could capture the CQ of
the students traveling with these teachers to see if, as a teacher gains experience, is there an
impact on the CQ of the students.
The researcher also feels a mixed-methods study will provide valuable insights that this
study did not capture. In this study, have teachers take the Cultural Intelligence scale to capture
their CQ. Then interview the teachers/trip leaders asking them to articulate their answers to the
questions on the scale. Combining the discussions from multiple trip leaders will provide insights
65

into the teachers that will be valuable when designing a professional development course that
strives to improve the teachers as trip leaders.
Conclusions
Travel programs are very complicated when you consider the educational justification,
risk mitigation, child safeguarding, and financial concerns. The COVID-19 global pandemic has
paused most if not all educational travel and has provided time for schools to rethink the goals,
approaches, and expectations of their travel programs. Hopefully, schools will take the time to
find ways to improve the instruction in international travel courses. This study has shown that
one way to accomplish this is to improve the cultural intelligence of the teachers leading the
travel programs. The study showed a significant positive correlation between teachers' cultural
intelligence and their self-efficacy in leading overseas trips. The literature review for this study
highlighted the positive correlation between a teacher’s self-efficacy and student learning. The
finding of this study is that one way to improve student learning on overseas international trips is
to improve the cultural intelligence of the teachers leading the programs.

66

References
Adler, J. (1985). Youth on the road: Reflections on the history of tramping. Annals of Tourism
Research, 12(3), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(85)90003-9
Ang, S., & Dyne, L. V. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition,
distinctiveness, and nomological network. Handbook of Cultural Intelligence (pp. 21–
33). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315703855
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A.
(2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and
decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and
Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x
Angwenyi. (2014). Travel abroad: A study of the perceived influence of high school students’
experiences of short-term travel or study abroad prior to college. ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxyremote.galib.uga.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&
AN=ED568204&site=ehost-live
Armor, D., Conry-Oseguera, M. C., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman,
G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles
minority schools. The RAND Corporation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED130243.pdf
Armstrong, J. L. (1969). An interim term digest. Macalester College.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED040667.pdf
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
67

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice
Hall.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of
Adolescents, 5(1), 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825916641434
Beard, C., & Wilson, J. P. (John P. (2013). Experiential learning : a handbook for education,
training and coaching (Third edition.). Kogan Page Limited.
Blenkinsop, S., Nolan, C., Hunt, J., Stonehouse, P., & Telford, J. (2016). The lecture as
experiential education: The cucumber in 17th-century Flemish art. Journal of
Experiential Education, 39(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825916641434
Bogilovic, S., & Skerlavaj, M. (2016). Metacognitive and motivational cultural intelligence:
Superpowers for creativity in a culturally diverse environment [metakognitivna in
motivacijska kulturna inteligentnost: Super moci za ustvarjalnost v kulturno raznolikem
okolju]. Economic and Business Review for Central and South-Eastern Europe, 18(1),
55. https://doi.org/10.15458/85451.18
Brock, S. E. (2010). Measuring the Importance of Precursor Steps to Transformative
Learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 60(2), 122–142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713609333084
Bu, L. (2003). Making the world like us: Education, cultural expansion, and the American
century. Praeger. https://doi.org/10.1086/531008
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy
beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at
the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473–490.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.821
68

Chen, Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy
Scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004
Centra, J. A., & Sobol, M. G. (1974). Faculty and student views of the interim term. Research in
Higher Education, 2(3), 231–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991167
Chickering, A., & Braskamp, L. A. (2009). Developing a global perspective for personal and
social responsibility. Peer Review, 11(4), 27. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/developing-global-perspective-personal-social/docview/216586612/se-
2?accountid=12691.
Chieffo, L., & Griffiths, L. (2004). Large-scale assessment of student attitudes after a short-term
study abroad program. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10(1),
165–177. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v10i1.140
Coryell. (2011). The Foreign City as Classroom: Adult Learning in Study Abroad. Adult
Learning (Washington, D.C.), 22(3), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/104515951102200301
Cronbach. (1946). Response sets and test validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
6(4), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316444600600405
Dwyer, M. M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers
(Boston, Mass.), 10(1), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v10i1.139
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.
Stanford University Press.
Engberg. (2013). The Influence of Study Away Experiences on Global Perspective-Taking.
Journal of College Student Development, 54(5), 466–480.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0073
69

Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. Oxford University Press on
Demand.
Fang, F., Schei, V., & Selart, M. (2018). Hype or hope? A new look at the research on cultural
intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 66, 148–171. https://nbn-
resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168- ssoar-65227-3
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2009). G*Power 3.1.9.2. Heinrich Heine
University.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research
Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Furnham. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and
Individual Differences, 7(3), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0
Goddard, R. D., & Skrla, L. (2006). The influence of school social composition on teachers’
collective efficacy beliefs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 216–235.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X05285984
Gooden, D. J., Creque, C. A., & Chin-Loy, C. (2017). The impact of metacognitive, cognitive
and motivational cultural intelligence on behavioral cultural intelligence. International
Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 16(3), 223–230.
https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v16i3.10006
Granziera, H., & Perera, H. N. (2019). Relations among teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs,
engagement, and work satisfaction: A social cognitive view. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 58, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.02.003
70

Green, M. D. (2019). A Descriptive Study of Teacher Perceptions of International Travel
Outcomes.
Hale. (2019). Wisdom for traveling far: Making educational travel sustainable. Sustainability
(Basel, Switzerland), 11(11), 3048–. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113048
Hebert, E., Lee, A., & Williamson, L. (1998). Teachers’ and teacher education students' sense of
efficacy: Quantitative and qualitative comparisons. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 31, 214–225.
Hong, W., & Halvorsen, A. (2010). Teaching Asia in US secondary school classrooms: A
curriculum of othering. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(3), 371–393.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270903353269
IBM. (2021). SPSS Statistics Software. Version 28 IBM.
Ingraham, E. C., & Peterson, D. L. (2004). Assessing the impact of study abroad on student
learning at Michigan State University. Boston University, Division of International
Programs. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v10i1.134
Kenway, J., & Fahey, J. (2014). Staying ahead of the game: The globalising practices of elite
schools. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 12(2), 177–195.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.890885
Kitchenham. (2008). The Evolution of John Mezirow’s Transformative Learning
Theory. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(2), 104–123.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344608322678
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit of
practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching
71

context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(2), 114–129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching
effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001
Klooster, Erik van’t. 2014. “Travel to Learn the Influence of Cultural Distance on Competence
Development in Educational Travel.” Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2018). Eight important things to know about the experiential learning
cycle. Australian educational leader, 40(3), 8–14.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. FT Press.
Kurpis, & Hunter, J. (2017). Developing Students’ Cultural Intelligence Through an Experiential
Learning Activity: A Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior Interview. Journal of Marketing
Education, 39(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475316653337
Llewellyn‐Smith, C., & McCabe, V. S. (2008). What is the attraction for exchange students: The
host destination or host university? Empirical evidence from a study of an Australian
university. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(6), 593–607.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.692
Lochmiller C, & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. SAGE.
Longview Foundation. (2008). Teacher preparation for the global age: The imperative for
change. Longview Foundation.
72

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional
standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267–298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00016-1
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5–12.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self-
and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.81.2.247
Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey's theory of reflective
thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 54–72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/026013700293458
Morris, T. H. (2020). Experiential learning-a systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model.
Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1064–1077.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1570279
Mouton, W. (2002). Experiential learning in travel environments as a key factor in adult
learning. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 69(1), 36.
Ng, K. Y., & Earley, P. C. (2006). Culture intelligence: Old constructs, new frontiers. Group &
Organization Management, 31(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601105275251
Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). Developing global leaders: The role of international
experience and cultural intelligence. In Advances in global leadership. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2009)0000005013
73

Niser, J. C. (2010). Study abroad education in New England higher education: A pilot survey.
International Journal of Educational Management, 24(1), 48–55.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011013042
Obama B (2010) Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Barack H. Obama, Book 1
(US Govt Print Office, Washington, DC).
O'Connor, K., & Zeichner, K. (2011). Preparing US teachers for critical global education.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 521–536.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2011.605333
Olson, C. A. (2016). The meaning of educational travel in the lives of urban middle school
students in a low-income neighborhood: A transformative, sequential mixed methods
study. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. University of Denver.
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1204
Pabel, A., & Prideaux, B. (2012). Education tourism-linking pleasure travel with tertiary
education in the youth market. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 24(4), 22–
31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2012.10696678
Paige, R.M. & Vande Berg, M. (2012). Why students are and are not learning abroad: A review
of recent research, In M. Vande Berg, R.M. Paige & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student Learning
Abroad: What Our Students Are Learning, What They’re Not and What We Can Do
About It, (pp. 29–60). Sterling VA: Stylus.
Parker, Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making Things Happen: A Model of Proactive
Motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732
74

Pearce, P. L., & Foster, F. (2007). A “university of travel”: Backpacker learning. Tourism
Management, 28(5), 1285–1298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.11.009
Pitman, Broomhall, S., McEwan, J., & Majocha, E. (2010). Adult Learning in Educational
Tourism. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 50(2), 219–238.
https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.355070881910280
Poole, & Russell, W. B. (2015). Educating for Global Perspectives: A Study of Teacher
Preparation Programs. Journal of Education (Boston, Mass.), 195(3), 41–52.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741519500305
Rehg, Gundlach, M. J., & Grigorian, R. A. (2012). Examining the influence of cross-cultural
training on cultural intelligence and specific self-efficacy. Cross Cultural Management,
19(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601211219892
Reid, H. M. (2013). Introduction to statistics: Fundamental concepts and procedures of data
analysis. SAGE.
Ritchie, B.W,. Carr, N. and Cooper, C.P. (2003) Managing Educational Tourism; Channel View
Publications: Bristol, UK.
Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2003). New horizons in independent youth and student travel.
International Student Travel Confederation.
Robinson, & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on computer
skills and computer cognitions of Canadian students in grades K–3. The Elementary
School Journal, 102(2), 141–156. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1002205
Ross, S. L. (2010). Transformative travel: An enjoyable way to foster radical change. ReVision,
32(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.4298/REVN.32.1.54-62
75

Seaman, J., Quay, J. and Brown, M. (2017). The evolution of experiential learning: Tracing lines
of research in the JEE. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(Suppl.), 1-20.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053825916689268
Scarinci, J., & Pearce, P. (2011). The perceived influence of travel experiences on learning
generic skills. Elsevier Science. https://10.1016/j.tourman.2011.04.007
Scherbaum, Cohen-Charash, Y., & Kern, M. J. (2006). Measuring General Self-Efficacy: A
Comparison of Three Measures Using Item Response Theory. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66(6), 1047–1063.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406288171
Schmider, E., Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Beyer, L., & Bühner, M. (2010). Is it really robust?
Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution
assumption. European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social
Sciences, 6(4), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000016
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2000). Select on intelligence. Handbook of Principles of
Organizational Behavior, 3–14.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. Handbook of Motivation at School, 35,
54.
Schwarzer. (1995). Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control
beliefs. Windsor, UK: Nfer-Nelson, 35–37.
Seaman, J., Brown, M., & Quay, J. (2017). The evolution of experiential learning theory:
Tracing lines of research in the JEE. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(4), NP1–
NP21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825916689268
76

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W.
(1982b). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports,
51(2), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with
strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611
Schmidt. (2000). Select on intelligence. Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior, 3–
14.
Stark, J. S. (1972). The 4-1-4 bandwagon. The Journal of Higher Education, 381–390.
Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (1986). What is Intelligence? Contemporary Viewpoints on
its Nature and Definition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Wagner, R. K., Horvath, J. A., Williams, W. M.,
Snook, S. A., & Grigorenko, E. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. Cambridge
University Press.
Stone, G. A., Duerden, M. D., Duffy, L. N., Hill, B. J., & Witesman, E. M. (2017). Measurement
of transformative learning in study abroad: An application of the learning activities
survey. The Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 21, 23–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2017.05.003
Stone, G. A., & Duffy, L. N. (2015). Transformative learning theory: A systematic review of
travel and tourism scholarship. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 15(3), 204–
224. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2015.1059305
77

Stone, M. J., & Petrick, J. F. (2013). The educational benefits of travel experiences: A literature
review. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 731–744.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513500588
Stoner, K. R., Tarrant, M. A., Perry, L., Stoner, L., Wearing, S., & Lyons, K. (2014). Global
citizenship as a learning outcome of educational travel. Journal of Teaching in Travel &
Tourism, 14(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2014.907956
Strange, H., & Gibson, H. J. (2017). An investigation of experiential and transformative learning
in study abroad programs. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,
29(1), 85–100.
Suárez-Alvarez, Pedrosa, I., Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2018).
Using reversed items in Likert scales: A questionable practice. Psicothema, 30(2), 149–
158. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.33
Tarrant. (2010). A Conceptual Framework for Exploring the Role of Studies Abroad in
Nurturing Global Citizenship. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5), 433–
451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309348737
Tarrant, M., & Lyons, K. (2012). The effect of short-term educational travel programs on
environmental citizenship. Environmental Education Research, 18(3), 403-416.
https://10.1080/13504622.2011.625113
Tarrant, M. A., Stoner, L., Borrie, W. T., Kyle, G., Moore, R. L., & Moore, A. (2011).
Educational travel and global citizenship. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(3), 403–426.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2011.11950243
78

The Forum on Education Abroad. (2018). Community Engaged Learning Abroad . The Forum
on Education Abroad. https://forumea.org/resources/guidelines/community-engagement-
service-learning-and-volunteer-experiences/
Thomas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B. Z., Ravlin, E. C., Cerdin, J., Poelmans, S.,
Brislin, R., Pekerti, A., & Aycan, Z. (2008). Cultural intelligence: Domain and
assessment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(2), 123–143.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595808091787
Thorndike, R. L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evaluation of the attempts to measure social
intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 34(5), 275. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053850
Triandis. (1994). Culture and social behavior. McGraw-Hill.
Trilokekar, & Kukar, P. (2011). Disorienting experiences during study abroad: Reflections of
pre-service teacher candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1141–1150.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.002
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M. L., & Koh, C. (2012). Sub‐dimensions
of the four factor model of cultural intelligence: Expanding the conceptualization and
measurement of cultural intelligence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4),
295–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00429.x
Vann Nabi, H., & Estes Brewer, P. (2021). Communicating ethical engagement abroad: A
content analysis of service-learning study abroad third-party provider websites. Boston
University, Division of International Programs.
https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v33i2.555
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Routledge.
79

Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21(7), 747–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315320906156
World Tourism Organization. (2016). Affiliate members global reports: The power of youth
travel. WYSE Travel Confederation.
Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes,
student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research.
Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981-1015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44668241

80

Appendix A: Participant Survey Message
Dear Educators,
You are invited to voluntarily participate in a research study by completing an online survey. It
may take up to 10 minutes to complete. The link to the survey is included at the end of this
email.

This study examines the cultural intelligence and self-efficacy of teachers who have sponsored
overseas educational travel programs. Cultural intelligence is the ability to perform effectively in
culturally diverse situations such as the ethnically, linguistically, and culturally experiences
many of us have faced on Interim Semester courses. This survey is for research proposed by Dan
Skimin, a student in the University of Southern California EdD program.

The survey results are anonymous and there is no identifying data being collected. Completing
the survey implies your voluntary consent to participate in the study. You can, however,
withdraw your participation without penalty or prejudice. The results will be reported in
aggregate form. As this is an online survey, there is a slight risk that the data might be
compromised by unauthorized third parties. To minimize this risk the survey is password
protected by the researcher.

You will not benefit directly by completing this survey. However, the responses will help
provide insights into the cultural intelligence and self-efficacy of trip leaders.

The survey will be open for 4 weeks and a reminder email will be sent two weeks prior to the
closing of the survey. If you have any questions about the study or survey, please contact the
researcher, Dan Skimin at dskimin@usc.edu.

Thank you in advance for your time and participation.

Dan Skimin

81

Appendix B: Participant Survey Message Second Reminder
Dear Educators,

Recently, I sent you a request to participate in an important research study. This message is the
second and last reminder. You were invited to voluntarily participate by completing an online
survey. To date, the response rate of the study has been 45%.

If you have already completed the survey, I greatly appreciate you for your time and input. If you
have not had the opportunity to participate, the survey will remain available for two more weeks
from today. The survey takes approximately 10 minutes to complete.

You can reach the survey by clicking the following link:
LINK

This study examines the cultural intelligence and self-efficacy of teachers who have sponsored
overseas educational travel programs. Cultural intelligence is the ability to perform effectively in
culturally diverse situations such as the ethnically, linguistically, and culturally experiences
many of us have faced on Interim Semester courses. This survey is for research proposed by Dan
Skimin, a student in the University of Southern California EdD program.

The survey results are anonymous and there is no identifying data being collected. Completing
the survey implies your voluntary consent to participate in the study. You can, however,
withdraw your participation without penalty or prejudice. The results will be reported in
aggregate form. As this is an online survey, there is a slight risk that the data might be
compromised by unauthorized third parties. To minimize this risk the survey is password
protected by the researcher.

You will not benefit directly by completing this survey. However, the responses will help
provide insights into the cultural intelligence and self-efficacy of trip leaders.

The survey will be open for 4 weeks and a reminder email will be sent two weeks prior to the
closing of the survey. If you have any questions about the study or survey, please contact the
researcher, Dan Skimin at dskimin@usc.edu.

Link to the survey: www.

Thank you in advance for your time and participation.

Dan Skimin
82

Appendix C: The 20-Item Four Factor Cultural Intelligence Scale

83

Cultural Intelligence Scale
Each question will have the following seven options: strongly disagree, disagree, slightly
disagree, neutral, slightly agree, agree, or slightly agree.

Table C1
Cultural Intelligence Scale Questions
# Item CQ factor Measurement
Instructions: Read each statement and select the response that best describes your capabilities.
Select the answer that BEST describes you as you really are.
C1 I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I
use when interacting with people with
different cultural backgrounds.
Metacognitive CQ Numeric interval data
C2 I adjust my cultural knowledge as I
interact with people from a culture that
is unfamiliar to me.
Metacognitive CQ Numeric interval data
C3 I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I
apply to cross-cultural interactions.
Metacognitive CQ Numeric interval data
C4 I check the accuracy of my cultural
knowledge as I interact with people
from different cultures.
Metacognitive CQ Numeric interval data
OG1 I know the legal and economic system of
other cultures.
Cognitive CQ Numeric interval data
OG2 I know the rules (e.g., vocabulary,
grammar) of other languages.
Cognitive CQ Numeric interval data
OG3 I know the cultural values and religious
beliefs of other cultures.
Cognitive CQ Numeric interval data
OG4 I know the marriage systems of other
cultures.
Cognitive CQ Numeric interval data
OG5 I know the arts and crafts of other cultures. Cognitive CQ Numeric interval data
OG6 I know the rules for expressing nonverbal
behaviors in other cultures.
Cognitive CQ Numeric interval data
84

# Item CQ factor Measurement
OT1 I enjoy interacting with people from
different cultures.
Motivational CQ Numeric interval data
OT2 I am confident that I can socialize with
locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to
me.
Motivational CQ Numeric interval data
OT3 I am sure I can deal with the stresses of
adjusting to a culture that is new to me.
Motivational CQ Numeric interval data
OT4 I enjoy living in cultures that are
unfamiliar to me.
Motivational CQ Numeric interval data
OT5 I am confident that I can get accustomed
to the shopping conditions in a different
culture.
Motivational CQ Numeric interval data
EH1 I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent,
tone) when a cross-cultural interaction
requires it.
Behavioral CQ Numeric interval data
EH2 I use pause and silence differently to suit
different cross-cultural situations.
Behavioral CQ Numeric interval data
EH3 I vary the rate of my speaking when a
cross-cultural situation requires it.
Behavioral CQ Numeric interval data
EH4 I change my nonverbal behavior when a
cross-cultural situation requires it.
Behavioral CQ Numeric interval data
EH5 I alter my facial expressions when a cross-
cultural interaction requires it.
Behavioral CQ Numeric interval data

85

Appendix D: New General Self-Efficacy Scale

86

New General Self-Efficacy Scale
Each question will have the following five options: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral,
agree, or slightly agree.

Table D1
New General Self-Efficacy Scale Questions
# Item Measurement
Instructions: Read each statement and select the response that comes closest to reflecting
your opinion about it.
E1 I will be able to achieve most of the goals I have set for
myself.
Numeric interval data
E2 When facing difficult tasks, I am certain I will accomplish
them.
Numeric interval data
E3 In general, I think I can obtain outcomes that are important
to me.
Numeric interval data
E4 I believe I can succeed at most any endeavor to which I set
my mind.
Numeric interval data
E5 I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges. Numeric interval data
E6 I am confident that I can perform effectively on many
different tasks.
Numeric interval data
E7 Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well. Numeric interval data

87

Appendix E: Demographic Survey
Read each statement and select the response(s) that best describes you. The following
items refer to demographic facets.

Table E1
Demographic Survey Questions
# Item
D1 What is your age range?
Less than 30 30 to 39 40 to 49 Over 50
D2 Estimated number of overseas educational trips have you led? (Not including as a
coach or activity sponsor.)
0 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 Over 15
D3 Which department do you primarily teach in?

English
Social Studies
Mathematics
Science
World Languages
Technology Electives, Capstone, Quest, Educational Technology
Visual & Performing Arts
Physical/Health Education
Learning Support
College Counseling
Personal Academic Counseling
Administration
D4 What term would you use to describe your gender identity?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Scholars have studied the benefits and ways to improve educational travel for college-age students. There is a gap in the literature on benefits and practices to improve educational travel for high school students. This dissertation reviews the literature on the benefits of this educational travel and identifies ways to improve the quality of the education provided on short-term educational travel. The framework for this study stems from educational travel, cultural intelligence, self-efficacy, and experiential learning. The qualitative study examined the correlation between the Cultural Intelligence scale, including the factors of CQ (Metacognitive CQ, Cognitive CQ, Motivational CQ, and Behavioral CQ) with the general self-efficacy (GSE) scale of the faculty that led the travel experiences. The study's main results showed that there is a significant positive correlation between a teacher’s cultural intelligence and their self-efficacy. As previous research has shown the positive correlation between self-efficacy and improved student learning, this study concludes that one way to improve student learning on trips is to strengthen the cultural intelligence of the trip leaders.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Technology integration and self-efficacy of in-service secondary teachers in an international school

PDF

Raising cultural self-efficacy among faculty and staff of a private native Hawaiian school system

PDF

Exploring culturally relevant pedagogy in a Chinese immersion program: a gap analysis

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

PDF

The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy

PDF

Confidence is key: peer observations and online teacher self-efficacy in higher education

PDF

Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study

PDF

Implications of a tracked mathematics curriculum in middle school

PDF

The effect on teacher career choices: exploring teacher perceptions on the impact of non‐instructional workload on self‐efficacy and self‐determination

PDF

Integrating project-based learning and work-based learning into a coherent program: is the sum worth more than its parts?

PDF

The factors supporting or inhibiting Teachers of Color to accept and stay in an international school in Southeast Asia

PDF

Sorting through stress: how middle school administrators in southern California adapt and build resilience in a post-pandemic world

PDF

One Hawai’i K-12 complex public school teachers’ level of computer self-efficacy and their acceptance of and integration of technology in the classroom

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...

PDF

The relationship between culturally responsive self-efficacy and attitudes of trauma-informed practices among K-12 educators

PDF

Finding joy in the fallback: a study of how teachers can stay and find happiness in their now chosen profession through self-efficacy

PDF

The effect of traditional method of training on learning transfer, motivation, self-efficacy, and performance orientation in comparison to evidence-based training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

Asset Metadata

Creator Skimin, Daniel Joseph (author)

Core Title Cultural intelligence and self-efficacy of trip leaders on short-term international educational programs

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 06/24/2022

Defense Date 05/18/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag cultural intelligence,educational travel,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-efficacy

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Robles, Darline (committee member)

Creator Email dskimin@gmail.com,dskimin@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111352081

Unique identifier UC111352081

Legacy Identifier etd-SkiminDani-10791

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Skimin, Daniel Joseph

Type texts

Source 20220706-usctheses-batch-950 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu