University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

On the quest for global competencies

(USC Thesis Other)

On the quest for global competencies

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content On the Quest for Global Competencies
By
Kanokwan Pibalchon Leonard
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation proposal submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
(Educational Leadership)
August 2023

© Copyright by Kanokwan Pibalchon Leonard 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Kanokwan Pibalchon Leonard certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Ruth Chung
Robert Filback
Eric Canny, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv

Abstract
This comparative mixed-methods study evaluated the effectiveness of two forms of international
education programs—a short-term faculty-led program (STFL) and a Collaborative Online
International Learning (COIL) program— in developing students’ global competencies. The
research was guided by two main conceptual frameworks: the global competence conceptual
framework and the Burke-Litwin organization performance and change model. In the individual
layer, the research findings indicated a relationship between gender and parents’ level of
education in influencing individuals’ acquisition of knowledge, while gender and race were
found to significantly influence the participants’ attitudes. In the transactional layer, the findings
suggested that the short-term faculty-led program yielded greater enhancements in participants’
knowledge and skills, as well as exerted a greater influence on participants’ career plans
compared to the COIL program. However, COIL participants demonstrated higher proficiency in
project management skills. The qualitative data suggested that team projects, instruction, in-
country activities, engagement with various stakeholders, and immersion in a foreign country
were the program components that contributed to participants’ acquisition of knowledge and
development of skills.
The recommendations presented in this study aimed to suggest options that institutions could
implement at the transactional and transformational layers to help students develop their
knowledge, skills, and global mindset.
Keywords: global competence, cultural intelligence, international education, study abroad,
short-term study abroad, short-term faculty-led, collaborative online international learning
(COIL)

v

Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents, who have always believed that knowledge is the most
important asset one can possess. Without their unwavering belief in the power of education, I
would not have been able to transcend borders, live, work, and pursue my degree in the United
States. It is because of their constant encouragement and faith in my abilities that I stand here
today.

To my late father, who pursued his master’s degree in his 70s, your determination and dedication
serve as an inspiration to me. Although you are no longer physically present, I felt your spiritual
presence throughout this entire educational journey. Your memory and the values you instilled in
me continue to guide and motivate me every step of the way.

I also dedicate this work to all international educators around the world who tirelessly work to
bridge cultural gaps, foster understanding, and promote knowledge exchange without borders.
Your dedication to teaching and nurturing students from diverse backgrounds has a profound
impact on shaping a more interconnected and compassionate world.

vi

Acknowledgements
My sincere gratitude goes out to Dr. Eric Canny, my dissertation committee chair, for your
continuous support, wisdom, and inspiration throughout the dissertation process. I am truly grateful that
you encouraged me to think outside the box and look at the issues from an organizational level. I
appreciate that you always answered my questions and provided thoughtful and in-depth constructive
feedback swiftly. I could not imagine a better person to chair my dissertation committee.
I extend my heartfelt appreciation to Dr. Ruth Chung and Dr. Robert Filback, my dissertation
committee members, for investing their time and expertise in my academic growth. I would especially
like to thank Dr. Chung for encouraging me to incorporate quantitative methodology in this research and
for her kind guidance with quantitative data analysis.
I am deeply indebted to Ana Tubtim Barth, my boss, mentor, and dear friend who led me to the
international education field. Your guidance, mentorship, and friendship have been invaluable. I am
grateful for the opportunities you have provided me and for always pushing me to strive for excellence.
I also truly appreciate Brenda Miller, a dear friend, for listening to my complaints when I was
stuck making progress and for listening to my excitement when I discovered something intriguing in my
study. Thank you for your friendship and for assisting me with reviewing and editing the dissertation to
ensure my writing was grammatically correct, clear, and in line with APA format.
To my Ed.D. cohort, who shared this educational journey with me, I am grateful for the countless
hours we spent together in the Zoom classroom during the challenging times of the COVID-19 pandemic
and in the classroom once in-person instruction resumed.
Last but not least, to Robert Leonard, my loving husband, and Nathan and Zachary, my twin sons,
thank you for being my pillars of support throughout this challenging and rewarding journey. You have
made countless sacrifices to ensure that I had the time and space to pursue my studies. Your unwavering
belief in me has been my driving force. Your love, support, and belief in my abilities have been
instrumental in my success. Without you, I would not be able to attain a doctoral degree. This
achievement is as much yours as it is mine.

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiv
List of Abbrevations ..................................................................................................................... xv
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 7
Overview of the Theoretical Framework and Methodology ............................................... 8
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
Globalization and Internationalization of Higher Education .............................................11
History and Growth of the Field ........................................................................... 12
Internationalization Approaches ........................................................................... 15
Internationalization Abroad ...................................................................... 15
Internationalization at Home ..................................................................... 18

viii

Short-term Study Abroad .................................................................................................. 20
Characteristics of Short-term Study Abroad Programs ......................................... 20
Factors Influencing Short-term Study Abroad Participation Decision-making .... 22
Benefits of Short-term Study Abroad Participation ............................................. 24
Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) ....................................................... 26
Definition and Concept of Collaborative Online International Learning ............. 27
Potential Outcomes of Collaborative Online International Learning ................... 29
Unintended Consequences of Educational Technology Usage ............................. 31
Global Competence ........................................................................................................... 32
Definition of Global Competence ......................................................................... 33
Global Competence Dimensions and Assessment ................................................ 35
Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change ................................... 42
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 44
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 46
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 48
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 48
Research Design................................................................................................................ 50
Instruments ........................................................................................................................ 52
Survey Instrument: Quantitative Questionnaire.................................................... 53
Survey Instrument: Quanlitative Questionnaire.................................................... 53

ix

Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 54
Credibility, Trustworthiness, and Ethics ........................................................................... 54
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 56
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 57
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 59
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 59
Survey Participant Demographics......................................................................... 60
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 63
Demographic Factors ............................................................................................ 64
Global Competence Knowledge ............................................................... 65
Global Business Understanding ................................................................ 65
Skills ......................................................................................................... 66
Attitudes .................................................................................................... 66
Motivations ............................................................................................... 68
Results for Research Question 2 ...................................................................................... .71
Global Competence Development ........................................................................ 72
Global Competence Knowledge ............................................................... 73
Global Business Understanding ................................................................ 73

x

Skills ......................................................................................................... 73
Attitudes .................................................................................................... 76
Career Plans .............................................................................................. 79
Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................... .81
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 83
Findings............................................................................................................................. 84
Individual Layer .................................................................................................... 84
Participants’ Demographics and Learning Outcomes ............................... 84
Participants’ Motivations and Learning Outcomes ................................... 86
Transactional Layer ............................................................................................... 87
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 88
Transactional Layer ............................................................................................... 89
Strengthen Short-Term Study Abroad Programs ...................................... 90
Strengthen COIL Programs ....................................................................... 92
Transformational Layer ......................................................................................... 96
Limitations and Delimitations .......................................................................................... .99
Future Research ............................................................................................................. .101
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 103
References ................................................................................................................................... 107
Appendix A: Letter to the Virtual International Business Case Program Coordinator .............. 124

xi

Appendix B: Letter to the Best Business Practice Around the World Program Coordinator ..... 125
Appendix C: Survey Recruitment Email .................................................................................... 126
Appendix D: Survey Instrument ................................................................................................. 127

xii

List of Tables
Table 1: Traditional Study Abroad Program and Short-term Study Abroad Comparison ............ 21
Table 2: Summary of Global Competence Dimensions and Measurement Instrument ................ 35
Table 3: Comparison of Global Competence Constructs .............................................................. 37
Table 4: Comparison of Global Business Competence Components ........................................... 39
Table 5: Breakdown of Survey Participants by Programs ............................................................ 60
Table 6: Breakdown of Survey Participants by Gender and Program .......................................... 60
Table 7: Breakdown of Survey Participants by Program, Gender, and Race ............................... 61
Table 8: Breakdown of Survey Participants by Parents’ Education Level ................................... 62
Table 9: Breakdown of Survey Participants by Family Income ................................................... 62
Table 10: Breakdown of Survey Responses by Family Income and Parents’ Education ............. 63
Table 11: Global Competence Knowledge: Mean Scores by Gender ........................................... 65
Table 12: Global Business Understanding: Mean Scores by Gender ......................................... 66
Table 13: Global Business Understanding: Mean Scores by Parents’ Education ......................... 66
Table 14: Global Competence Attitudes: ANOV A Results by Gender ......................................... 67
Table 15: Global Competence Attitudes: ANOV A Results by Race ............................................. 67
Table 16: Motivation: Response Samples ..................................................................................... 70
Table 17: ANOV A Results for Global Competence Knowledge Development by Programs ...... 73
Table 18: ANOV A Results for Skill Development by Programs .................................................. 73
Table 19: Samples of Responses Related to Program Components ............................................. 75
Table 20: ANOV A Results for Attitudes by Programs ................................................................. 76
Table 21: Program Influence on Career Plans ............................................................................. 81
Table 22: Sample of Gocal Program in a Thai Community .......................................................... 96

xiii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Global Business Competence ........................................................................................ 41
Figure 2: Burke Litwin Organizational Change Model ................................................................ 43
Figure 3: Business Students’ Global Competence Conceptual Model ......................................... 44
Figure 4: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 46

xiv

List of Abbreviations
COIL Collaborative Online Learning Program
IaH Internationalization-at-home
ICT Information and Communication Technology
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
STFL Short-term Faculty-led Program
STSB Short-term Study Abroad Program
1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
As a result of globalization, the acceleration of overseas corporate expansion and
international trade, global sourcing, and labor mobility has intensified the competition in the
employment market as job candidates compete with both domestic and overseas candidates (Kerr
et al., 2016; Terry, 2011). Global competence has become a desirable skill with the increase in
workforce diversity and interactions between people from different countries and cultures in
social and business settings. According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers
(2019), the ability to work and communicate effectively across cultures is a competence
employers value in job candidates and employees.
Globalization does not leave higher education untouched. Higher education has become a
mechanism for producing graduates with the knowledge and skills required by the labor market
(Aktas et al., 2017; Kaushik et al., 2017; Lee & Steinaker, 2021; Strong et al., 2020). As the
employability of graduates has become a focus of higher education, it is not surprising that one
of the driving forces of higher education’s efforts in internationalization is to develop and
enhance students’ global competencies to become more competitive in the job market.
Study abroad programs and other types of student mobility across borders have been the
primary approaches to students’ global competence development (Soria & Troisi, 2014).
However, only some students have the opportunity to take part in student mobility programs.
Therefore, it is vital to find a way to build students’ global competence that does not involve
international travel. With the advancement in technology-assisted learning, it might be possible
to connect students to the world and help them build the necessary skills to become more
globally competent without cross-border physical movement.
2

Context and Background of the Problem
Due to the potential benefits of studying abroad programs, a lack of study abroad
experience could widen the racial disparity gap among college students and in society. Empirical
evidence suggests that participation in a study abroad program has a favorable association with
students’ personal growth, academic achievement, career development, and upward mobility
(Dwyer, 2014; Lee et al., 2012; NAFSA, 2019; Pietro, 2019). Nonetheless, only 10% of U.S.
college students participate in study abroad programs annually (NAFSA, n.d.). Furthermore,
statistics show the steady growth of college students participating in study abroad programs,
from fewer than 100,000 students in the 1994–1995 academic year to almost 350,000 students in
the 2018–2019 academic year (Open Doors, n.d.), but most study abroad participants are still
white. According to NAFSA (n.d.), 68.7% of white college students studied abroad during the
academic year 2018–2019 compared to 10.9% of Latinx students, 8.9% of Asian/Pacific Islander
students, and 6.4% of African American/Black students. However, due to the COVID-2019
pandemic, the number of students studying abroad was down to 162,633 in the academic year
2019-2020 and 14,459 people in the academic year 2020-2021 (Open Doors, 2022). By the time
of writing this dissertation, the information for the academic year 2021-2022 had not been
released.
Research points out that the high cost of studying abroad can be a barrier to engaging in
study abroad opportunities for many students, especially those from low socioeconomic
backgrounds (Lewis, 2016; Salisbury et al., 2008; Vernon et al., 2017). Apart from cost, other
factors such as fears of racism abroad, concerns about safety, lack of family support, fear of
going to an unfamiliar place alone, and loss of income are major barriers to studying abroad,
especially for historically marginalized students (Dessoff, 2006; Salisbury, 2011; Vernon et al.,
3

2017). Also, academic issues like having trouble finding credit-transferable courses or potential
graduation postponement due to participation in study abroad are common reasons why students
turn down opportunities to study abroad (Soria & Torisi, 2014; Vernon et al., 2017).
Higher education institutions offer different types of international education programs to
increase students’ international exposure opportunities. Among those programs, the short-term
study abroad program has become increasingly popular as an alternative to traditional semester-
long or year-long study abroad programs (Fitzsimmons et al., 2013; Sachau et al., 2010). As
evidenced by the 2022 Open Doors report, the number of students choosing to participate in a
short-term study abroad program—8 weeks or fewer duration—over the traditional mid-length
(between one quarter and one semester) or long-term (one academic or calendar year) study
abroad programs has increased. That number changed from 54.5% participating in short-term
study abroad programs in the 2008-2009 academic year to 64.8% in the 2018-2019 academic
year. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions suspended their short-term study abroad
programs in the 2019–2020 academic year. Therefore, only 30.7% of study abroad program
participants were in short-term study abroad programs that year; however, in the following
academic year, the portion of short-term study abroad program participants in the study abroad
program portfolio bounced back to 63.6% (Open Doors, 2022).
Because cross-border mobility activities may not be an option for many students, several
institutions rely on internationalization-at-home (IaH) activities, which do not involve any
physical border-crossing travel, to provide an international experience to their students.
Internationalization-at-home or internationalization of curriculum approaches incorporate global
and intercultural elements into on-campus instructional content, teaching, learning, and
assessment to engage students in activities that develop their global perspectives (Beelen &
4

Jones, 2015; Knights, 2012; Nilsson, 2003). The advancement in educational technology has
offered more opportunities for these types of internationalization activities, which have become
the next wave of international education (Mazzarol et al., 2003; Mittelmeier et al., 2021).
Collaboration Online International Learning (COIL) is one type of online international
mobility education program. It focuses on collaborative global team teaching and engaging
students from different institutions in various countries with each other in the online environment
with the intent to develop students’ global perspectives and intercultural competencies (SUNY
COIL Center, n.d.). The COIL concept has gained more attention from higher education
institutions as a cost-effective way to deliver international and global competence outcomes
without physically crossing borders involvement (de Wit & Altbach, 2021). Evidently, in the
2019–2020 academic year, when travel became restricted during the COVID pandemic, more
than 10,000 students from 242 U.S. colleges and universities earned credits from participating in
an online international learning experience. Among those participants, 38% received credits from
online international collaborative projects (Open Doors, n.d.). Considering the multi-billion-
dollar investment in digital platforms and online technology by higher education institutions in
response to the COVID pandemic (Gallagher & Palmer, 2020), it is time for higher education
leaders to strategize their internationalization efforts by transforming students’ international
experience and building their global competence through information and communication
technology.
Statement of the Problem
Globalization has led the world to become more interconnected. More and more
businesses are conducted on a global scale. Globalization does not only affect transnational and
multinational corporations but also has influenced the way local companies operate. Because
5

interactions between people from different countries and cultures have become normalized,
especially in work settings, being globally competent is a desirable asset employers look for
(Aktas et al., 2017; Streiner et al., 2015; Schenker, 2019). As graduate employability becomes
the main focus of higher education, producing global citizens has become one of the top
priorities of business education for many business schools (Lilley et al., 2014). Apart from
employability, research also shows that equipping the next generations with global competence
can benefit society in the long run because globally competent people tend to be socially
responsible in their behaviors and decision-making (Lilley et al., 2014). Nonetheless, American
higher education does not adequately prepare its students for the international workforce or
participation in global challenges (Hunter et al., 2006; Li, 2013; Lilley et al., 2014; Kaushik et
al., 2017; Schenker, 2019).
While COVID-19 has limited international mobility, it has also accelerated the trend of
on-campus international education programs (Open Doors, n.d.) because educators have had to
be innovative in designing meaningful on-campus programs in place of student mobility
programs. In addition, the increasing role of technology in education has created more
opportunities for expanding on-campus international education programs to help students gain
global competence without stepping out of the country (Mittelmeier et al., 2021: Soria & Troisi,
2014). It is crucial to understand whether students can gain similar global competence from
participating in short-term student abroad programs and COIL programs because more and more
students choose these types of programs over traditional study abroad programs (Open Doors,
n.d.).
6

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The primary goal of this study is to explore factors contributing to students’ global
competence growth by examining the growth of students’ global knowledge, skills, and attitudes
after participating in a short-term study abroad program or a COIL program at a university with
the pseudonym of “Best Western University.” The university is a large private research
university in the Western United States with an approximate population of 50,000 undergraduate,
graduate, and professional students combined. Its business school has been ranked in the top
twenty for MBA programs and top ten for undergraduate programs for several years and has
approximately 6,500 undergraduate and graduate students.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the dissertation timeframe, only students who
participated in the 2019 and 2022 short-term faculty-led programs are eligible to participate in
the study, comprising a population of approximately 500 students. The COIL program is
unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic, but the study must be limited to only around 200
students who took part in the COIL program in 2021 and 2022. The reason is that most students
in this program are juniors or seniors. Therefore, by the time the research was conducted,
students who participated in the program before 2021 had most likely already graduated.
Two main overarching research questions were constructed to unleash the information
needed to achieve the research goals.
1. What factors influence students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes, making them more
globally competent?
2. Is there a difference in global competence growth between students participating in
short-term study abroad programs and collaborative online international learning
(COIL) programs?
7

Significance of the Study
Even though only a small percentage of college students study abroad, the effectiveness
of study abroad programs in developing and increasing students’ international perspectives,
global competence, and other soft skills is well documented and supported by empirical data
(Dwyer, 2014; Franklin, 2010; Stebleton et al., 2013). However, despite the growing popularity
of short-term study abroad programs and the COIL model, research on these topics is still very
minimal (Iskhakova & Bradley, 2022; Knight, 2006). Moreover, although the literature suggests
that qualitative or mixed methods should be used to assess global competence (Deardorff, 2006),
most existing research in the field and global competence assessment tools are quantitative.
Therefore, the limited research in the field drives the need for empirical data to understand the
influence of short-term study abroad programs and COIL on students’ global competence
development.
Apart from filling the gap in the international education research field, understanding
how participation in a short-term study abroad program or a non-travel international educational
program influences students’ global competence can help students articulate the skills gained
from participating in the program, which can be beneficial when they seek internships and jobs.
Additionally, understanding the outcomes of participation in different international education
programs can help schools prioritize their resources and adjust strategies and practices to provide
more learning opportunities that give students the most favorable outcomes. Ultimately, the
study could benefit the student population that generally does not participate in semester-long or
longer study abroad programs.
8

Overview of the Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The Burke-Litwin organization performance and change model was used as the primary
theoretical framework in this study to discover how higher education institutions may foster
students’ global competence development. The Burke-Litwin model postulates that twelve
factors within four layers of the organizational environment—external, transformational,
organizational transactional, and individual transactional—influence an organization’s
performance (Burke, 2018; Burke & Litwin, 1992). The research examined students’ knowledge,
skills, attitudes, and motivations in the individual transactional layer to determine the factors
contributing to their global competence outcomes. The study inspected the program structure of
each program at the organizational transformational layer to evaluate which components of the
program generated varied results on students’ growth. Finally, the model’s external,
transformational, and transactional layers are used as the framework to construct
recommendations based on the research’s findings and literature.
The study utilized a mixed method to gain an in-depth understanding of the issues. A
survey was used to collect students’ information, analyze the characteristics of program
participants, and measure program participants’ knowledge, skills, and attitude change after
completion of the program. The open-ended questions in the survey helped to gain more insight
into students’ experiences, motivations, and perspectives on the factors leading to the change in
their knowledge, skills, and attitudes reflected in their behaviors. Based on the literature, globally
competent business students must show the following behaviors:
1. Have knowledge and understanding of other cultures and the implications of local and
global issues, especially in a business context,
9

2. Have skills in engaging in cross-cultural settings openly, appropriately, and
effectively, and
3. Have a global mindset and an open attitude to differences and ambiguity.
Definition of Terms
Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) refers to an online academic
collaborative program across institutions from different countries where faculty collaborate on
instructions and academic content as a teaching team and students from these different
institutions to work together in teams on a project.
Global competence is a combination of a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that help
individuals engage effectively and properly in cross-cultural settings.
Globalization is a phenomenon in which the relationships between nations become more
interconnected through the integration and interchange of knowledge, communication,
technology, resources, ideas, etc.
Internationalization is the tasks, tools, policies, practices, and processes that higher
education has in place in response to globalization.
Internationalization abroad refers to higher education activities that involve cross-border
mobility.
Internationalization-at-home refers to the process of incorporating global and
intercultural elements into formal and informal curricula that take place in domestic educational
settings.
Internationalization of curriculum is the process of incorporating international elements
into all aspects of the curriculum.
10

Short-term study abroad program refers to a study abroad program with a duration of
eight weeks or fewer.
Short-term faculty-led program refers to a type of short-term study abroad program with
faculty leading a student group on international travel as part of an academic program.
Student mobility is students’ movement that involves their physical border-crossing
actions.
Study abroad program refers to an academic or non-academic program that requires
students to travel abroad to take classes or conduct activities overseas.
Traditional study abroad program is a study abroad program that provides students an
opportunity to take classes at a foreign college or university for one quarter to one academic or
calendar year with or without earning credit.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is a typical five-chapter dissertation. Chapter One is an overview of the
study, including the background of the problem in the international education field, the
problem’s statement, and the study’s purpose. The first chapter also addresses the reasons for
doing a comparative study on students’ global competence growth and provides an overview of
the theoretical framework and method used in this study. Chapter Two reviews the literature on
internationalization in higher education, short-term study abroad programs, collaborative online
international learning (COIL) programs, global competence, and the conceptual framework used
in guiding the study. Chapter Three highlights the study methodology, including sample and
population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. The research findings are
presented in Chapter Four. Finally, Chapter Five discusses the findings, their implications for
practice, and opportunities for future research.
11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The literature review begins with a differentiation between the concept of globalization
and internationalization before taking a deep dive into the history of internationalization in
higher education fields and internationalization approaches. Next, the dissertation compares
global competence growth among students participating in short-term faculty-led and
collaborative online international learning programs. Therefore, this chapter also reviews the
literature on short-term study abroad programs, collaborative online international learning, and
global competence. Additionally, the Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and
Change was analyzed and incorporated into the conceptual framework guiding the study of this
dissertation.
Globalization and Internationalization of Higher Education
The concepts of globalization and internationalization are complex and intertwined. Even
though the terms “globalization” and “internationalization” are often used interchangeably in the
public debate on higher education (Teichler, 2004; Bradford et al., 2017), they do not have the
same meaning. Scholars define globalization as the growing interactions, interconnectedness,
and interdependence between different geographical sovereignties caused by the advancement of
technology, transportation, and telecommunications that facilitate the flow and interchange of
knowledge, technology, resources, and ideas (Beerkens, 2003; Bradford et al., 2017; Knight,
2003; Lee & Stensaker, 2021; Sachau et al., 2010). This phenomenon has significantly impacted
not only the politics, economy, society, and culture of nations around the globe but also forced
higher education institutions to adapt and change (Bradford et al., 2017; Knight, 2004; Sachau et
al., 2010). Higher education’s efforts to systematically respond to the new requirements and
challenges of the globalized world are known as the internationalization of higher education
12

(Kälvermark & van der Wende, 1997; Knight, 2004). Internationalization is also used in relation
to an increase in the physical border-crossing mobility of students and academics, international
academic collaboration, knowledge transfer, and international education (Dagen et al., 2019;
Guillotin & Mangematin, 2015; Teichler, 2004). Some scholars focus the definition of
internationalization on the policies and practices that educational systems and academic
institutions use to deal with the constantly changing academic environment in a global setting
(Altbach & Knight, 2007). These concepts of internationalization coincide with Jane Knight’s
definition of internationalization, which is widely accepted and repeatedly cited by many
scholars (Dagen et al., 2019; De Wit, 2011; Baldassar & McKenzie, 2016), that the
internationalization of higher education is “the process of integrating an international,
intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions, or delivery of post-secondary
education” (Knight, 2003, p. 2).
Thus, it becomes clear from the literature that the concepts of globalization and
internationalization are different. As mentioned above, globalization, in a broad sense, is a
phenomenon in which the relationships between nations become more interconnected through
the integration and interchange of knowledge, communication, technology, resources, ideas, etc.
But on the other hand, internationalization is the tasks, tools, policies, practices, and processes
that higher education has in place in response to globalization.
History and Growth of the Field
Internationalization has become a central issue in the field of higher education since the
1990s. However, universities have long been one of the most international institutions in society
(Altbach, 1998). Also, the migration of students and scholars to seek knowledge and skills has
always existed, even before the 12th century, and has continued to be the primary international
13

aspect of higher education until today (Altbach, 1998; de Wit & Merkx, 2012). In the late 19th
century, academic mobility activities and institutional exchanges between Europe and the U.S.,
which used to be concentrated among European universities, increased (de Wit & Merkx, 2012).
The post-World War I to pre-World War II era was an important milestone in U.S. study abroad
history as many organized study abroad programs began in the 1920s and 1930s (de Wit &
Merkx, 2012). For example, the University of Delaware’s first junior-year-abroad program was
established in France in 1923, Marymount College’s study abroad program in Paris in 1924, and
Smith College’s overseas program in Paris in 1925 and Florence in 1931.
In the early twentieth century, the U.S. began to establish its position in the field of
international education due to the growing number of academic mobility movements from other
countries to the U.S. (de Wit & Merkx, 2012). In the 1980s, higher education policies on
internationalization mostly centered on international exchange programs and organized activities,
projects, and programs driven by a government agenda (de Wit & Merkx, 2012). From the 1990s
onward, the internationalization of higher education became front and center of higher education
strategies and agendas due to modern globalization (de Wit & Merkx, 2012). The economic
rationale has become the driving force behind national and institutional internationalization
agendas and strategies (de Wit & Altbach, 2021).
In the knowledge-based society of the globalizing world, where knowledge is a
commodity, universities continue to play a significant role in economic and cultural development
(Altbach & Knight, 2007; de Wit, 2011; Skinner & Blackey, 2010). As a result, international
education has become a lucrative industry that brings significant revenue to the higher education
sector and countries such as Australia, Canada, the U.S., the U.K., etc. (Altbach, 1998; Seeber et
al., 2016). As a result, higher education institutions are forced toward more internationalization
14

to remain competitive for reputation, rankings, economic resources, human capital, etc. (Altbach,
1998; de Wit & Altbach, 2021; de Wit & Merkx, 2012).
While overseas branch campuses, franchised degrees, and international joint degrees are
some innovative ways to internationalize higher education and increase institutions’ income,
mobility continues to be the most critical aspect of internationalization in tertiary education
(Altbach, 1998; de Wit & Altbach, 2021; de Wit & Merkx, 2012). However, internationalization
on campus has started to gain its footprint in internationalizing higher education (de Wit &
Altbach, 2021; Soria & Triosi, 2014; Mittelmeier et al., 2021). Also, given rapid technological
advancements, the utilization of information and communication technologies (ICT) in education
is purported to be the upcoming trend in advancing the next phase of internationalization
activities in higher education (Mazzarol et al., 2003; Mittelmeier et al., 2021). Online remote
learning has recently become a more common format for delivering course content (de Wit &
Altbach, 2021; Mittelmeier et al., 2021). Massive open online courses (MOOCs)—another
format in which online classes are provided without credit, with free access to anyone—have
gained popularity since the 2000s. In addition, educators and scholars have gradually turned their
attention to the model of virtual mobility, virtual exchange, and Collaborative Online
International Learning (COIL) as other methods of internationalization (Bruhn-Zass, 2022; de
Wit & Altbach, 2021; Mittelmeier et al., 2021).
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated progress in the use of information and
communications technology (ICT) in the context of international higher education (Bruhn-Zass,
2022). Around the world, teaching, collaborating, and traveling in virtual space have gone from
being a small part of internationalization to a “new normal” (Hudzik, 2020). Utilizing ICT in
internationalization activities also provides more inclusive international opportunities in higher
15

education settings (Bruhn-Zass, 2022). This trend also responds to the growing public demand
for comprehensive internationalization, which incorporates intercultural and global elements into
all areas of education, leading to a shift in ethos and value of institutions in all aspects (Beelen &
Jones, 2015; de Wit & Altbach, 2021; Hudzik, 2011; Mittelmeier et al., 2021). Despite the many
benefits of using ICT in education, it is necessary to point out that the issue of inequality
between the haves and have-nots is a recurring topic of discussion (de Wit & Altbach, 2022;
Wellington, 2005).
Literature shows that globalization and internationalization have been used
interchangeably, but their meanings differ. Enhancing students’ international knowledge and
competence is the primary goal of the internationalization of higher education, and institutions
use different approaches to achieve the goal.
Internationalization Approaches
Traditional internationalization activities involve some types of cross-border mobility
activities (Beelen & Jones, 2015; de Wit & Altbach, 2021; Knight, 2004; Mittelmeier et al.,
2021). However, internationalization has evolved beyond border-crossing or export-oriented
approaches. The two primary approaches higher education institutions use in internationalization
are internationalization abroad and internationalization-at-home (Knight, 2004; Mittermeier et
al., 2021).
Internationalization Abroad
Mazzarol, Soutar, and Seng (2003) note that the border-crossing of students and
academic staff was the first wave of internationalization of higher education. Cross-border
mobility has been the dominant activity in the internationalization abroad approach, as clearly
seen from the number of student movements globally, which grew from 2 million in 1998 to 6.1
16

million in 2019, a growth of around 5.5% per year (OECD, 2021). Apart from traditional study
abroad programs, there is a growing trend of short-term study abroad (STSA) programs.
According to the 2021 Open Doors report, during the 2018–2019 academic year, 121,833
students took part in semester-long and year-long study abroad programs, while 225,266 students
participated in short-term study abroad programs ranging from a few weeks during the academic
year to a few months in summer. However, due to the cancellation of many STSA programs in
the academic year 2019–2020 as a result of COVID–19, 62% of study abroad students took part
in mid-length programs (Open Doors, 2022). In the academic year 2020–2021, roughly 63% of
students who participated in study abroad programs were STSA participants (Open Doors, 2022).
Although student mobility is a primary and traditional method of internationalization
abroad, history has proved that border-crossing student movements are very volatile and subject
to external factors, especially large-scale events. For example, according to Farrugia and
Villareal (2013), the number of U.S. students in Japan decreased by 33% due to the 3.11 triple
disaster in 2011, and in the same year, the Arab Spring caused a 43% decline in U.S. students in
North Africa. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted study mobility
programs, especially in 2020 and 2021. Apart from the nearly 50% drop in study abroad student
numbers from 347,099 in the academic year 2018-2019 to only 162,633 in 2019-2020 (Open
Door, n.d.), NAFSA (n.d.) estimated a nearly $1 billion financial loss across U.S. higher
education because of the shortening or cancellation of study abroad programs and at least a $3
billion revenue loss from international students’ presence in the U.S.
International academic mobility is another essential part of this approach, along with the
people (students, faculty, and scholars) movement (de Wit & Altbach 2021; Knight 2004, 2012;
Knight & Liu 2019). International programs and provider mobility (IPPM) are the best-known
17

forms of international academic mobility. Knight (2020) divided international programs and
provider mobility into six categories: franchise programs, partnership programs, international
branch campuses, international joint universities, self-study distance education, and distance
education with local academic partners.
In the franchise program category, a foreign institution or provider (sending institution)
designs, implements, and oversees the quality of the program delivered in the host country.
Program participants also obtain a certificate or degree from the sending institution (Knight,
2020). In contrast to franchise programs, partnership programs employ a collaborative
methodology. Both sending and host institutions collaborate in the program’s design, delivery,
and academic qualification assurance (Knight, 2020). The common terms of partnership
programs are twinning, joint/double degree, and triple/multiple degree programs (Knight & Liu,
2019). Another collaborative approach in IPPM is the international joint university, where a
foreign higher education institution co-founds and co-establishes a higher education institution
with local partners in a host country (Knight, 2020). Partners may be academic institutions or
government or non-government entities (de Wit & Altbach 2021). They also work together on
the development and delivery of academic programs, while certificates or degrees can be granted
by both host and sending country institutions or either of them (Knight, 2020). A joint
international university differs from an international branch campus in the way that the sending
institution funds, establishes, and controls all aspects of its branch campus in the host country in
the international joint university model (Knight, 2020). An international branch campus is also
known as a satellite, offshore, or portal campus (Knight, 2020).
As distance learning is on the rise, higher education utilizes distance education in an
international approach. There are two modes of distance education. The first is self-study
18

distance education in which a foreign institution provides academic programs to local students
without in-country support or partnership, and students receive the foreign institution’s
certifications or degrees (Knight, 2020). Another mode is that distance education offered to host
country students is jointly designed, developed, and implemented by foreign and host country
institutions (Knight, 2020). The qualification award of distance education with a local academic
partner is similar to international joint universities in that either or both institutions can grant the
award (Knight, 2020).
The internationalization of higher education institutions can be done not only through
their activities overseas, as addressed above, but colleges and universities can also make efforts
to internationalize their institutions through their activities on campus.
Internationalization-at-Home
Due to growing concerns of inequality in study abroad opportunities among students, the
concept of internationalization at home has gained more and more attention from researchers and
educators (Beelen & Jones, 2015; Knight, 2012; Mittelmeier et al., 2021; Soria & Troisi, 2014).
The idea of internationalization-at-home (IaH) was conceptualized in 1998 by Bengt Nilsson,
then vice president for international affairs at Malmö University in Sweden, who had submitted a
project paper on internationalization at home to the European Association for International
Education (EAIE) conference in Maastricht in 1990 (Nilsson, 2003; Wächter, 2003).
IaH involves the entire university in the deliberate process of incorporating global and
intercultural perspectives into formal and informal curricula that take place in domestic
educational settings (Beelen & Jones, 2015; Nilsson, 2003). Knight (2012) describes IaH as a
campus-based strategy to increase student and faculty global understanding and intercultural
skills by integrating international and intercultural perspectives into the instructional and
19

learning process and other educational and non-educational activities such as research,
extracurricular activities, campus life, and external relations, especially activities that promote
interactions with cultural and ethnic groups in the community. IaH is neither a goal nor a
pedagogy in and of itself but rather a set of tools and activities that higher education institutions
use to create international engagement opportunities for students to foster their global and
intercultural competencies without physical travel to another country (Beelen & Leask, 2011).
According to Beelen and Jones (2015), staff mobility and development are essential to the
success of IaH.
According to de Wit and Altbach (2021), higher education has turned its focus on making
the campus more international and developing more holistic approaches to IaH as a study abroad
alternative, which also helps improve educational quality. The sudden outbreak of COVID-19
forced universities to pivot their curricular and co-curricular activities online quickly. The
world’s unexpected immobilization illuminated the possibility of creating meaningful
international academic programs at home. This phenomenon has made inequalities among
students, universities, and countries more visible, including inequalities in providing
internationalized at-home experiences to students (de Wit & Altbach, 2022; Ghosh, 2022).
In conclusion, globalization is an economic and academic framework focused on wealth,
knowledge, and power, whereas internationalization is the policies and practices of academic
institutions and systems in response to the changing landscape in the global context. The main
approaches to the internationalization of higher education are internationalization abroad and
internationalization-at-home. While internationalization abroad focuses on cross-border
movements and activities, IaH focuses on those activities that occur in the campus setting by
integrating international and intercultural dimensions into every aspect of campus life. Student
20

mobility has been the primary avenue to help students gain international exposure and global
competence, but only a small number of students can participate in traditional study abroad
programs. As short-term study abroad programs have increasingly become an alternative to
traditional study abroad programs, especially for students who cannot be away for an extended
period, the next section will explore the literature on short-term study abroad.
Short-term Study Abroad
The traditional form of a study abroad program is when students spend time taking
classes overseas for a semester or a whole academic year and earn transferable credits. However,
short-term study abroad (STSA) programs have been gaining importance in driving international
education worldwide (Iskhakova & Bradly, 2022). According to the Open Doors report (2021),
64.8% of 347,099 study abroad students participated in short-term programs in the 2018-2019
academic year, a 12.7% increase from the 2005-2006 academic year. The increase in participant
numbers and the importance of STSA programs in the international education field have
generated more studies relating to STSA. According to Iskhakova and Bradly (2022), about ten
papers related to STSA programs were published annually between 2010 and 2014. The number
of publications increased to 22 papers in 2015 and 32 papers in 2018. As short-term study abroad
programs are an emerging trend in internationalization in higher education, this dissertation
examined the literature on STSA on three key topics: characteristics of STSA, factors
influencing students’ decisions to join STSA, and benefits of STSA.
Characteristics of Short-term Study Abroad Programs
Based on the length of the program, the Institute of International Education (IIE) divides
study abroad programs into three primary categories: short-term, mid-length, and long-term
(Opendoors, 2021). The long-term programs may last an entire academic or calendar year. The
21

mid-length programs are either one or two-quarters or a semester long. Short-term programs’
duration varies from fewer than two weeks to twelve weeks, but one to eight weeks are the
common duration (Iskhakova and Bradly, 2022). Based on the 2021 Open Doors report, the two
week to eight-week programs have the most participants (around 38%) each year. Apart from
program duration, Iskhakova and Bradly (2022) pointed out that short-term programs have other
distinct components, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Traditional Study Abroad Program and Short-term Study Abroad Comparison
Component Traditional study abroad Short-term study abroad
Duration A quarter to a year 1 – 12 weeks
Language use in the
program
English and/or host country language Mostly English

Logistics Travel arrangements are mostly done by
individual student and mostly stay at
dormitories or family hosts
Mostly group travel arrangements by the
home university and mostly stay at
hotels or dormitories
Academic structure Usually for credit courses that can
transfer overseas credits to home
university’s credits.
Host university or private provider
offers courses that students take
abroad
Academic for-credit course or co-curricular
program with no credit-bearing offered.
No credit-transfer needed.
Pre-trip sessions at home university and/or
sessions overseas offered by the home
university.
Daily schedule in and outside class
activities
Home university’s
supervision/control
level
Mostly unsupervised and home
university does not have much
control over the program
Supervised mainly by faculty or
administrator of home university and
highly control over most aspects of the
program
Post-program
assessment/reflection
Not integrated into the program Usually integrated as part of the program

Short-term study abroad programs have several models depending on program duration,
structure, content, purpose, academic standard, etc. The most common models are summer
22

semester abroad, study-tour, and service-learning programs (Sachau et al., 2010). This
dissertation focused on study tours, also known as faculty-led programs, immersion programs,
study trips, or educational trips (Fisher et al., 2022; Mapp, 2012; Sachau et al., 2010). In this type
of program, students travel in a group to one city or multiple cities, and the group stays at hotels
(Sachau et al., 2010). The program’s design is planned around a course theme and typically
includes site visits, guest lectures, and meetings with local experts (Fisher et al., 2022; Sachau et
al., 2010).
The literature identifies several distinctions between traditional study abroad (SA) and
short-term study abroad programs. These differences might lead to students’ preference for
STSA over SA. The following section will explore the literature on factors influencing students’
study abroad decisions.
Factors Influencing Short-term Study Abroad Participation Decision-making
Statistics show that 70% of study-abroad participants were white, and 67.4% were female
students in the academic year 2019-2020 (Opendoors, n.d.). Additionally, research illuminates
the correlations between students’ study abroad decisions and their family’s socio-economic
status, parents’ educational level, financial resources, and social and cultural capital (Salisbury et
al., 2008; Salisbury et al., 2011; Whatley, 2017). Therefore, the profile of study abroad
participants looks similar. Besides family, research shows academic staff and peers can also
influence student decisions (Brown et al., 2016; Whatley, 2018). For example, a quantitative
survey of 204 sophomore business students in the U.S. Midwest by Fitzsimmons, Flanagan, and
Wang (2013) reveals that students felt higher social pressure to engage in short-term programs
than long-term ones. Thus, peer pressure might be one of the reasons that students choose an
STSA over a SA program.
23

Although some literature claims that finance is not the biggest barrier to studying abroad
(Salisbury et al., 2008; Stround, 2010), most literature asserts that financial challenges play a
significant role in students’ decisions about whether to study abroad (Brown et al., 2016; Evans
et al., 2011; Vernon et al. 2017). Furthermore, research shows that some students choose to join
STSA because they perceive it as less costly than SA programs (Evans et al., 2008; Fitzsimmons
et al., 2013). Apart from cost, many students decide to participate in an overseas study because
of the expected benefits gained from their study abroad experience, such as personal, intellectual,
and professional growth (Movassaghi et al., 2014; Bandyopadhyay & Bandyopadhyay, 2015).
Furthermore, students appear to believe participating in a STSA program could help them
expand their network, hone their soft skills, and find more job opportunities (Bretag & van der
Veen, 2017). Even though many perceive that they could gain more from participating in a SA
program than an STSA program, they still choose to join a STSA program because they believe
that STSA is more fun and has less risk than SA (Evans et al., 2008; Fitzsimmons et al., 2013).
STSA, in addition to providing an educational and meaningful experience, is more appealing
than SA because it is less challenging for them to navigate international travel while they can
experience other countries and complete coursework in a short time (Bretag & van der Veen,
2017).
Based on the literature, students choose a program that fits their budget and perceptions
of challenges, attainment, return outcomes, enjoyment, etc. Students’ perceptions, especially of
the return outcomes, might be similar to or different from the short-term program participation
outcomes, as found by researchers.
24

Benefits of Short-term Study Abroad Participation
This section reviews the literature on the benefits of participating in short-term faculty-
led programs, also known as short-term educational travel programs or study tours, because the
dissertation aimed to study the outcomes of this type of STSA program. Therefore, the terms
“short-term faculty-led programs,” “short-term educational travel programs,” and “study tours”
will be used interchangeably throughout this dissertation.
Compared with traditional study abroad programs, students in short-term faculty-led
programs spend much less time overseas. However, research reveals students still gain many
benefits even if they spend only a short time abroad. For example, Mapp (2012) collected data
from 87 students who participated in a short-term faculty-led program at a liberal arts college in
central Pennsylvania, ranging from nine days to two weeks, between 2008 and 2009. Students
displayed a significant increase in emotional resilience, cross-cultural knowledge, and cultural
adaptability regardless of the length and location of the program. One interesting finding is that
previous travel experiences did not impact student growth in this study.
The literature also points out that when comparing students who take similar courses or
programs on campus and those who conduct part of their course or program activities overseas,
the latter group develops higher ethnocentrism, intercultural awareness, intercultural sensitivity,
intercultural competencies, and global competencies than on-campus students (Chieffo &
Griffiths, 2004; Gullekson et al., 2011; Ruth et al., 2019; Tucker & Weaver, 2013). Furthermore,
students can reap these benefits regardless of where they study (Mapp, 2012). Interestingly, even
domestic study tours that embed cultural immersion activities in the program can lead to
students’ intercultural competence growth and worldview development (Gomez-Lanier, 2017).
25

But, of course, students participating in the overseas program have a higher gain in these areas of
development (Gomez-Lanier, 2017).
STSA programs, including short-term educational travel programs, can positively impact
students’ academic achievement as they report more understanding of academic subjects (Ruth et
al., 2019; Tucker &Weaver, 2013). The reason might be that students can connect real-life
examples or scenarios experienced from the short-term educational travel programs to the
knowledge from coursework. Consequently, students feel that the program provides worthwhile
educational experiences and helps them connect with their peers (Evans et al., Gomez-Lanier,
2017). These connections boost their sense of belonging, resulting in higher retention rates than
students without any form of study abroad experience (Ruth et al., 2019; Gomez-Lanier, 2017).
Moreover, research shows that short-term educational travel programs are a gateway to long-
term study abroad program participation as the program ignites students’ interest in studying
abroad (Bretag & van der Veen, 2017). Apart from academic benefits, experience from study
tours also helps students see a clearer picture of their future career path, including sparking their
interest in working overseas (Bretag & van der Veen, 2017; Iskhajova & Bradly, 2022;
Movassaghi et al., 2014; Ruth et al., 2019; Tucker &Weaver, 2013).
Research also illuminates the importance of assessment timing because it could affect
students’ viewpoints on their experience and participation outcomes. For example, Tucker and
Weaver (2013) conducted a longitudinal study on international business travel program
participants. Most of the participants were business students, but not all. The group traveled to
two cities-two countries within two weeks. The interviews were conducted two times—the first
time three to four months after the program and another between two to six years after the
program’s conclusion. In the first interview, some students reported negative experiences in
26

dealing with stress in coping with the new environment, but none reflected negative emotions in
the latter interview.
The literature review highlights that, apart from the overseas duration, STSA programs
have many unique features that are different from traditional SA programs. For example, the
program structure is more constructed, designed, and controlled by the schools that offer the
program. Furthermore, the review also reveals important factors to students’ study abroad and
program choice decisions and uncovers benefits from short-term study abroad program
participation that are similar to those of longer-term study abroad programs.
While participating in any form of study abroad programs benefits students in many
ways, including gaining global competencies, around 90% of U.S. college graduates never study
abroad at all (NAFSA, n.d.). Therefore, finding alternatives for these students to gain the
necessary competencies without traveling is necessary. Using information and communication
technology (ICT) in education, especially during the COVID pandemic, has shown that the
collaborative online international learning (COIL) model could be a good way for students to
learn global skills without physically international travel involvement.
Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL)
The swift development of information and communication technology (ICT), especially
the internet, is an intriguing hallmark of globalization. Soon after the internet became publicly
available in the mid-1990s, many of the most crucial communications, including business
communication, moved online (Rubin, 2017; Sarkar, 2012). ICT has not only facilitated new
ways of communication but also provided greater access to information to the public and has
supported numerous online services, particularly in business, culture, entertainment, and
education (Sarkar, 2012). Discussions about using ICT as a tool to support the education sector
27

were sparked in the late 1990s (Sarkar, 2012). The proliferation of massive open online courses
(MOOCs) in 2012 prompted many higher institutions to examine and implement online learning
at their universities (Rubin, 2017).
The advancement of ICT-integrated teaching and learning provides opportunities for
higher education to provide high-impact educational programs with international exposure to
their students on-campus. High-impact educational practice engages students in learning
processes by applying knowledge through active and hands-on experiences in solving real-world
problems collaboratively with their learning community (Kuh, 2008). Therefore, high-impact
learning helps better prepare students with knowledge, abilities, skills, and personal
characteristics that will allow them to prosper. These goals continue to be achieved in the online
high-impact learning and pedagogy environment, such as the collaborative online international
learning model, or COIL, which has become a more common method for providing international
experience to college students (de Wit & Albatch, 2021).
This section reviews the literature on two main topics relevant to collaborative online
international learning (COIL). The first part discusses the definition and concept of COIL before
examining research on COIL participation outcomes and addressing the unintended
consequences of using technology in education.
Definition and Concept of Collaborative Online International Learning
In some literature the terms “virtual mobility,” “virtual exchanges,” “telecollaboration,”
“online intercultural exchange,” “global digital exchange,” and “collaborative online
international learning” are used interchangeable (Custer & Tuominen, 2017; Mestre-Segarra, &
Ruiz-Garrido, 2022; O’Dowd, 2021; Rubin, 2017; Stevens Initiative, 2021; Vahed & Rodriguez,
2021). Yet, some literature opposes the term “virtual exchange” because the word “virtual” gives
28

a sense that it is not real (Colpaert, 2020; O’Dowd, 2021) and suggests that other terms, such as
telecollaboration (Colpaert, 2020) or online intercultural exchange (O’Dowd, 2021) be used
instead. However, the term “collaborative online international learning” has gained more
acceptance and has been more widely used worldwide (de Wit & Albatch, 2021). Additionally,
the distinction between the two becomes clear after analyzing the definition of virtual exchange
and collaborative online international learning more closely.
According to the Virtual Exchange Coalition (n.d), virtual exchange is defined as
ongoing, interpersonal academic programs that use technology to assist the program’s activities
and interactions. On the other hand, the State University of New York COIL Center (n.d.) points
out that collaborative online international learning (COIL) is part of coursework that engages
professors and students from across the world to work together on projects and have dialogues
with each other through online platforms. Based on these two terminologies, “virtual exchange”
is a broad concept of using technology-assisted academic programs to create interactive learning
and foster relationships between the participants, while “COIL” pinpoints a more specific type of
online academic activity.
The concept of collaborative online international learning was developed and introduced
in 2006 by the State University of New York COIL Center as a new way of teaching and
learning that builds cross-cultural awareness across shared multicultural educational settings (de
Wit & Albatch, 2021; Rubin, 2017). COIL first emerged in the social sciences and humanities as
a tool for introducing native speakers and their cultural knowledge to language classes, but now
it is widely used in nearly all fields of studies (Rubin, 2017). The early stage of online
collaboration happened organically among faculty from different universities when they formed
a teaching team and created a joint or partially joint syllabus (Rubin, 2017). The COIL model
29

emphasizes the creation of an equitable teaching team in which faculty across nations collaborate
to produce a shared curriculum, co-teach, and manage coursework that emphasizes experiential
and cooperative student learning. (Rubin, 2017; Vahed & Rodriguez, 2021). While faculty work
together on instructions and academic content, students also collaborate with their peers from
other institutions in different parts of the world. Typically, the COIL model is embedded in the
regular courses offered to students as part of the university’s standard curriculum. COIL
courses—also commonly referred to as COIL-enhanced modules—can be taken entirely online
or, much more frequently, in a hybrid model that combines traditional in-person instructions at a
minimum of two schools with online collaboration for student projects (Rubin, 2017). The
collaboration may run for the duration of an entire semester, but it typically lasts for five to eight
weeks (Rubin, 2017). Even though most of the activities in COIL courses happen in the online
environment, students can still gain significant learning from this type of academic program.
Potential Outcomes of Collaborative Online International Learning
The two main characteristics of collaborative learning are active learning and
constructive process (Appiah-Kubi & Annan, 2020). In collaborative learning, students use their
own and their teammates’ perceptions, assumptions, and understandings to produce the
knowledge. The COIL model places students in charge of their learning by working with their
peers to assimilate information and create knowledge through active collaborative engagement in
their projects (Naicker et al., 2021). Consequently, students become both the driver of their
learning process and producer of new knowledge through collaborative investigation, meaning-
making, information exchange, and adaptation. Instead of the typical role of knowledge
conveyors, faculty take on the role of facilitators and organizers of knowledge produced by
30

students in the cooperative setting (Appiah-Kubi & Annan, 2020; Naicker et al., 2021). As a
result, COIL enables more profound learning experiences.
Another essential feature of collaborative learning is that students work cooperatively
toward a common objective rather than focusing on individual success and iteratively apply
collective knowledge to solve a problem or generate new knowledge (Appiah-Kubi & Annan,
2020). Rather than separating the work to complete the project, in the collaboration model, each
team member is accountable for each other to achieve the project’s common goal (Appiah-Kubi
& Annan, 2020). Thus, being a part of a COIL global virtual team can accelerate students’
learning because of the diverse perspectives teammates from different countries bring to the
table. In addition, working in a COIL virtual global team can increase their competencies in
using technology-supported communication and develop practical team-work and social skills,
vital skills to have in today’s workplace (Appiah-Kubi & Annan, 2020; Naicker et al., 2021).
Although most of the COIL program’s activities occur online, this does not preclude
participants from establishing meaningful interactions. Research shows that relationships formed
online can be intimate, meaningful, and long-lasting (Tyler, 2002). In addition, the relationships
students build with their international partners can motivate them to maintain good study habits
(Skagen et al., 2018). Also, explaining their understanding of course materials to their
international peers helps students comprehend the materials better (Skagen et al., 2018). This
might be part of the reason that students who participated in an eight-week COIL program in the
research done by Appiah-Kubi and Annan (2020) outperformed non-COIL students on every
performance metric.
By utilizing internet-based tools, COIL can engage more people from multiple countries
and cultures as well as language backgrounds. COIL is an online high-impact global learning
31

program that not only exposes students to various worldviews through cross-cultural interactions
with their counterparts in different countries but also involves students in the learning process by
co-constructing the knowledge (Vahed & Rodriguez, 2021). In the end, students can be more
globally competitive as they have the ability to investigate local, global, and multicultural issues;
comprehend and accept others’ perspectives and world views; interact openly, appropriately, and
effectively with individuals from diverse cultures; and be able to take action to promote
communal well-being and sustainability (Naicker et al., 2021).
Even though many potential benefits of COIL are reported by research, some literature
also addresses the challenges in operating COIL. The common challenges are time differences,
cultural differences, language barriers (which can cause power dynamics between native and
non-native speakers), the participant’s familiarity with technology, internet accessibility, and the
difficulty in discovering compatible faculty and institutional partners (Appiah-Kubi & Annan,
2017; Custer & Tuominen, 2017; Naicker et al., 2021).
Unintended Consequences of Educational Technology Usage
Because COIL uses technology in its instructions and learning process, it is necessary to
address the roles of technology in education, which are rather complex, and have unintended
consequences of using technology in education. The use of educational technologies opens the
door for the outside world that can be utilized to both bring pertinent information into the
classroom and challenge the established educational power structure that sees the teacher as the
primary information gatekeeper in the classroom by allowing students to fact check the
information provided by their teacher and allow students to become knowledge generators
(Aagaard, 2017; Appiah-Kubi & Annan, 2020; Naicker et al., 2021). However, the door that
32

opens to the outside world also increases students’ distraction from academic tasks (Aagaard,
2017).
On the one hand, using technology can promote inclusion for some student groups, such
as students with disabilities, but on the other hand, it can further marginalize some student
populations, such as low-income students, due to the hardships placed on them to get the
technology needed for education (De Klerk, & Palmer, 2022; Veletsianos, 2020). ICT also
highlights the inequality among higher education institutions that have varying ability and
resources to provide technology and support to their constituents.
In summary, collaborative online international learning (COIL) is a cutting-edge learning
methodology that provides opportunities for faculty and students to create meaningful
interactions by working together with peers across geographies via internet-based technology.
Embedded in regular courses, the COIL model—in which students from multiple international
institutions work collaboratively on projects—fosters deeper learning or high-impact learning as
students are in the driver’s seat of the learning process. Furthermore, by working in global virtual
teams, students potentially gain experiences and skills that are beneficial for their future
professional success, as working in a virtual team environment has become more common,
especially since the COVID pandemic. According to the literature, global competence—one of
the benefits that students usually gain from participating in traditional study abroad programs—
can also be obtained by participating in a short-term study abroad program and COIL. Therefore,
the next section will review the literature on global competence.
Global Competence
To prepare students to be successful professionally, colleges and universities must equip
students with the needed competencies. In an increasingly international workforce, having global
33

competence, one of the skills employers look for, can offer students a competitive advantage
(Aktas et al., 2017; Streiner et al., 2015; Schenker, 2019). Global competence is not only vital in
terms of employability but also benefits society in the long run because studies have shown that
globally competent individuals usually act and make decisions in a socially responsible manner
(Lilley et al., 2014). Therefore, it is important to understand the global competence concept in
order to help guide higher education institutions in creating and designing curricula, programs,
and environments in and outside the classroom that foster students’ global competence growth.
Hence, this section reviews the definitions and components of global competence from different
sources.
Definition of Global Competence
Since first appearing in a report by the Advisory Council for International Education
Exchange in 1988, the term “global competence” has become a buzzword used in business,
politics, education, and human resources (Hunter et al., 2006). According to Hunter, White, and
Godbey (2006), global competence refers to the ability to seek the understanding of other
cultural norms and expectations with open-mindedness and utilize the understanding to engage,
communicate, and function effectively in different cultural settings. Brustein (2006) defines
global competence as the ability to operate effectively in international settings, requiring
awareness of different cultures and adapting to those cultures. Being globally competent also
requires people to be knowledgeable about critical international issues and to have the ability to
communicate effectively across cultures and languages. Liu, Yin, and Wu (2020) also give a
similar definition: the ability to actively learn and comprehend other cultures’ norms while
maintaining an open mind and using their global knowledge for effective communication,
interaction, and work in cultures other than their own. These abilities help an individual to
34

successfully interact in cross-cultural settings, not merely in a specific culture (Bennett, 2012).
According to the Global Competence Association (n.d.), globally competent individuals have
adaptability, considerate attitudes, and dignity. Individuals use their knowledge and
understanding of factors influencing cultures, such as historical, geographical, and social factors,
to effectively engage and foster relationships with others globally.
Van Roekel (2010) expands the concept of global competence to cover foreign language
proficiency skills. In Van Roekel’s view, global competence is an in-depth knowledge and
comprehension of international issues, an appreciation of other cultures and languages, the
ability to learn from and work with people from different cultural and language backgrounds, the
capability to function efficiently in the multinational community, and fluency in other languages.
The concept of global competence has been expanded further by emphasizing knowledge, skills,
and attitudes geared toward investigating and acting on international issues for collective well-
being rather than just the ability to interact with others from different cultures. For example, the
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization or UNESCO (2013) refers to
global competence as a combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values needed to
function successfully in different cultural contexts and effectively engage in global issues that
affect current and future generations.
However, it is worth pointing out that there are other terms, such as “global mindset,”
“intercultural competence,” “cultural intelligence,” “cross-cultural competence,” and
“intercultural sensitivity,” that are sometimes used interchangeably with “global competence”
because they convey similar meanings (Deardorff, 2006; Fantini, 2009; Hunter, 2004; Li, 2013;
Liu et al., 2020; Naffzing et al., 2015; Schenker, 2019). For example, Deardroff’s definition of
intercultural competence—a set of cross-cultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes contributing to
35

a person’s ability to communicate with others effectively and appropriately from different
cultures (Deardorff, 2005)—is very similar to many definitions of global competence as
mentioned above. Additionally, although there is a lack of a common definition of global
competence, it is relatively clear from the definitions that global competence comprises different
components or dimensions.
Global Competence Dimensions and Assessment
The literature points out that most definitions of global competence in academics focus
on a person’s level of subject matter knowledge, understanding of how things work, and ability
to communicate across cultures (Bird & Osoland, 2004; Braskamp et al., 2014; Caliguri & Santo,
2001; Kaushik et al., 2017; Li, 2013; Van Roekel, 2010). Moreover, previous empirical studies
have also provided the framework of global competence as a multidimensional construct and
have offered instruments for measuring global competence levels as shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Summary of Global Competence Dimensions and Measurement Instrument
Author (year) Term Constructs/dimensions Instruments
Asia Society (n.d.) Global
competence
Investigate the world, recognize
perspectives and community's ideas,
and take actions
Global leadership
rubric
Bird and Osoland
(2004)
Global
competence
Traits, attitudes and orientations, and
skills
None
Braskamp et al. (2014) Global
competence
Cognitive (knowledge), intrapersonal
(skills), and interpersonal (skills)
Global Perspective
Inventory (GPI)
Caliguri and Santo
(2001)
Global
competence
Knowledge, skills, and personality Global competence
survey
Creque and Gooden
(2011)
Cultural
intelligence
Cognitive (knowledge), perceptions
(attitudes), and behavior (skills)
None
Deardorff (2006) Intercultural
competence
Knowledge and comprehension, skills,
and desired attitudes.
Intercultural
Competence
Elements
36

Author (Year) Term Constructs/Dimensions Instruments
Fantini and Tirmizi
(2006)
Intercultural
competence
Knowledge, skills, attitudes, and
awareness
Assessment of
Intercultural
Competence
(AIC)
Global Competence
Association and
Kaushik et al.
(2017)
Global
competence
Internal readiness: self-awareness,
open-mindedness, diversity
awareness, and risk-taking

External readiness: historical
perspective, global awareness,
intercultural capabilities, and
collaboration across cultures
Global Competence
Aptitude
Assessment
(GCAA)
Hunter et al. (2006) Global
competence
Knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values Determining Global
Competence
Li (2013) Global
competence
Knowledge, skills, and attitudes Three-dimensional
global competence
measurement
UNESCO (n.d.) Global
competence
Knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values PISA Global
competence
assessment
Van Roekel (2010 Global
competence
Global awareness, diversity
appreciation, language proficiency,
and skills
None

Note. Adapted from “Measuring graduate students’ global competence: Instrument development
and an empirical study with a Chinese sample” by Liu, Y., Yin, Y., & Wu, R., 2020, Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 67, p. 3.
It becomes evident from Table 2 that the most common dimensions of global competence
are knowledge, skills, and attitudes. However, the content of each dimension might be different.
To find commonality, Table 3 compares the types of knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed for
individuals to become globally competent.

37

Table 3
Comparison of Global Competence Constructs
Author (year) Instruments Knowledge Skills Attitudes
Braskamp et
al. (2014)
Global
Perspective
Inventory
(GPI)
Knowledge of
complexity of
thinking

Knowledge of
multicultural issues
Cultural sensitivity

Self-acceptance and
purpose

Interdependence

Social concern

Respect and acceptance
of cultural difference
Deardorff
(2006)
Intercultural
Competence
Elements
Cultural self-awareness

Deep cultural
knowledge

Sociolinguistic
awareness

Ability to listen, observe,
and evaluate

Ability to analyze,
interpret, and relate
Respect (valuing other
cultures)

Openness (withholding
judgment)

Curiosity and discovery
(tolerating ambiguity)
Fantini and
Tirmizi
(2006)
Assessment of
Intercultural
Competence
(AIC)
Host culture knowledge

Host country’s historical
and socio-political

Cross-cultural
awareness

Self-awareness

Diversity Awareness
Flexibility

Adaptability

Critical thinking

Cross-cultural
communication

Conflict resolution
Openness

Respect other cultures

Curiosity
Global
Competence
Association
and
Kaushik et
al. (2017)
Global
Competence
Aptitude
Assessment
(GCAA)
Self-awareness

Historical knowledge

Global Awareness
Intercultural capabilities

Cross-cultural
Collaboration
Open-mindedness

Attentiveness to diversity

Risk-taking
Hunter et al.
(2006)
Determining
Global
Competence
World History

Globalization

Effective participation
both socially and in
business globally

Ability to assess the
intercultural
performance

Identifying cultural
differences to compete
globally

Cross-culture
collaboration
Openness

Non-judgmental reaction

Recognition of
others/differences

Respect Diversity

38

Author (Year) Instruments Knowledge Skills Attitudes
OECD (2018) PISA Global
competence
assessment
Knowledge of local,
global, and
intercultural issues

Understanding of
culture and
intercultural relations

Socio-economic
development and
interdependence

Environmental
sustainability

Formal and informal
institutions’ system
Reason with information

Intercultural
communication

Perspective taking

Conflict management and
resolution

Adaptability
Openness

Respect for other cultures
and differences

Global mindedness

Value human dignity

Value cultural diversity

The comparison demonstrates that self-awareness is just as crucial as subject-matter
knowledge of history, socio-economic, politics, and culture. Persons with global competence can
engage, communicate, and operate effectively in a variety of settings around the world (Hunter,
2004). Therefore, some authors believe having mere knowledge of the host country is not
enough. To be globally competent, individuals need to have historical, socio-political, socio-
economic, and intercultural knowledge at the international level. The global competence
assessment framework under the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) emphasizes that individuals
must also have knowledge of environmental sustainability and institutional system. In terms of
skills, intercultural communication, cross-cultural collaboration, cultural sensitivity, adaptability,
critical analysis, conflict management, and conflict resolution are necessary skills to have.
Globally competent individuals must be open-minded to other cultures, perspectives, and
differences. Besides being open-minded, they should be open to trying new things. They should
also have curiosity while maintaining respect for other cultures and differences. Resilience to
change and ambiguity can help them be flexible and adaptable to engage in different cultural
39

settings. Having a global mindset and valuing diversity are parts of having globally competent
attitudes.
So, when assessing students’ global competence outcomes, these types of knowledge,
skills, and attitudes need to be measured. Since this dissertation studied the global competence
growth of business students participating in short-term study abroad programs and COIL
programs, it is necessary to draw on some literature about global business competence, shown in
Table 4.
Table 4
Comparison of Global Business Competence Components
Author (year) Knowledge Skills Attitudes
Bücker and Poutsma
(2010)
• Strategic knowledge
• Cultural knowledge
• Cross-cultural skills
• Cultural intelligence
• Global mindset
• Intercultural sensitivity
• Openness
• Emotional stability
Hogan and
Warrenfeltz
(2003)
• Business operation
knowledge

• Interpersonal skills
• Leadership skills
• Self-control
• Resilience
• Positive attitudes
• Self-esteem
Hollows et al.
(2011)
• Understanding of the
connection between
global industries and the
economies of the country
• Knowledge of how to do
business overseas.
• Knowledge of own
business operation

• Intrapersonal skills
• Interpersonal skills
• Leadership skills
• Business skills
• Ability to manage
complex business
operations
• Networking skills
• Ability to think
strategically
• Not addressed
Kee et al. (2017) • Business expertise
knowledge
• Organizational knowledge
• Subject-matter
• In-depth understanding of
business and risk

• Vision and strategic
thinking
• Communication
management
• Cross-cultural
communication
• Team and cross-culture
team management
• Ability to lead change
• Collaboration skills
• Leadership skills
• Innovation
• Creativity
• Resilience
• Open-mindedness
• Openness
• Ethical
• Non-judgmental
• Inquisitiveness
• Flexible
• Global mindset
• Self-awareness
• Integrity

40

The comparison indicates that global business competence requires similar skills,
knowledge, and attitudes as global competence. Based on the literature, apart from business
acumen, global business leaders also need to know and understand how history, politics,
socioeconomics, and culture influence business practices and operations. They also need to know
and understand the interconnectedness of business in a global context. Apart from global
competence skills, business leaders must have visions and strategic thinking, leadership,
networking, and cross-cultural team-working skills. Kee, Islam, Said, and Sumardi (2017) point
out that being ethical and having integrity are necessary attitudes in international business. This
point of view is in line with the growing trends of responsible business and corporate
sustainability, which call for companies to be more responsible for the environment, society, and
governance (Winston, 2021). Figure 1 summarizes the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that
global business leaders should have.
The literature reveals that some definitions of global competence focus solely on the
ability to engage in cross-cultural contexts and settings while others include individuals’ actions
toward social responsibility and sustainable development as part of being globally competent.
However, despite the differences in defining global competence, there is a common theme across
literature. The commonality is that to demonstrate globally competent behaviors, a person must
have the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes. To understand whether the school practices
and policies are espoused from its goals of developing students’ global competence, the Burke-
Litwin model will be used to analyze the issues from the organizational level.

41

Figure 1
Global Business Competence

42

Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change
There are many theories on organizational management and organizational change such
as Kotter’s change management theory, the McKinsey 7-S change management model, the
Galbraith Star Model, etc. However, this dissertation used the Burke-Litwin model to diagnose
how the higher education institution fosters or hinders students’ global competence development
because the Burke-Litwin model provides a framework to diagnose an organization’s
effectiveness and change management.
Warner Burke and George Litwin designed the model for organizational performance and
change based on the concept of organizational climate, which emerged from the series of studies
done by Litwin and his colleagues in the 1960s (Burke, 2018; Burke & Litwin, 1992). Later, the
work was refined by Burke and his associates (Burke & Litwin, 1992). The Burke-Litwin model
is a conceptual framework that illustrates how various organizational elements relate to one
another as well as the context and effectiveness of the organization. The model uses a cause-and-
effect paradigm to anticipate behavior and performance outcomes, with organizational factors
serving as the cause and the organization’s performance as the effect (Martins & Coetzee, 2009).
Burke and Litwin (1992) posit two sets of organizational dynamics—transformational
and transactional dynamics—and twelve factors within these dynamics that influence an
organization's outputs (Figure 2). Factors in the transformational area are (1) mission and
strategy, (2) leadership, and (3) organizational culture. The external organizational environment
can directly impact the elements in the transformational layer, and the transformational factors
can influence the external environment through the organization’s products and services (Martins
& Coetzee, 2009). Any changes in this area could cause a deep change in the organization, which
is a change that fundamentally transforms the system, resulting in a significant change in
43

organizational directions and demanding new approaches to thinking and behaving from the
organization’s members (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Morzono et al., 2005). The transactional
elements are the factors related to human behavior or the daily interactions and exchanges
shaping the organizational atmosphere. These factors exist in either the organizational
transactional layer or the individual transactional layer. The factors in the organizational
transactional layer are the organization’s structure, system, management practices, and work unit
climate. The employee’s required skills to perform their job effectively, motivation, needs, and
values are the individual layer’s factors that influence individual and organizational performance
or outcomes.
Figure 2
Burke Litwin Organizational Change Model

44

Conceptual Framework
One of the primary goals of this study was to understand how higher education
institutions can nurture the development of students’ global competencies. The study was
designed to compare the global competence growth of business students participating in a short-
term faculty-led program with that of students participating in a COIL program. Shedding light
on this area requires measuring the global competence level of each program’s participants.
Based on the literature and my experience as an international educator, I believe that the
combination of a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes shown in Figure 3 is necessary for being
a globally competent business student.
Figure 3
Business Students’ Global Competence Conceptual Model

45

From this conceptual framework, globally competent business students must demonstrate
that they have: (1) knowledge and understanding of other cultures and the implications of local
and global issues, especially in a business context; (2) the skills to engage in cross-cultural
environments openly, appropriately, and effectively; and (3) openness and open-minded attitudes
to differences, diversity, and ambiguity.
Another study goal was to uncover the potential organizational factors of the higher
education institution under study that might support or hinder students’ opportunities to gain
global competence. As a result, the Burke-Litwin casual model of organizational performance
and change was incorporated into the conceptual framework of this study because it provided a
holistic approach to diagnosing the organization’s effectiveness and necessary change through
the interrelated multidimensional factors within different layers of the organizational system.
This study constructs the conceptual framework by setting students’ global competence growth
as an individual’s performance or outcome. Students’ motivation, knowledge, skills and attitudes
are the test factors in the individual layer. The program structure is placed at the organizational
transactional layer to be examined the components of the program that might foster or bear
students’ development. Lastly, the transformational layer is used for framing the
recommendations.
Figure 4 explains the conceptual framework, which combines the business students’
global competence concept with the Burke and Litwin model, to guide this research.
46

Figure 4
Conceptual Framework

Conclusion
Even though internationalization, especially in the area of academic mobility, has been
part of higher education since the Middle Ages, the concept of internationalization began to gain
popularity in the 1990s when higher education institutions needed to alter their policies and
practices in response to globalization’s changing landscape. Globalization has brought new
challenges and opportunities. As the world becomes more interconnected, having global
competence is an important asset. It not only increases the employability of the individuals but
also benefits society over time due to the individuals’ socially responsible actions and decisions.
Traditionally, long-term study abroad programs have been the best way to help students
become more globally competent. Short-term study abroad programs, especially those ranging
47

between two and eight weeks, have gained more attention from students and the international
education field. However, there are many reasons, including financial resources, time, risk
perceptions, etc., why only around 10% of college students take advantage of international
student mobility programs. The literature reveals that internationalization at home programs that
deliberately incorporate global and intercultural context into the formal and informal curriculum
in on-campus settings can also help students develop global competence without having to
physically cross a border. Therefore, this dissertation aimed to compare students’ global
competence growth between a short-term faculty-led program and a collaborative international
online learning program. The next chapter addresses the research methodology.

48

Chapter Three: Methodology
The main objectives of this dissertation were to examine factors contributing to students’
global competence growth and study how students’ participation in a short-term study abroad
program or a COIL program shaped their knowledge, skills, and attitudes to help them become
more globally competent. Since the research sought to understand a phenomenon in a specific
setting rather than generalize the findings, using the qualitative approach for this study was more
suitable from this angle. Nonetheless, there are a couple of main reasons why this research
follows the path of the mixed-method approach. One of the reasons is derived from the research
questions, which were as follows:
1) What factors influence students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes, making them more
globally competent?
2) Are there differences in global competence growth between students participating in
short-term faculty-led programs and collaborative online international learning
(COIL) programs?
Another reason was the research paradigm. More detailed discussions about these reasons
were addressed in the research design section of this chapter. Apart from the research method,
this chapter also laid out who the sample and research targeted population were, what
instruments were used to collect data, and how the data was collected and analyzed.
Sample and Population
According to Johnson and Christensen (2017), sampling is the process of selecting a
targeted population that can be studied and using the knowledge from the study to understand the
larger population group. The samples of this study were undergraduate business students at a
university with the pseudonym “Best Western University,” a private research university in the
49

Western United States. The university has around 50,000 undergraduate, graduate, and
professional students combined. Among those, approximately 6,500 are business school students.
The Best Western University’s Business School has been ranked in the top twenty for its MBA
program and the top ten for its undergraduate programs for many years. The school’s high
ranking and the size of the undergraduate student population were the reasons I chose this
institution as the study subject. Another reason was that the school’s vision, mission, and
strategies are rooted in being global and and that it prides itself on educating and developing
global business leaders. Also, the school offers its undergraduate business students a wide range
of international education opportunities. Some of these opportunities are credit barriers, such as
courses with international components, international exchange programs, international internship
programs, etc. In addition, international case competitions and a global service-learning program
are offered to students without earning credits.
In terms of sample selection, there are two sampling techniques; random or probability
sampling techniques and non-random or non-probability sampling techniques (Johnson &
Christensen, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In the random or probability sampling technique,
everyone has an equal chance to be selected through either simple random sampling, draw
random sampling, systematic sampling, stratified random sampling, or cluster random sampling
(Johnson & Christensen, 2017). While random or probability sampling is usually used in
quantitative research, non-random or non-probability sampling is mainly used in qualitative
research (Johnson & Christensen, 2017). Purposive or purposeful sampling is the most common
method of non-probability sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As research aimed to have an in-depth understanding of specific issues in a particular
setting, this study used purposive or purposeful sampling. There are six methods used in
50

purposeful sampling: typical sampling, unique sampling, maximum variation sampling, snowball
sampling, and theoretical sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Unique sampling was the most
suitable because the study targets only undergraduate business students who have participated in
one of the following for-credit programs at Best Western University’s Business School. The
names of these programs are pseudonyms to protect the institution’s and participants’ identities.
1) The short-term faculty-led travel program, called the Best Business Practice Around
the World (B-PAW) Program in 2019 or 2022 because there was no travel program in
2020 and 2021, or
2) Are there differences in global competence growth between students participating in
short-term faculty-led programs and collaborative online international learning
(COIL) programs?
The size of the population in the B-PAW program was around 500 students, and around
200 students were in the VIBC program.
Research Design
Qualitative and quantitative are the two primary research methodologies. Quantitative
research intends to study relationships between variables and uses a deductive approach to test
theory (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Quantitative research, on the other hand, uses an inductive
approach to find meaning and describe people’s experiences and social phenomena (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Some researchers do not rely on one of these procedures but rather combine both
methodologies—known as mixed methods—in their research (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Several factors guided researchers’ decisions on research methodology and instruments
used in their study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Research purposes, the paradigm of inquiry, and
types of research questions are some of those factors. The first goal of this study was to
51

understand demographic factors contributing to the development of students’ global competence.
The second objective was to uncover the influences of program structure on students’ growth by
comparing two different types of international experiential programs: short-term faculty-led
programs and COIL programs. Given that the study’s objective was to gain insight into a
phenomenon within a particular context rather than generalized outcomes, using a qualitative
methodology was deemed more appropriate based on the research purpose.
In addition to research purposes, types of research questions can also help researchers
determine the research sample and the methodology (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). There are six
types of research questions: descriptive, comparative, correlational, casual, meaning, and process
(Samkian, 2022). The first research question aimed to uncover factors contributing to the
advancement of students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Therefore, the question was set in the
form of a correlational descriptive question, and either quantitative or qualitative methodology
was an appropriate method for this type of research question. Due to the comparative nature of
the second research question—designed to identify differences in the growth of students in the
two different international academic programs—the quantitative approach was used for this
question. Hence, the mixed-methods research methodology was appropriate for this study from
the nature of research question standpoint.
Besides research questions, the paradigm of inquiry or research paradigm also influences
the research process, including the decision on research methodology and instruments. Because
the paradigm of inquiry is how we see the world based on our epistemology, ontology, and
axiology, the paradigm acts as the researcher’s lens when doing research (Hinga, 2021).
According to Lochmiller and Lester (2017), there are five research paradigms: positivist,
postpositivist, constructivist, critical/feminist, and poststructuralist. I agreed with postpositivist
52

viewpoints that nothing is absolute, including reality. Even though it is impossible to capture
reality, one can try to understand and capture the approximation of reality (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). Thus, I believe that data from quantitative research can only tell a story that raises to the
surface. Consequently, the qualitative method should be incorporated to gain more insight into
students’ experiences and perspectives. Considering all aspects mentioned above, I decided that
the mixed-method was the most appropriate methodology for the study.
For the quantitative part of the research, I used a non-experimental research design that
did not require independent variable manipulation, randomization, and causal inferences
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The non-experimental research design also worked well in making
descriptive claims about the patterns, trends, or relationships between variables (Samkian, 2022).
For more credible results, I utilized a cross-sectional survey to gather data from the sample at a
single point in time (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The survey consisted of various types of
questions, including open-ended questions, which were employed to collect qualitative
information from the program participants.
Instruments
The research relied on a mixed-methods research methodology to better understand the
variables that could assist students in developing their global competencies. The research
employed a quantitative method to collect program participants’ characteristics, assess and
compare their gains in knowledge and skills, and evaluate their globally-minded attitudes. The
qualitative method was applied to gather further information from the participants to acquire
further insight into their program experience and motivation. I decided to use a survey research
instrument because surveying is suitable for measuring one’s attributes, behavior, abilities, and
thoughts (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Furthermore, surveys can be designed to collect
53

both quantitative and qualitative data. I chose to conduct an anonymous survey online based on
the following main reasons: online surveys have the potential to reach a large population, and
survey respondents have the flexibility to take the survey at their convenience. The survey
questionnaire was separated into quantitative and qualitative parts.
Survey Instrument: Quantitative Questionnaire
The quantitative part of the survey was categorized into two sets of questions.
1) Student Backgrounds: This part included students’ demographics—gender, race,
citizenship, family income, parents’ educational level, and their current academic
level. It also asks other non-demographic questions, such as overseas traveling and
living experiences and the frequency of their interactions with international students,
2) Competence Check: These questions were designed for students to self-evaluate the
degree of their knowledge and skill improvement before and after participating in the
program. The four Likert scale measurements—strongly disagree, disagree, agree,
and strongly agree—were used to evaluate respondents’ level of agreement with
different statements regarding the enhancement degree of their knowledge and skills
and their perspectives on important factors for career success. Another Likert scale—
not important at all, slightly important, important, and very important—was
employed to assess their resiliency, global mindset, open-minded attitudes, and
perceptions on potential issues that shaped business practices and success.
Survey Instrument: Qualitative Questionnaire
This study utilized open-ended questions in the survey to reveal the underlying
motivation of students to enroll in the program. Some survey questions were constructed to
obtain a more comprehensive understanding of students’ experiences. Responses to these
54

questions were used to identify the program components that were instrumental in enhancing the
program participants’ skill sets, shaping their attitudes, and influencing their academic plans and
career trajectories. Additionally, these questions also helped to get a clearer picture of other
program benefits and influences on students.
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are essential criteria in evaluating the quality of quantitative
research. Validity is how well the results reflect what the research instrument is supposed to
measure, and reliability refers to the accuracy of the research instrument in producing consistent
results no matter how many times it is administered (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). There are three types of validity: content, construct, and criterion validity (Heale
& Twycross, 2015; Salkind, 2017). This research will rely on construct validity in designing the
survey.
Robinson and Firth Leonard (2019) mentioned that the lack of face-to-face interaction in
an online survey could alleviate the power dynamic between researchers and research
participants. As a result, I assumed that survey respondents felt less pressured and could be more
honest in their responses, leading to higher-quality research. However, one of the disadvantages
of a self-administered online survey is the inability to clarify any unclear questions or responses
with survey takers. To increase the research validity and reliability, I conducted a peer review of
the questionnaire before launching the survey, which helped increase the questions’ clarity and
reduced poor survey design and construction issues.
Credibility, Trustworthiness, and Ethics
Credibility and trustworthiness are qualitative research quality control measurements
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As a result, in qualitative research, researchers must be trustworthy
55

and credible in conducting their research, such as in selecting research methods, sampling, data
collection, etc.
I acknowledged that my role as a program manager of the B-PAW program could
threaten my research’s trustworthiness and credibility and be a major ethical challenge. Even
though my roles are more faculty-facing and program management than student-facing, with
limited interactions with students, to avoid further ethical quandaries and the threat to the
research’s credibility and trustworthiness, I decided to limit research samples to past participants
of the B-PAW and VIBC programs. Also, using an anonymous online survey could assure
research participants who had not graduated that their participation in the study would not have
any academic consequences. Another step I took was not directly contacting students but instead
asking the program administrators to send emails about the research to students on my behalf.
The only time I contacted students was when informing them and sending a gift card to those
randomly selected to receive a gift card for participating in the survey. When I contacted these
survey respondents and the program administrators, I used my student email account to
communicate with them.
Apart from my role in the B-PAW program, I recognized that my biases could jeopardize
my trustworthiness and my research credibility. For example, my prejudices resulting from my
experience living overseas and my role as an international educator may influence my
perspective when conducting research, including analyzing students’ responses. Apart from
keeping these biases in check, I utilized peer review in the process of crafting survey questions
and examining my data interpretation to minimize biases that could affect the credibility of my
research.
56

Data Collection
As mentioned in the sample and population section, the study used a unique sample.
Therefore, survey participants must have been students in the B-PAW program or the VIBC
program. Because the Best Western Business School did not offer the B-PAW program in 2020
and 2021, only students in the spring of 2019 and 2022 were qualified to participate in the study.
On the other hand, only VIBC students in the 2021 and 2022 programs could participate in the
study because, most likely, students who joined the program before the spring of 2021 had
already graduated.
The data collection was done via an anonymous online survey on the Qualtrics platform.
I prepared the email template that the B-PAW and VIBC program coordinator sent to the
qualified participants, explaining the study and the purpose of the study and including the link to
the survey. I contacted the professor in charge of the VIBC Program to email the survey link to
eligible VIBC past participants. Even though I had the list of eligible B-PAW participants, I
opted to request that another B-PAW administrator send the email on my behalf to reduce the
ethical dilemma and maintain the trustworthiness of the research. The same survey link was sent
to the eligible participants of both programs by each program coordinator. The survey was
conducted from December 2022 to the end of January 2023.
To show my gratitude to those who spared their time to be part of this study, I provided a
$50 gift card from my personal funding to five survey participants who were randomly selected.
Survey respondents could opt to enter a raffle to win a $50 gift card by clicking the link at the
end of the survey, leading them to another Qualtrics survey where they provided their name and
email address. I used a randomized assignment on Excel to select these five raffle winners.
57

Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of systematically examining and logically interpreting data to
uncover implicit and explicit meaning, gain understanding, and produce knowledge in answer to
research questions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). So, data analysis for
quantitative research focuses on interpreting and making sense of numeric data to describe
patterns, trends, or relationships between those numbers, while qualitative data analysis focuses
on making meaning of non-numeric data (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). This research collected
quantitative and qualitative data via a Qualtrics online survey.
I implemented IBM SPSS software to analyze the quantitative data from the responses to
questions measured with Likert scales. I exported the Qualtrics responses into an Excel file
before I transferred and formatted them for input into the IBM SPSS software. To analyze the
data, I performed a two-way Multivariate Analysis of Variances (MANOVAs) to identify overall
statistically significant differences between various independent variables (IVs) and dependent
variables (DVs) by using Wilks’ Lambda tests. Subsequently, I performed an analysis of
variances (ANOVAs) to validate the results of those significant differences generated by
MANOVAs. In addition, I employed between-subjects effects tests to detect statistically
significant differences in each DV. Mean comparisons were utilized to reveal any patterns in the
data, particularly in the dataset where no significant differences were observed.
To analyze the qualitative data from the open-ended responses of the Qualtrics survey, I
used the Text iQ feature in Qualtrics to uncover trends in the responses. Following the advice of
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the subsequent step of qualitative data analysis involved the process
of coding the responses before categorizing them into themes. As stated by Lochmiller and
Lester (2017) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016), coding is a way to label the main ideas or
58

interpretations of responses. Codes can be notated in a short word or phrase—defined as
descriptive codes—or in the quotation of actual words used by the participant—defined as in-
vivo codes (Cooper, 2009). If using words or phrases that are developed ahead of time based on
a theoretical framework or literature, then these words or phrases are categorized as priori codes
(Saldaa, 2009). I decided to mainly use descriptive codes for analyzing qualitative data from the
survey responses. To encode the data, I exported a Qualtrics report to an Excel file in which I
entered codes into newly created columns adjacent to each column containing responses from the
open-ended question. Then I utilized Excel’s sort function to determine the frequencies of each
code, thereby facilitating the identification of the themes’ findings. I used the results from the
qualitative data analysis to either elaborate on the findings from quantitative data analysis or
reveal information not captured by the quantitative data.
Summary
This research used unique samples, consisting of eligible Best Western Business School
undergraduate business students who took part either in the B-PAW or VIBC program during
specific academic semesters. Based on the standpoints of research purpose, questions, and
paradigm, I chose a mixed-methods approach as I deemed it the most suitable methodology for
this research study. I utilized an online Qualtrics survey to collect data from research
participants. I designed the survey questions with Likert scale measurements to gather
quantitative information, whereas the open-ended questions were for qualitative data collection. I
performed the quantitative data analysis on the IBM SPSS software. On the other hand, I
conducted the qualitative one by Qualtrics’ Text iQ function and manually coding to reveal more
in-depth information and qualitative response themes. The next chapter discussed the findings
from both quantitative and qualitative analysis.
59

Chapter Four: Results
The main research objective was to evaluate the factors that contribute to students’
increased knowledge, skills, and attitudes in relation to their participation in either a short-term
faculty-led program (STFL) or a Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) program.
The research was conducted at the “Best Western Business School (BWBS),” a pseudonym. The
research also investigated the influence of program design on students’ growth in these areas.
The study utilized the mixed methods methodology by using an anonymous online survey with
Likert scales to quantify data and open-ended questions to gather qualitative data in order to gain
a more in-depth understanding of students’ motivation and experiences. The following research
questions provided a framework for conducting the research and organizing the key findings
presented in this chapter.
1. What factors influence participants’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes, making them more
globally competent?
2. Are there any differences in global competence growth between participants participating
in short-term faculty-led programs and COIL programs?
Participants
The research was centered on examining the BWBS participants and alumni who participated in
the Best Business Practice Around the World (B-PAW) Program and the Virtual International
Business Case (VIBC) Program. The study survey link was sent electronically to BWBS
participants and alumni who enrolled in the B-PAW program—a short-term faculty-led travel
program—only in the 2019 or 2022 academic year (because the BWBS did not offer the program
in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.) The BWBS participants who participated in
60

the VIBC program—a collaborative online international learning (COIL) program—in either the
2021 or 2022 academic year also received the same survey link.
The survey received 134 responses from 727 qualified research samples. While 103
people answered every question, 31 did not. Of the 31 incomplete responses, 15 of these
responses were included in the data analysis because the responders answered more than 70% of
the questions. As a result, a total of 118 responses was used in the data analysis, with 108
responses from the B-PAW program and only 10 responses from the VIBC program.
Table 5
Breakdown of Survey Participants by Programs
Program Total eligible participants
Number of valid
responses
Valid response
rate
B-PAW program 518 108 20.85%
VIBC program 209 10 0.05%
Total 727 118 16.23%

Survey Participant Demographics
Based on the research questions, the survey asked the following demographic questions:
gender, race, parents’ education, and family income. Asian women make up the majority of
survey participants (37.29%), followed by Hispanic or Latina women (19.49%), and finally,
white women (16.95%). Tables 6 and 7 depict the distribution of survey respondents according to
their gender, program, and race.
Table 6
Breakdown of Survey Participants by Gender and Program
Program Total Female Percentage Male Percentage
Total 118 70 59.32% 48 40.68%
B-PAW Program 108 67 62.04% 41 37.96%
VIBC Program 10 3 30.00% 7 70.00%

61

Table 7
Breakdown of Survey Participants by Program, Gender, and Race
Race
Both programs
Female Male Total
American citizen: Asian alone 27 17 44
American citizen: Black or African American 4 0 4
American citizen: Hispanic or Latino 17 6 23
American citizen: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1 0 1
American citizen: saome other race 1 1 2
American citizen: two or more races 4 7 11
American citizen: white 13 8 21
Non-American citizen 3 9 12
Total 70 48 118
Race
B-PAW program
Female Male Total
American citizen: Asian alone 26 16 42
American citizen: Black or African American 4 0 4
American citizen: Hispanic or Latino 16 5 21
American citizen: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1 0 1
American citizen: some other race 1 1 2
American citizen: two or more races 4 4 8
American citizen: white 12 8 20
Non-American citizen 3 7 10
Total 67 41 108
Race
VIBC program
Female Male Total
American citizen: Asian alone 1 1 2
American citizen: Black or African American 0 0 0
American citizen: Hispanic or Latino 1 1 2
American citizen: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0 0 0
American citizen: some other race 0 0 0
American citizen: two or more races 0 3 3
American citizen: white 1 0 1
Non-American citizen 0 2 2
Total 3 7 10

In terms of parents’ education, among 118 survey respondents, 33.90% identified as first-
generation college participants, 64.41% reported that their parents had obtained a bachelor’s
degree or higher, and 1.69% opted not to disclose this information. Table 8 illustrates the
breakdown of survey participants by parents’ education level.
62

Table 8
Breakdown of Survey Participants by Parents’ Education Level
Parents’ education B-PAW VIBC Total Percentage
Prefer not to say 1 1 2 1.69%
Some high school or less 12 1 13 11.02%
High school diploma or GED 8 2 10 8.47%
Associates or technical degree 1 0 1 0.85%
Some college, but no degree 15 1 16 13.56%
Bachelor’s degree 34 3 37 31.36%
Graduate or professional degree 37 2 39 33.05%
Total 108 10 118 100.00%

Another pertinent socioeconomic inquiry pertained to the income of the household. As
shown in Table 9 below, 86 participants (72.88%) divulged their familial earnings. Among those
who disclosed the information, 11.86% reported family income lower than $50,000, 37.29% with
the household’s income between $50,000 and $200,000, and 23.73% with a household income
over $200,000.
Table 9
Breakdown of Survey Participants by Family Income
Family income B-PAW VIBC Total Percentage
Decline to respond 17 2 19 16.10%
Don’t know or not sure 12 1 13 11.02%
Less than $50,000 14 0 14 11.86%
$50,001-$100,000 28 2 30 25.42%
$100,001 – $150,000 7 3 10 8.47%
$150,001 – $200,000 4 0 4 3.39%
$200,001 – $250,000 11 2 13 11.02%
$250,000 and above 15 0 15 12.71%
Total 108 10 118 100.00%

While 19 respondents (16.10%) declined to answer, 13 (11.02%) stated that they did not know or
were uncertain about their family’s income. Of the participants who did not report their
63

household income, 25 of them (78.13%) had at least one parent who holds a bachelor’s degree, a
graduate degree, or a professional degree. as displayed in Table 10.
Table 10
Breakdown of Survey Responses by Family Income and Parents’ Education
Family income/parents’
education
Lower than
bachelor’s
degree
Bachelor’s
degree
Graduate or
professional
degree
Total Percentage
Decline to respond 5 7 7 19 16.10%
Don’t know or not
sure
2 5 6 13 11.02%
Less than $50,000 12 1 1 14 11.86%
$50,001-$100,000 17 11 2 30 25.42%
$100,001 – $150,000 2 5 3 10 8.47%
$150,001 – $200,000 1 1 2 4 3.39%
$200,001 – $250,000 1 0 12 13 11.02%
$250,000 and above 2 7 6 15 12.71%
Total 42 37 39 118 100.00%
Percentage 35.59% 31.36% 33.05%

Results for Research Question 1
The term “global competence” pertains to an individual’s ability to engage effectively in
cross-cultural settings and circumstances, which requires knowledge, skills, and attitudes to
effectively function in such settings, as noted by various scholars (Bennett, 2012; Brunstein,
2006; Godbey, 2006; Hunter et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2020). Multiple variables could contribute to
participants’ acquisition of knowledge and skills and shape their attitudes. Consequently, the first
research question—“What factors influence participants’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes,
making them more globally competent?”—was set up to investigate such factors. According to
previous empirical research, various demographic factors, including but not limited to gender,
age, socioeconomic status, and ethnic background, can influence an individual’s academic
64

performance (Alharjraf & Alasfour, 2014; Kaighobadi & Allen, 2008; Refae & Eletter, 2021;
Strayhorn, 2010; Urtel, 2008). Besides demographics, motivation is another influence factor to
an individual’s learning and performance (Mayer, 2011; Shuck, 2020). Since more participants
did not disclose their family’s income than those who did not reveal their parents’ education
level, I chose to examine participants’ gender, race, parents’ education, and motivations to join
the program in this research to determine whether these factors could potentially play a role in
acquiring knowledge and skills and altering attitudes.
Demographic Factors
In order to determine if there are significant group differences in attitudes, knowledge
gains, and skill improvements among survey participants, I conducted four separate one-way
MANOV As for the independent variables of gender (2), race (3), and parents’ education level (5)
with four dimensions of global competence outcomes as dependent variables: nine items of
global competence knowledge, sixteen in global business knowledge, twelve in skills, and
seventeen in attitudes.
Among gender selections of female, male, and other, survey participants only selected
female or male. Given the low number of respondents in some of the racial groups, only the top
four largest respondent groups were included, which were: (1) Asian alone, non-Hispanic, (2)
Hispanic or Latino, (3) Two or More Races, and White. Because some respondents preferred not
to disclose their parents’ education and the low number of respondents whose parents attained
associate or technical degrees, I only included the following groups in the data analysis: (1) some
high school or less; (2) high school diploma or GED; (3) some college, but no degree; (4)
bachelor’s degree, and (5) graduate or professional degree.

65

Global Competence Knowledge
The Wilks’ Lambda test results for the overall MANOV A were significant [Wilks’
Lambda F(9, 99) = 3.42, p = .001]. Follow-up ANOV A revealed significant differences for
gender (p = < 0.001) in gains in international business knowledge (p = 0.025), knowledge on role
of culture in business practices increase (p = 0.048), and their confidence in their ability in
identifying their own culture (p = 0.039). The mean comparison in Table 11 revealed more
details in these findings. There were no significant group differences by race or parents’
education level.
Table 11
Global Competence Knowledge: Mean Scores by Gender
DVs. IVs. M SD n
International Business Knowledge Increase
Female 3.6 0.49 70
Male 3.4 0.64 48
Knowledge on Role of Culture in Business Practices Increase
Female 3.7 0.48 70
Male 3.6 0.50 48
Confidence in Ability to Identify Own Culture Increase
Female 3.4 0.58 62
Male 3.6 0.50 47

Global Business Understanding
The Wilks’ Lambda test results for the overall MANOV A were significant [Wilks’
Lambda F (60, 361) = 1.41, p = .033]. Follow-up ANOV A revealed significant gender difference
(p =.034) in their understanding of the influences of the world political climate on business
practices (p =.008) and the increase in their confidence in conducting business meetings
effectively in foreign countries (p = 0.001). Females gave higher importance to global politics’
influence on business practices and showed less confidence in conducting business meetings
abroad than males, as shown in Table 12.

66

Table 12
Global Business Understanding: Mean Scores by Gender
DVs. IVs. M SD n
Important of world political climates in conducting international
business
Female 3.4 0.68 67
Male 3.1 0.70 47
The program has increased my confidence in conducting meetings
effectively in other foreign countries.
Female 3.1 0.65 62
Male 3.4 0.50 47

Additionally, follow-up ANOV A disclosed significant parents’ educational difference (p
=.033) in participants’ understanding of the host country’s political climate (p = .028) and socio-
economic (p = .010) influences on business practices, as illustrated in Table 13.
Table 13
Global Business Understanding: Mean Scores by Parents’ Education
Knowledge Parents’ education level M SD n
Understanding of the influence of host
country’s political climate on business
Some high school or less 3.8 0.44 13
Some college, but no degree 3.7 0.49 15
Bachelor’s degree 3.5 0.61 36
Graduate or professional degree 3.5 0.61 37
High school diploma or GED 3.0 0.67 10
Understanding of the influence of host
country’s socio-economic on business
Some college, but no degree 3.7 0.49 15
Graduate or professional degree 3.6 0.48 37
Some high school or less 3.5 0.66 13
Bachelor’s degree 3.4 0.60 36
High school diploma or GED 3.0 0.47 10

Skills
The Wilks’ Lambda test results for the overall MANOV A model for increasing skills did
not show any statistically significant differences in gender, race, and parents’ education.
Attitudes
The Wilks’ Lambda test results for the overall MANOV A model for participants’ global
competence attitudes revealed significant differences [Wilks’ Lambda F (18, 90) =2.69, p =.001].
Follow-up ANOV A showed significant gender difference (p = .001) in their ethnocentrism
tendencies (p = <.001) and the duties of eradicating inequality perceptions (p =.007), as indicated
67

in Table 14. Despite the national superiority perceptions being not very strong in either gender,
the female participants exhibited a stronger opposition to the statement that “their country is the
best in the world” in comparison to their male counterparts. Females also disagreed at a higher
level than males with the notion that the responsibility of eliminating inequality solely rested
with the government.
Table 14
Global Competence Attitudes: ANOVA Results by Gender
DVs. IVs. M SD N
Level of disagreement to ethnocentrism statement
Female 1.8 0.75 62
Male 2.4 1.02 47
Level of disagreement to duties of eradicating inequality statement
Female 1.6 0.66 62
Male 2.0 0.94 47

Furthermore, follow-up ANOV A indicated significant racial difference (p = .020) in their
openness (p = .031), cultural curiosity (p = .040), and ethnocentrism tendencies (p = .010). The
results indicated that white participants reported that they gained more friends outside the U.S. or
their own country but were less likely to learn about other cultures and had higher ethnocentrism
tendencies than the rest, as shown in Table 15.
Table 15
Global Competence Attitudes: ANOVA Results by Race
DVs. IVs: Race M SD n
As a result of participating in the program, I have
more friends outside the U.S. or my own country.
White alone, non-Hispanic 3.2 0.76 19
Two or more races 2.9 1.04 11
Hispanic or Latino 2.5 1.07 19
Asian alone, non-Hispanic 2.4 0.92 41
I like to learn about other cultures.
Two or more races 3.9 0.30 11
Hispanic or Latino 3.7 0.45 19
Asian alone, non-Hispanic 3.6 0.49 41
White alone, non-Hispanic 3.4 0.51 19
I believe my country is the best in the world.
White alone, non-Hispanic 2.5 1.07 19
Two or more races 2.3 1.19 11
Asian alone, non-Hispanic 2.1 0.91 41
Hispanic or Latino 1.5 0.51 19

68

Motivations
The open-ended responses revealed the following seven main reasons leading participants
to join the B-PAW program.
(1) Travel: Around 35% of survey respondents mentioned in some form that their desire
to travel was why they enrolled in the program.
(2) Learning and getting exposure to international business: Approximately 20% of
survey respondents indicated wanting to learn about or be exposed to international
business.
(3) Enrichment: About 18% of respondents participated in the program because they
wanted to experience or learn about the culture. Some addressed culture in general,
and some cited specific interests in the culture of the program’s destination country as
their reason for joining the program. The desire to broaden their worldviews or
acquire global business-related perspectives was another type of enrichment
motivation that led some participants to enroll in the program.
(4) Future opportunity exploration: Around 7% of program participants planned to use
the opportunity that they traveled with the program to explore their future
opportunities to study or live abroad. Many participants planned to utilize their
participation in the program to explore their future careers.
(5) Study abroad alternative: Some participants opted to take part in the B-PAW
program in lieu of pursuing a traditional study abroad experience because of the short
duration of the program, which would enable them to maintain their academic plan.
In some cases, the B-PAW program was the only way for some participants to gain
69

study abroad experience before graduation because study abroad programs were
suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
(6) Perceptions and value: Certain participants chose to be part of the program because
of the perceived enjoyment value or the expected exposure that they would receive
from the program. Furthermore, a couple of participants decided to join the program
due to its exclusivity.
(7) Networking: Some participants joined the program to bond with their classmates or
professors. Others looked for an opportunity to make connections with company
representatives.
Samples of responses coincided with each category of motivation are presented in Table
16.

70

Table 16
Motivation: Response Samples
Motivation Category Example Quote
Travel “I really want to see the world.”
“Wanted to travel to a new location,”
“To explore.”
“It was a great way to see Rome.”
“I have wanted to see Thailand.”
Learning and Getting
Exposure to International
Business
“I wanted to learn more about international business,”
“To learn more about international business and how globalism affects growth and scale in terms of
distribution/supplier networks,”
“I wanted greater exposure to international business,”
“I wanted to see business being done outside of the US,”
“I wanted to expand my knowledge of international business and how other countries interact and do
business.”
“I wanted to develop a global mindset and take the opportunity to learn about business outside of the
US.”
“To better understand diverse perspectives in business and experience international commerce.”
Enrichment “It was an opportunity of a lifetime and I really wanted to experience what culture was like outside of
the US,”
“I like to learn about different languages and cultures,”
“Give me the opportunity to see the world through the eyes of others. Explore different cultures,
religions, traditions, etc.”
“To learn about the Japanese culture.”
“Gain a global perspective professionally and personally; to experience a new environment, culture, …”
“I was looking to explore a new culture and expand my cultural intelligence,”
“I wanted to broaden my worldview, and familiarize myself with business processes around the world,”
“I wanted to expand my global perspective and see how I can apply my business knowledge to other
places as well.”
Future Opportunity
Exploration
“It was such an amazing opportunity, and it was a great preview into what study abroad would be like!”
“I planned to study abroad, and going on the B-PAW trip was a great taste of what was to come.”
“I love traveling and want to work internationally in the future,”
“… (the program) even provide me with resources such as international connections that would aid me
in my future career aspirations,”
“To further explore international business and experience working abroad”,
“In the future I want to work abroad, so I felt this program gave me the opportunity to learn about
different workplace cultures in other countries. I was also interested in the different recruiting
processes in other countries, since I have mainly been exposed to recruitment in the US.,”
“Exposure to consulting and research for a company.”
Study Abroad Alternative “Wanted to study abroad but did not have space in my schedule. This was a great opportunity to engage
in some overseas learning while still being able to finish classes and get back in time for my
internship.”
“It sounded like a good opportunity to study abroad without being away for a whole semester.”
“I wanted to participate in the B-PAW program because I had not done any study abroad normally...”
Perceptions and Value “Sounded fun.”
“Seemed interesting.”
“Thought was amazing experience and was extremely fun.”
“Because it was considered the elite privileged business program.”
“Seemed like a cool experience and an opportunity to gain exposure to a variety of industries.”
“I thought having the opportunity to talk to business leaders abroad and visit their companies would be a
unique opportunity.”
Networking “I wanted to … socialize with peers in my class,”
“I wanted to … leverage the opportunity to become closer with my classmates,”
“Great opportunity to make new friends …,”
“… also enjoy traveling abroad with professors and groups who are knowledgeable of the area and can
provide an itinerary,”
“Networking and exposure to international business,”
“… meet with the entrepreneurs of Japan,”

71

While there were many reasons that participants in the short-term faculty-led program
enrolled in the program, 90% of the participants in the COIL program reported that they
participated in the Virtual International Business Case (VIBC) Program because the program was
embedded in the course they took. However, two participants revealed their perceptions and
values that led to their enrollment in the course: “Business writing is important to learn,
especially in a globally connected world like today” and “Exposure to consulting and research
for a company.” In addition, one of the participants mentioned networking as part of the reason,
“It was required of the class but a great opportunity to connect with other participants around the
world.”
Since travel was the primary motivation for some participants to participate in the
program, these participants might gain knowledge and skills less than others who were motivated
by other reasons. The Wilks’ Lambda test results for the overall MANOV A model showed no
significant differences in the participants’ gains from the program regardless of their motivation.
The research findings suggested that gender might influence the individuals’ attitudes and
acquisition of global knowledge and global business knowledge, while race could potentially
alter attitudes. Parents’ educational attainment may have an influence on the acquisition of global
business knowledge and skills. The study findings also revealed that despite approximately 35%
of participants being motivated to join the program by the prospect of traveling, their learning
outcomes were not different from their peers who were motivated by other reasons.
Results for Research Question 2
The second research query was, “Are there any differences in global competence growth
between participants participating in short-term faculty-led programs and COIL programs?”—
aimed to explore how the transactional layer of the Burke-Litwin Organizational Change Model
72

shaped student performance. Hence, the research inspected how each program structure
facilitated or hindered participants’ knowledge, skills, and global attitudes acquisition. The
structure of the B-PAW program, which was a short-term faculty-led program (STFL), included
pre-trip class sessions, a group project, in-country group activities, and in-country company
presentations and tours. The VIBC (COIL) program also had classroom instructions and a group
project. Participants in the VIBC program were placed in teams with participants from other
universities in the US and overseas. The group project was on a real business issue. Except for
the travel part, both programs featured a similar structure: a combination of lectures, a group
project, and interactions with foreigners.
Global competence was cited in the literature as crucial to career opportunity and
advancement. Therefore, apart from examining differences in participants’ global competence
growth, this research question was also intended to inspect the program’s influences on
participants’ career trajectories to understand the practical application of global competence in
business students.
Global Competence Development
In order to determine if there are significant differences in attitudes, knowledge gains,
and skill improvements among survey participants of different programs, two-way MANOV As
were conducted for the independent variables of the B-PAW program and VIBC program with
the nine items of global competence knowledge, sixteen in global business knowledge, twelve in
skills, and seventeen in attitudes as dependent variables. However, since the responses from
COIL program participants were much lower than those from the STFL program, the findings
presented in this section only suggested the probability.

73

Global Competence Knowledge
The Wilks’ Lambda test results for the overall MANOV A model revealed significant
program differences [Wilks' Lambda F (8, 109) =4.2, p = < .001]. Follow-up ANOV A showed
that there was significant program difference in the increase of knowledge on history (p = .030),
economics (p = <.001), international business (p = .004), and the role of culture in business
practices (p = .005), as illustrated in Table 17.
Table 17
ANOVA Results for Global Competence Knowledge Development by Programs
DVs p
Program
Type
M SD
History Knowledge Increase .030
B-PAW 3.4 0.63
VIBC 2.9 0.60
Economic Knowledge Increase < .001
B-PAW 3.4 0.58
VIBC 2.4 0.88
International Business Knowledge Increase .004
B-PAW 3.6 0.52
VIBC 3.0 0.87
Knowledge on Role of Culture in Business Practices
Increase
.005
B-PAW 3.4 0.63
VIBC 3.2 0.83
VIBC 2.7 1.00

Global Business Understanding
The Wilks’ Lambda test results for global business understanding did not show any
statistically significant differences.
Skills
The Wilks’ Lambda test results pinpointed significant difference [Wilks' Lambda F (12,
97) =2.33, p = .012]. Follow-up ANOV A disclosed significant program differences (p = .012) in
the increase of cultural intelligence skills (p = .002) and project management skills (p = .023), as
shown in Table 18.

74

Table 18
ANOVA Results for Skill Development by Programs
DVs p
Program
Type
M SD
Gains in Cultural Intelligence .002
B-PAW 3.5 0.56
VIBC 2.9 0.78
Gains in Project Management Skills .023
B-PAW 3.0 0.68
VIBC 3.6 0.53

The participants’ responses in the qualitative part of the survey shed light on the
correlation between program structure and participants’ skill growth. All VIBC program
participants directed their attention towards enhancing their skill set through collaborative efforts
on a team-based project. The responses provided a lucid depiction of how the program facilitated
their skill enhancement, particularly communication, collaboration, and project management
skills, “Working with different participants of different backgrounds gave me a slight
understanding of how one should communicate with individuals of other cultures. We’ve had to
work through slight language barriers and differing time zones to complete the project
successfully.” Another participant mentioned, “... (the program) giving me a new work setting in
which I worked with peers abroad on a project that we got complete creative control over.”
The B-PAW participants expressed these program components facilitating their skill
development: team projects, instructions, in-country activities, engagement with diverse
stakeholders, and being in a foreign country. Table 19 highlighted some responses related to each
relevant program component.

75

Table 19
Samples of Reponses Related to Program Components
Program Component Example Quote
Team Project “As we had many team projects to research and create something, whatever task was assigned,
there were a lot of teams and project-based skills attained...”
“The program allowed me to work on a company case study with a team. Our team presented to
the company, which added extra pressure, but it made us work together better. Receiving
feedback from the executives helped us understand the cross-cultural collaboration it requires to
work internationally,”
“ working in teams, we developed business proposals, allowing us the opportunity to butt heads
and encourage constructive criticism, which ultimately grew our communication and problem-
solving skills,”
“I learned how to manage a team and deliver our ideas in presentation form to the stakeholders
involved.”
Instructions “Provided a platform and environment; encouraged participants to engage in active discussion and
collaboration.”
“Between the lectures, trip, and class activities we became aware of and got better at many of the
skills.”
“Through in class activities I was able to gain experience in classic business disciplines such as
management, but through travel I was able to apply these lessons in a different cultural
climate.”
“During B-PAW (class), we had many guest speakers (networking), engaged in experiential
learning activities (problem-solving), and participated in many group projects (teamwork
skills). We also did a time zone simulation (cross-cultural communication and collaboration).”
“We had an interactive activity in the ELC center. Basically, all of us participated in two
simulation games helping us to understand the cultural differences between Argentina and the
US…”
In-country Activities “The (in-country) team scavenger hunt was an extra challenge because we were navigating a new
city and had to get used to a new transit system.”
“Because the program was immersive and regimented in the itinerary, it gave us opportunities to
learn about the initiatives, solutions, and emerging ideas in Rome. These translated to
developing new perspectives, ideas on potential answers to issues in America and enabled us to
understand the restrictions imposed across borders.”
“In Madrid, we learned about entrepreneurship through various company visits and speaker
events. From these discussions, we often learned about how business is different in Spain
compared to the United States. Additionally, we had some team exercises that were extremely
fun and engaging which helped us develop lots of skills.”
Engagement with
Different Stakeholders
“During the B-PAW trip, we had a dinner where we met alumni from all different backgrounds.
This helped improve my networking skills and helped me gain future connections,”
“By interacting with the entrepreneurs, we learned about their leadership style which is influenced
by their culture,”
“Being in another country and interacting with its people obviously increased my cross-cultural
skills and cultural intelligence. I think interacting with participants from the country would have
been helpful. Meeting the other participants and quickly making relationships was a unique
experience that was really interesting. We definitely had to work together, especially when we
were on our own and trying to get somewhere.”
Being in the Foreign
Country
“I just think visiting another country, if you approach it with the perspective of immersing
yourself in the culture, provides you with an added level of insight and critical thinking that
makes working with other people (regardless of where they’re from) a better experience,”
“By immersing myself into a new environment, I was able to quickly adapt to the changes at hand.
I believe this skill is crucial when conducting international business as you will often find
yourself in different situations,”
“I think the most important aspect of the college education takes place outside of the classroom. It
is incredibly important to learn (by doing and by practicing) how to talk with people,
understand people and think critically. The program forces you to travel to the place that many
have not been and learn first-hand how to communicate with, network within and experience a
culture that is completely foreign to many (including myself)”

76

Attitudes
The Wilks’ Lambda test results for global attitudes uncovered significant differences
[Wilks’ Lambda F (18, 90) =1.75, p = .045]. Follow-up ANOV A showed significant program
difference (p = .045) in their interest in connecting with foreigners (p = 0.11), in living or
working abroad (p = 0.12), and resiliency (p = 0.12), as illustrated in Table 20.
Table 20
ANOVA Results for Attitudes by Programs
DVs p
Program
Type
M SD
Interest in Connecting with People from Outside the Country
Increase
.011
B-PAW 3.4 0.65
VIBC 2.8 0.97
Interest in living or working in other country increase .012
B-PAW 3.4 0.68
VIBC 2.8 0.44
Ability in working in unpredictable and complex work .012
B-PAW 3.2 0.61
VIBC 2.7 1.00

The qualitative data provided more insight. Most VIBC participants mentioned that their
tolerance and acceptance of differences increased. A few participants, for instance, claimed
participating in the VIBC program made them “more comfortable working internationally” or
“working with people from different backgrounds.” Some commented on an increase in their
cultural curiosity or their interest in connecting with people from other countries. For example,
one participant shared, “I would say I now have a fascination with learning more about foreign
countries and their cultures. I definitely want to take a history class that focuses on everyone
outside the United States.”
Some VIBC participants touched upon how the program design, which required
participants to work on a project with participants from different overseas universities, helped
them become more open-minded, as shown in the samples of these statements below.
77

• “The program has illustrated to me the difficulties and challenges when interacting
with people of different perspectives and, especially, different priorities.”
• “The VIBC project has allowed me to understand different cultures around the
world.”
• “I have significant experience working with members of foreign nations. The primary
distinction was that this (program) setting was more professional and business-
centric.”
• “The hands-on experience interacting and working with people from across the globe
and on a real company’s project.”
Similar to the VIBC participants, approximately 35% of B-PAW participants reported
increased empathy, open-mindedness, understanding of diversity, respect for differences, or
appreciation for other cultures. Some elaborated on how the program broadened their
perspectives and elevated their global attitudes, as depicted in the sample of responses below.
• “The program has influenced this by exposing me to a wide variety of people from
different parts of the world with different ideologies.”
• “It (the program) taught me communication and active listening skills that are crucial
to conversations where there are different perspectives … now… I genuinely like to
learn how people from all over the world think and view the world.”
• “… This program showed me how entrepreneurs in Spain are thinking differently and
outside the box to bring creative ideas to life…”
• “This program allowed me to have the opportunity to interact with local Spaniards
both formally and informally, which positively influenced my willingness to
communicate cross culturally.”
78

• “The program helped me with understanding to respect how everyone has different
values sometimes due to cultural differences.”
However, exposure to people of different backgrounds from the same country could also
contribute to increased knowledge and acceptance of diversity as reflected in the response from a
participant from a lower socioeconomic family: “This program (B-PAW) has introduced me to a
variety of different people who come from different backgrounds, mostly different
socioeconomic backgrounds. I believe that this program opened my eyes to those who come
from wealthy families. It made me realize how different they think. Not a bad difference, but
there are disparities.”
Another finding from the responses to the open-ended questions was an increase in
cultural awareness and curiosity among B-PAW participants. As one student put it, “The program
(B-PAW) has completely altered my worldview and increased my understanding of other
cultures.” Many participants said that the program made them more aware of different attitudes,
backgrounds, or cultural differences in general. For instance, one student stated that “It’s made
me more aware of how a different history and culture can affect an attitude or personality.”
Another student mentioned that “It taught me a lot about cultural awareness and differences that
are important when interacting with people who have different perspectives.” Some people gave
a general statement about their increased cultural curiosity: “It has made me more curious to
learn about others’ perspectives,” and “It has influenced me to try new things I normally would
not have tried.” The responses also pointed out that some participants took extra steps to fulfill
their curiosity, such as taking or planning to take more international studies courses, studying or
planning to study abroad, and seeking more international opportunities. Although several
individuals merely asserted that the program heightened their cultural awareness and
79

inquisitiveness, one B-PAW respondent named a specific program activity that contributed to an
increase of cultural awareness: “The experiential learning activity really influenced my
attitude—culture differences are real, and we must be aware of them.”
In summary, the quantitative data suggested that short-term faculty-led (STFL) program
participants gained more knowledge than their peers in the COIL program. The program was
positively associated only with the participants’ gains in cultural intelligence and project
management skills. While the short-term faculty-led program participants reported greater gains
in cultural intelligence, the opposite was found in project management skill gains. Also, there
were statistically significant differences between STFL and COIL program participants’ attitudes,
in which participants of STFL exhibited higher levels of cultural curiosity and resiliency. The
responses to open-ended questions confirmed that participants gained knowledge, skills, and
attitudes from the program. The qualitative data also uncovered that the following program
components could have contributed to the growth of participants’ knowledge and skills: team
projects, instructions, in-country activities, engagement with different stakeholders, and being in
a foreign country.
Career Plans
The study utilized an open-ended question to assess the program’s influence on
participants’ career plans. Only 70 people responded to this question, divided into 63 from the B-
PAW program participants and seven from the VBIC program participants. Among 63 B-PAW
participants, 51 (54%) acknowledged the program’s influence on their career plans, while
another 12 (19%) did not perceive any influence of the program on their career decision. The
findings suggested that a greater proportion of participants enrolled in the VBIC program
believed that the program did not influence their career aspirations. Three out of seven
80

respondents from the VIBC program (43%) indicated the connection between the program and
their career trajectory.
Table 21 illustrated the samples of responses on how the program influenced their career
plans, which could be categorized into the following ways:
1) Increasing receptiveness to career relocation or working internationally: The program
influenced 39% of participants on career choice by being open to relocation, being
willing to work for a company that allows international travel, or working with a
global team.
2) Increasing or altering career focus: Around 23% of survey respondents mentioned
that the program helped them with their career focus as the experience provided
insight into potential professions that may or may not align with their preferences. In
some cases, the experience altered their views about their future careers.
3) Broaden or diversify career trajectories: About 10% of survey respondents mentioned
their career path expanded because of the program.
4) Confirming career decision: Three participants indicated that participating in the
program validated their career decision.
In summary, the study’s findings implied that the short-term faculty-led program had a stronger
influence on participants’ career plans than the COIL program. The influence could be helping
participants solidify their career focus or broaden their career trajectory in different ways.

81

Table 21
Program Influences on Career Plans
Type of program
influences on career
plans
Response quotes

Increasing receptiveness
to career relocation or
working
internationally
“Made me much more open to living in the country I visited, Japan, and really
opened my eyes to potentially working in different countries.”
“Shaped my career decision to seek opportunities to work abroad.”
“The company I work at now does all production in China, and distributes in Europe,
Asia, and North America.”
“It made me more interested in working at a global firm that could staff me on
international teams.”
“I’m more open to accepting careers outside of Los Angeles. I want to move and
experience different areas.”
“I was not afraid to work at a company where I may have international coworkers.”
“I am now in a rotational program for my career because I am more confident about
my adaptability skills.”
Confirming career
cecision
“Before the program, I’ve always wanted to work abroad. Participating in this
program has confirmed those desires.”
“I’ve always planned to work abroad in Asia, and going to Italy showed me that
working in Asia is a good path for me.”
“It made me solidify my choice to work internationally.”
“This experience affirmed my decision to work in the international sector. I came in
with an interest in technology and business, and this program gave me the network
and platform to explore those interests in Spain.”
Increase or altering
career focus
“I became more interested in global strategy and international market expansion
strategy because of this experience.”
“For me, the ability to explore Rome convinced me to focus my time and energy on
studying economics. I am now interested in joining the academic conversation by
pursuing academic research focused on public economics and developmental
economics.”
“It made me realize that I am interested in global business and pursue a career path
where I could work with people from different cultures.”
“Influenced my decision to work in consulting post grad.”
“Yes, this program changed my career trajectory to go into finance that used to be
consulting.”
“Helped me value working with various different people, influencing me to enter
consulting.”
“I learned I do not want to work in finance.”
Broaden or diversify
career trajectories
“The speaker sires helped immensely in learning about different careers.”
“The program has given me more options to explore for my future career
possibilities.”
“Expand search/path.”
“It opened me up to working internationally. I also want to look into tech more.”

Summary of Findings
The study utilized quantitative and qualitative research methodologies to investigate the
factors that could potentially aid participants in acquiring the knowledge, skills, and attitudes
82

required to become more globally competent. The research also examined the structure of the
short-term faculty-led program and the COIL program to uncover the program components that
may facilitate student competencies development.
The findings from quantitative data suggested that gender could be a significant factor
contributing to participants’ ability to obtain global competence and global business knowledge
and influencing their attitudes. Race could potentially influence individuals’ attitudes. Statistics
showed an association between parents’ educational levels and the degree to which participants’
global business knowledge increased. The data also revealed that individuals who joined the
program with the primary motivation of traveling experienced comparable benefits from the
program as those who participated in the program for other reasons.
Furthermore, quantitative data also suggested that, in general, the short-term faculty-led
program resulted in a higher degree of improvements in participants’ knowledge and skills
compared to the COIL program, while COIL participants exhibited a greater acquisition of
project management skills. Participants speculated that team projects, instructions, in-country
activities, engagement with different stakeholders, and being in a foreign country were the
program components playing a role in their knowledge and skill enhancement. The participants
in both programs expressed that the program made them become more open-minded and
enhanced their cultural intelligence. The responses showed no difference in the attitudes between
participants of both programs, except for resilience towards unpredictability. Notably,
participants in the STFL program demonstrated a greater level of resilience. Lastly, STFL
program participants’ career plans were influenced by the program more than their peers in the
COIL program.

83

Chapter Five: Discussion
As globalization has increased, interconnectedness and workplaces have become more
diverse and being globally competent has become an increasingly sought-after skill that is valued
by employers (Aktas et al., 2017; Streiner et al., 2015; Schenker, 2019). Consequently, many
tertiary institutions, especially business schools, prioritize educating their participants to equip
them with these abilities (Lilley et al., 2014). So far, global competence development among
participants has largely been accomplished through cross-border mobility. Many universities
have also attempted to provide their participants with global exposure beyond cross-border
mobility programs. With the advancement of technology, the collaborative online international
learning (COIL) model—a project-based program utilizing technology-assisted learning and
cross-country collaboration—has gained popularity as an alternative avenue for giving
participants international exposure and helping them gain global competencies, especially during
the COVID-19 pandemic (Bruhn-Zass, 2022; de Wit & Altbach, 2021; Mittelmeier et al., 2021).
Nonetheless, research on the COIL program is still relatively sparse, and research comparing
COIL with other student mobility schemes is even more limited.
To determine if participants’ cross-border mobility programs and COIL programs produce
distinct outcomes, it is necessary first to understand the components that may influence
participants’ learning and development. As a result, this study sought to investigate factors
contributing to participants’ global competence growth by assessing the development of
participants’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes after participating in a short-term study abroad or
COIL program, as guided by these two research questions.
1. What factors influence participants’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes, making them
more globally competent?
84

2. Are there differences in global competence growth between participants
participating in short-term faculty-led programs and collaborative online international
learning (COIL) programs?
Findings
The conceptual framework for this research modified the Burke-Litwin Organizational
Change Model (Burke, 2018; Burke & Litwin, 1992) to gain a better understanding of the
phenomenon and develop approaches to introduce change in the international education field.
The study concentrated on the model’s individual layer and transactional layer. The
transformational and external layers of the model were used to formulate recommendations that
will be presented in this chapter’s implications for the practice section and future research
section.
Individual Layer
At the individual layer, the research investigated whether participants’ demographics
influenced their acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Additionally, the students’
motivations to learn were evaluated to determine whether it had any bearing on their learning
outcomes.
Participants’ Demographics and Learning Outcomes
The study examined the following demographic factors: gender, race, and parental
education level. The results obtained from the survey data revealed that gender potentially had a
bearing on participants’ global knowledge and understanding of the role of various factors in
shaping business practices and attitudes. However, no statistically significant difference between
genders was observed in their skill development. Race may have an influence on participants’
attitudes. Additionally, this research found that educational attainment level of participants’
85

parents could also potentially play a role in the extent to which participants understood the
significance of the political and socioeconomic landscape of the host country in the context of
business practice.
These findings confirmed previous research findings that participants’ demographics,
such as gender, age, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity, are among the factors influencing their
academic performance (Alharjraf & Alasfour, 2014; Kaighobadi & Allen, 2008; Refae & Eletter,
2021; Strayhorn, 2010; Urtel, 2008). While some existing literature suggested that female
participants usually perform academically better than male participants (Cullen et al., 2004;
Kaighobadi & Allen, 2008; Nguyen et al., 2005), this study discovered that overall, male and
female participants actually gained comparable skills, knowledge, and global-minded attitudes.
The differences were that females had a higher development of their international business
knowledge and understanding of the role of culture in business practice than their male
counterparts. Furthermore, compared with male participants, they had less confidence in
identifying the critical parts of their culture, tended to be less ethnocentric, and were less likely
to leave inequality eradication issues to the government alone.
Previous research found correlations between participants’ ethnicity and performance
(Harnett et al., 2004; Sue & Okazaki, 1990). Strayhorn (2010) found that, on average, black male
participants have a lower GPA than their Latino counterparts; socioeconomic status plays a role
in participants’ academic achievement. This research did not find significant differences in
knowledge gains between different races, which might result from excluding Black/African
American and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander participants from data analysis due to
the low response numbers.

86

Participants’ Motivations and Learning Outcomes
Apart from demographics, this study also examined intrinsic factors—specifically
participants’ motivations—because motivations can alter participants’ learning and performance
(Mayer, 2011; Shuck, 2020). Based on the survey responses analysis, the following themes
emerged as the reasons contributing to participants’ decision to participate in the Best Business
Practice Around the World (B-PAW) program: (1) the opportunity to travel to a foreign country,
(2) the desire to learn and get exposure to international business, (3) the desire for enrichment,
(4) the exploration of future longer-term studying or working abroad opportunities, (5) an
alternative to traditional semester-long study abroad, (6) perceptions and the perceived value of
the program, and (7) the potential for networking.
These aforementioned results were consistent with previous research in the field. The
extant literature suggests that common motivations for participants to participate in a short-term
study abroad program include the desire to travel or reside in a foreign country, experience
different cultures, advance personal and intellectual growth, and explore or develop a career path
(Movassaghi et al., 2014; Bretag & van der Veen, 2017; Aresi et al., 2018). According to Bretag
and van der Veen (2017), the length of the program was a significant factor in the decision-
making process of certain participants who opted for a short-term study abroad program as they
placed great importance on gaining international experience while simultaneously adhering to
their predetermined graduation timeline. This reason was articulately reflected in some
participants’ comments that they opted for the B-PAW program as a substitute for a longer-term
study abroad program.
The survey data suggested that participants had different perceptions of the B-PAW
program. Like the study of Fitzsimmons, Flanagan, and Wang (2013) that participants perceived
87

short-term faculty-led programs to be fun and low risk compared to other forms of travel abroad,
some of the B-PAW program participants enrolled in the program believing the program was fun
or viewing it as “a cool experience.” A couple of participants liked the fact that the school
arranged travel and in-country activities for them. Another perception was not reflected in any
literature on the program coming from the fact that one section of the B-PAW program was
offered solely to participants enrolled in an honor program. Therefore, a few participants
mentioned that the elite status and unique experience of the program motivated them to join.
Furthermore, the research finding was that participants enrolled in the program because
of the opportunity to bond with their peers and professor as well as network with company
representatives whom they could potentially meet during the program. This finding lined up with
Bretag and van der Veen’s study (2017), which pointed out participants’ aspirations for network
expansion as one of motivations to participate in a short-term study abroad program.
Transactional Layer
The study focused on assessing the program’s structure as the major component of the
transactional layer. The observation from the survey was that the participants in the short-term
study abroad program attributed their skill development to various program components,
including course instructions, team assignments, classroom and in-country activities, engagement
with diverse stakeholders, and being in a foreign country. On the other hand, the participants in
the COIL program credited their knowledge and skill improvement solely to the business project.
This finding resembled the research by Chieffo and Griffith (2004), which found that participants
participating in study abroad wrote about different things about their learning experiences,
whereas participants taking the course on campus without traveling centered their reflections
about the program solely on the course learning.
88

The study uncovered that the participants in the short-term study abroad program
reported their knowledge gains at a higher rate than the COIL program participants in most
categories. However, participants in both groups gained most of their skills at a comparable rate.
The only exception was in cultural intelligence, which short-term study abroad participants
reported higher. Conversely, participants in the COIL program gained more project management
skills. The findings showed that both programs broaden participants’ global attitudes by helping
them to be more open-minded, increasing their flexibility, empathy, tolerance, and appreciation
of other cultures and differences. The programs also heightened participants’ cultural awareness
and curiosity. These findings corroborated empirical research showing that short-term faculty-led
programs help participants develop intercultural sensitivity, cultural awareness, intercultural
skills, personal development, global awareness and understanding, global mindedness, etc.
(Gulliekson et al., 2011; Mapp, 2012; Schenker, 2019) as participants in the B-PAW program
exhibited a higher gain than participants in the VBIC in most of these areas.
The findings from the open-ended survey responses revealed that the programs had an
influence on their participants’ career focus as well as diversifying their career trajectories,
including their inclination toward pursuing opportunities overseas, relocating to different
regions, collaborating with international teams, or exploring more varied fields of work. The
results of this study were consistent with the existing research studies showing that short-term
faculty-led programs influenced their participants’ career plans (Movassaghi et al., 2014; Ruth et
al., 2019; Sachau, 2010; Slotkin et al., 2012).
Recommendations
Despite the fact that benefits of study abroad programs in fostering and enhancing
participants’ soft skills are well documented and supported by empirical data, research on COIL
89

and short-term study abroad program is still very limited (Iskhakova & Bradely, 2022; Knight,
2006). Also, the majority of existing research on global competence used only the quantitative
method in their studies while qualitative or mixed techniques were the recommended research
methods for evaluating global competence (Deardorff, 2006). Hence, this study attempted to fill
the gap in the international education research in this area by using a mixed method in its
comparative study to assess participants’ global competence growth after participating in either a
short-term study abroad program or a COIL program.
This dissertation utilized the Burke-Litwin organizational change model (Burke, 2018;
Burke & Litwin, 1992) to construct recommendations that colleges can implement at the
transactional and transformational layers to help participants gain global proficiency. These
recommendations are based on the study’s findings and existing literature. The recommendations
are offered as a menu selection rather than as a set menu to allow higher education institutions to
choose the best course of action based on their specific conditions, such as budget, student
population, constraints, etc. Consequently, they may choose to implement one or incorporate any
combination of the recommendations at their discretion.
Transactional Layer
While there was no significant difference in attitudes between participants participating
in the short-term study abroad program and the COIL program, the study’s findings pinpointed
that, in general, the short-term study abroad program yields higher knowledge gains for its
participants than the COIL program. Nevertheless, it was observed that the COIL program
produced comparable results in improving some skills and a better result in developing
participants’ problem-solving, project management, and teamwork skills compared to the short-
90

term study abroad program. Thus, both programs have strengths and weaknesses, and colleges
should find ways to strengthen both forms of international education programs.
Strengthen Short-Term Study Abroad Programs
Based on the research’s findings, the following program components of the short-term
study abroad program were identified by participants to facilitate their growth: teamwork
assignments, instructional sessions, classroom and in-country activities, engagement with diverse
stakeholders, and being in the foreign country. Still, some adjustments in the program structure
could be made to optimize the full potential of the program in developing participants’ global
competencies.
• Team assignments: Currently, the B-PAW program assigns participants to work
in teams to do informative research about the program’s destination country, such as its
economy, culture, politics, etc. Another team project assignment is a SWAT analysis report on a
company that the group intends to visit. However, team project assignments should be more
vigorous and result in more meaningful, high-impact learning. According to Kuh (2008), the
implementation of high-impact educational practices involves facilitating student engagement in
the learning process through the application of knowledge in practical and interactive contexts.
This approach involves collaborative problem-solving activities that enable students to address
real-world challenges alongside their peers in a shared learning environment. Also, a research
project is a great learning tool for enhancing participants’ cultural and global competence (Ruth
et al., 2019). As such, incorporating a real business case project pertaining to a company that the
program will be visiting as part of the assignment could strengthen the short-term study abroad
program’s efficiency.
91

• Program activities: According to constructivist learning theory (Iskhakova &
Bradly, 2022), individuals construct knowledge and learn from each other. Therefore, group
learning activities are an important part of acquiring knowledge. Based on participants’
responses, group activities that incorporate interactions with locals not only foster participants’
bonding experiences but also fulfill their desire to network with locals. Group activities of this
nature also promote participants’ learning and growth. Thus, pre-planned, well-thought-out, and
well-designed structured group activities involving interactions with locals should be integrated
into the program. Typically, service learning, company visits, and networking events with
college participants of the host country are the usual activities selected to provide opportunities
for participants to connect with locals. To increase meaningful engagement with locals,
incorporating a real business case project into the program assignment can offer a structured
framework and a valuable opportunity for participants to have in-depth conversations with
locals. Participants should be required to engage with host company representatives or the local
community in conducting the project. As such, the project can be a very effective learning tool to
develop both hard and soft skills for participants. Furthermore, to maximize the effectiveness of
in-country activities, schools should consider the possibility of pairing their participants with
local participants for a collaborative project or recreational activities like scavenger hunts or
amazing races, which can foster stronger interpersonal and intercultural communication skills,
broaden global mindsets, and deepen connections among participants and between them and
local participants.
• Instructional design: Apart from pre-trip class sessions that provide participants
with the necessary knowledge to prepare them for travel, in-country and post-trip sessions are
also necessary to help participants reflect on their experience during the trip and post-travel
92

(Iskhakova & Bradly, 2022; Steinberg, 2017). According to Iskhakova and Bradly (2022),
incorporating reflective components completes the cycle in the transformational learning model,
which consists of observation, experience, reflection, and action. Hence, assessments and
reflections must be embedded in the program structure to aid participants’ learning and develop
deeper academic and personal growth. Also, cultural immersion must be part of the program
design to assist participants in building cultural intelligence.
Strengthen COIL Programs
The results from the survey implied that participants in the COIL program gained less
country and world event knowledge as well as cultural intelligence than participants in the short-
term study abroad program. In addition, individuals who participated in short-term faculty-led
programs demonstrated heightened levels of social connectedness with their peers. There are a
few things that can be done to strengthen COIL programs.
• Knowledge Enhancement: Although participants from foreign institutions are
assigned to teams with Best Western Business School participants in the VBIC program, they
might need more international exposure to be globally competent. In the existing VBIC program
structure, the knowledge covered in the program class sessions encompassed intercultural
communication, business acumen, and project management. In contrast, the B-PAW pre-trip
class sessions delved into general knowledge pertaining to the program’s destination country,
including politics, socioeconomics, and other relevant topics. Additionally, VBIC business case
projects incorporated into the program predominantly pertain to American companies or projects
that cater to the American consumer base. These might be the main factors contributing to the
relatively lower efficacy of the COIL program in enhancing participants’ global competent
knowledge.
93

However, in order to be global business leaders, students cannot have only business
knowledge. Individuals with global business competencies must have knowledge of a host
country’s historical, sociopolitical, economic, and cultural background, knowledge of global
issues, and the ability to understand the connection between these issues and business operations
and practices (Bücker & Poutsma, 2010; Fantini & Tirmizi, 2006; Hollows et al., 2011; Kee et
al., 2017; OECD, 2018). Hence, the COIL program should undertake business case projects for a
foreign entity to give participants more international exposure. Once the projects focus on a
particular country or world geographical region, incorporating educational sessions on the
historical, geopolitical, and socio-economic aspects, among others, of such a country or region
may assist participants in acquiring the general knowledge needed to be globally competent.
• Increase interactions: Business leaders must have good networking skills
(Hollows et al., 2011; Kee et al., 2017). Meeting people, especially professionals from different
industries, can help students develop this skill. Also, several survey respondents mentioned the
benefits they received from meeting company representatives. To offer similar experiences and
benefits as the short-term study abroad program does, the COIL program should invite
representatives from companies to meet with participants in person or virtually. To take full
advantage of these opportunities, faculty should guide students on how to interact with these
guest speakers as well.
• Cultural intelligence enhancement: Cultural immersion is an important
component of building cultural intelligence. The program assignments should include watching
movies and listening to music related to the country of the business case project in order to raise
cultural awareness among COIL participants. Schools that have a large international student
population, such as Best Western University, should consider engaging their international
94

participants with the participants in the COIL program, as interacting with international students
can help domestic students build their global and cultural competencies (Charles-Toussaint &
Crowson, 2010). Engaging international students could also support the institution’s
international-at-home efforts that try to integrate international and intercultural dimensions into
every aspect of campus life, including learning activities (Mittermeier et al., 2021). To fully
benefit from these opportunities for both domestic and international students, the opportunities
for engagement must be structured and well-planned.
As information and communications technology (ICT) has increased its footprint in
teaching and learning (Bruhn-Zass, 2022), using technology to bring the world into the
classroom could be another approach to provide cultural immersion experience. For instance,
having a native lead a city tour or cultural activity via an online technology platform. This kind
of exercise should be executed in real time to allow participants to interact with the locals and
have a chance to ask questions during the activity. Consequently, choosing a site for these
activities is limited by time differences because they must happen during class.
• Offer travel opportunity: The study’s findings indicated that participants’ learning
and growth occur when they are in a foreign country, something which cannot be replicated
without actual travel. The typical COIL program does not have an embedded travel component.
Instead of offering travel as part of the program, schools can offer it as a co-curricular trip. This
will help participants gain benefits comparable to what they would get from a short-term study
abroad program without worrying about academic consequences. The drawback of a co-
curricular trip is that participants cannot receive federal financial aid to defray the costs.
Even though international travel is ideal, the cost of international travel might cause too
much of a financial burden on participants and the school. According to the research done by
95

Gomez-Lanier (2017), no matter whether the study tour took place abroad or domestically,
participants found it to be an educational experience. The distinction was that participants who
participated in an abroad study tour formed and valued stronger social ties with their peers
compared with those on a domestic study tour. If schools opt to offer a short-term domestic study
tour instead of an international one, a well-planned domestic trip can provide participants with a
similar learning experience. Organized and well-thought-out group activities should be
embedded in the domestic study tour to foster student bonding. Cultivating the existing
engagements in the COIL program by allowing participants at the COIL partner schools to
participate in the domestic study tour could maximize the potential of the COIL program to
enhance participants’ growth.
• Gocal: One aspect of internationalization-at-home approach is to engage students
with cultural and ethnic groups in the community (Knight, 2012). Therefore, colleges that are
located in a city enriched with different ethnic communities, such as Seattle, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Chicago, Miami, etc., should leverage their location by incorporating activities with
these ethnic communities as part of the COIL program. The activities can include visiting local
businesses, talking to people in the communities, and conducting cultural immersion activities.
Table 22 demonstrates a sample of a Gocal program.

96

Table 22
Sample of a Gocal Program in a Thai Community
Type of activity Potential activity/hosts
Meeting with Thai-owned multinational companies Chang Beer, Tao Kai Noi, Kasikorn Bank
Meeting with local Thai business owner Local Thai grocery stores, newspaper, and media
Cultural immersion Visiting Thai temples and talking to monks and temple
visitors, taking a Thai cooking or Thai classical
dance class, dining with local Thais at a temple

In conclusion, higher education institutions can take a number of steps at the transactional
layer to optimize participants’ development potential. Short-term faculty-led programs can be
strengthened by incorporating a real business case project as a component of the program,
increasing interactions with locals through well-organized and structured activities, and integrated
assessment and participants’ reflections as part of the program to enhance participants’ learning
and growth. COIL programs can be strengthened by focusing business case projects on a specific
country or geographic area, adding general knowledge lessons to provide background and
understanding about country or region related to the project, increasing interactive engagement
with different stakeholders, providing an opportunity for travel with the program, and leveraging
the institution’ location to engage with the local ethnic communities.
Transformational Layer
The findings of this study and other studies (Iskhakova & Bradly, 2022; Movassaghi et
al., 2014; Sachau et al., 2010) confirmed the benefits of short-term faculty-led programs on
participants’ academic, professional, and personal growth. Friendships and connections formed
with peers, faculty, and administrators during the program help increase participants’ sense of
belonging, resulting in higher retention and degree completion rates, especially among ethnic
minority participants (Anderson et al., 2006; Ruth et al., 2019). The study findings indicated that
relationships participants formed through the short-term study abroad program were stronger
97

than those built through the COIL program, and the short-term study abroad program produced
knowledge at a higher rate.
As the cost of participating in a short-term study abroad program could be a financial
burden for many participants (Brown et al., 2016; Evans et al., 2011; Vernon et al., 2017),
schools should provide more scholarships for participants to take part in this type of program.
Existing research (Iskhakova & Bradly, 2022; Movassaghi et al., 2014) suggests that participants
who participate in a study abroad program have a stronger connection to the institution and
potentially have more job prospects, which could have a favorable impact on the ranking and
reputation of the institution. A higher ranking might entice more highly qualified prospective
participants, resulting in increased revenue and prestige for the institution. Participants’ strong
sense of belonging to the institution could lead to future endowments for the school from these
participants. Hence, the financial investment that schools make benefits not only participants but
also the school. Ultimately, the school stands to gain more than the financial capital invested in
student scholarships.
Furthermore, research shows that participants participating in study abroad programs can
cultivate a much higher return in human, social, economic, and cultural capital than the study
abroad price tag they paid (Dwyer, 2014; Stebleton et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2012). Consistant with
the existing literature (Ruth et al., 2019), the study’s findings suggested that participants from
underrepresented groups and those with lower incomes benefited more from the short-term study
abroad program. Giving more scholarships to increase the probability for these groups of
participants to participate in a study abroad program will also equalize the playing field for
underrepresented participants and narrow the inequality for this and future generations.
98

Secondly, faculty play a crucial role in enhancing participants’ learning and development.
Faculty involved in international education programs must be capable of planning meaningful
lessons and in-country activities. They must be able to facilitate rich and in-depth discussions
and reflections with participants. Also, faculty need to be experienced with the country and
culture themselves to assist participants in developing cultural awareness and cultural
intelligence. Hence, schools should invest in faculty training and pair experienced faculty with
faculty in training to co-lead short-term study abroad programs, which will help broaden the
faculty pool that can lead this type of program and ensure the program’s continuity.
Additionally, most higher education institutions, including the Best Western Business
School, have a traditional organizational design in which the authority for deciding strategies and
resources is concentrated at the top of the hierarchy (O’Connor et al., 2019). To advance the
school’s international efforts, including international education programs, the school should set
internationalization as one of its strategies and appoint a senior administrator to oversee the
school’s internationalization agenda and international program to ensure that resources will be
allocated to the school’s international education programs to help participants build and enhance
their global competencies.
In summary, to cause transformations, schools must increase scholarships for participants
to participate in international education programs, increase faculty training, and prioritize
internationalization in their strategic planning.

99

Limitations and Delimitations
This study is subject to various limitations. The main limitations lie in the fact that many
higher educational institutions, including the university under study, suspended their short-term
faculty-led programs in the 2020–2021 academic year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Best
Western University (BWU) resumed short-term faculty-led programs in May 2022. Due to time
constraints, the study is restricted to examining the cohort of BWU participants who were
enrolled in the B-PAW programs during the spring semesters of 2019 and 2022 because they
traveled abroad as part of the program components. By the time of data collection, participants
who participated in the B-PAW program in 2019 had already graduated, which made research
participant recruitment a challenge. Even though the schools resumed the B-PAW program in
May 2022, the number of participants was very limited.
The COVID-19 pandemic did not impact the Virtual International Business Case (VBIC)
program, but the nature of the program’s offering only to junior and senior participants became
another research limitation. Consequently, the scope of this research study was limited to the
cohort of BWU participants who registered for the VBIC program during the years 2021 and
2022.
Another limitation is the small sample size. Among the 727 qualified research samples,
518 were eligible participants in the B-PAW program and 209 in the VIBC program. Despite
making multiple attempts to reach out to the eligible participants to encourage them to take the
survey, in the end, only 134 people responded to the survey, and only 118 of the of the responses
were eligible to be used for data analysis. Unfortunately, among the 118 eligible responses, there
were only ten responses from VIBC program participants, one self-identified as Native Hawaiian
100

or other Pacific Islander, two participants self-identified as some other race, and four self-
identified as Black or African American.
The research delimitation was on the survey design. The BWBS offered the VIBC
program in both the fall and spring semesters, while it offered the B-PAW program only in spring
semesters. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and the dissertation timeline constraints,
I only conducted a post-program survey for this study to ensure a more accurate comparison.
However, as the questionnaire was administered at a significantly later time subsequent to the
program’s completion, it may have had an effect on the research’s credibility. According to
research by Tucker and Weaver (2013), the timing of conducting assessments could influence
participants’ opinions on their experiences and participation outcomes. A negative attitude among
participants tends to decrease with an increase in the duration of time between when the program
concludes and when the assessment is conducted. This trend is observed in the research results
that most participants provided favorable feedback about the program. Another issue was that
participants in the short-term faculty-led programs are first-year college participants, but COIL
participants are upper-class participants. Since the survey questions were geared toward
participants’ self-assessment of their competence gains after the program, the difference in
academic year should not play a significant role in this study.
Another delimitation came from the research method, which used an online survey to
collect quantitative and qualitative data. Due to the anonymous nature of online surveys, there is
a possibility that respondents may interpret the questions differently and provide responses that
deviate from their intended choices. For example, when asked to identify race, a survey
participant, self-identified as “South Asia,” erroneously selected race category as “Some other
race, non-Hispanic” instead of the appropriate category of “Asian alone, non-Hispanic.” The next
101

delimitation derived from the fact that the survey participants could not be required to answer all
questions. As a result, around 23% of survey participants responded to only some of the
questions. Also, the anonymity of the survey could lead to the possibility of duplicate responses.
Since the survey was anonymous, it was not feasible to ascertain if any individual had submitted
multiple responses.
The last delimitation is that the research was undertaken at the Best Western Business
School (BWBS), a large private university located in a metropolitan area on the West Coast,
which might not reflect experiences of participants who study in a higher education institution
located in other parts of the country or who study in a different type of college.
Future Research
Based on the limitations and scope of the current research, there are several recommendations for
future research that can expand and enhance understanding of the topic. These recommendations
aim to broaden the context, improve research methods, and address specific gaps in the current
study.
1) Different institution setting: The current research focused on business participants at a
large private research institution located on the west coast of the U.S. Future research can
be conducted at different types of colleges or universities—such as public institutions,
community colleges, or smaller liberal arts colleges—or in different geographic regions
of the U.S. The experiences and outcomes of participants from diverse educational
settings or geographic settings can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the
topic.
2) International student population: There is limited research on the influence of study
abroad programs on international participants. This research could recruit only ten
102

international participants to participate in the study. Incorporating a larger sample of
international participants to capture their unique perspectives and experiences within
study abroad programs can expand the body of knowledge on this topic.
3) Timely assessments: The current research design is to survey participants after
completing the program. Modifying the research design by measuring participants’
knowledge, skills, and attitudes at the beginning of the program and assessing the change
a few weeks after its conclusion can provide more accuracy in tracking participants’
development and assessing the program’s influence on such changes.
4) Different research methodologies: Supplementing the current research’s findings by
conducting in-depth interviews with participants can provide a richer understanding of
participants’ experiences, motivations, and personal growth. This can help capture
nuanced aspects that the mixed method used in this study might miss. Also, by
integrating multiple research methods, such as surveys, interviews, observations, and
document analysis, researchers can triangulate findings and validate results across
different data sources.
5) Faculty and geographical variability: Consider examining the impact of different
program sections and faculty members on participants’ experiences and gains. By
comparing multiple sections taught by different instructors and traveling to different
countries, researchers can investigate how these factors influence student outcomes and
identify the best program design and implementation practices. Furthermore, a
comparative study of the same study abroad program operated in different geographical
locations, such as Europe, Asia, or Latin America, can provide a more in-depth
103

understanding of the influence of cultural, social, and environmental factors on
participants’ growth.
6) Longitudinal Studies: Expand the research scope by conducting longitudinal
studies that follow participants over an extended period and can provide insights into the
long-term influence of study abroad experiences on participants’ personal and
professional development.
The above recommendations are intended to expand the scope, improve the methodology,
and address specific limitations and delimitations of the current study. By exploring different
educational contexts, incorporating different sets of student populations, using timely
assessments, employing different research methodologies, considering faculty and program
location variability, and conducting longitudinal studies, future research can provide valuable
insights into the influences of study abroad programs on student growth and development.
Conclusion
Students’ international mobility programs have long been the main mechanism for
providing international experience to students (Altbach, 1998; de Wit & Merkx, 2012). However,
higher education institutions have explored different avenues to give students, especially those
who cannot travel abroad, international exposure. The advancement of information and
communication technologies (ICT) helps students in Collaborative Online International Learning
(COIL) programs gain international experience without physically stepping outside the country
(de Wit & Albatch, 2021; Rubin, 2017).
Therefore, this study assessed how international programs could foster students’ global
competence growth. The study compared the increase in knowledge, skills, and global attitudes
of participants in two different international education programs—a short-term faculty-led
104

program and a COIL program—by using both quantitative and qualitative research
methodologies to unveil students’ experiences and gains, as well as program structure that might
contribute to different growth. The research also examined how participants’ demographics,
namely gender, race, US citizenship status, parents’ education level, and family income, could
influence their attitudes and acquisition of knowledge and skills.
The study’s findings suggested that demographic factors like gender and race could
significantly influence how well participants develop their global competence. Parents’
educational attainment may influence the understanding of certain issues among participants, but
it does not exert any sway over their overall attitudes. The study revealed no correlation between
the socioeconomic status of participants’ families or their motivations to participate in the
program and their progress in terms of knowledge acquisition, skill development, or attitude
enhancement. The research also found that the short-term study abroad program yielded a higher
gain in participants’ knowledge gains, generated similar gains in various skills, and exhibited no
significant difference in participants’ global attitudes when compared to the COIL program.
Both short-term faculty-led programs and collaborative online international learning
programs have advantages and disadvantages in different areas. There are several ways to
strengthen short-term study abroad programs. One potential approach is integrating a real
business case project, alongside assessments and reflective exercises for participants, into the
program component. Additionally, increasing opportunities for interactions with locals could also
prove beneficial. To enhance the efficacy of the COIL program, it is recommended to focus
business case projects on a particular country or geographic region while integrating general
knowledge lessons to provide context and understanding of the country or region related to the
project and intensifying opportunities to have interactive interactions with different stakeholders
105

either in person or virtually. Another way is to offer international or domestic travel opportunities
to participants, including participants of other COIL program partner schools. Lastly, when
possible, it is advisable to take advantage of the institution’s location to engage with the local
ethnic communities.
Based on the current study’s limitations and delimitations, the following methods could
deepen understanding of global competence growth and transform the field: conducting research
on the same topic at different institutions with different student populations; using different
research methods; studying the influence of these programs on international participants;
tracking participants’ development by assessing their knowledge, skills, and attitude at the
beginning of the program and a few weeks after the program’s completion; and doing
longitudinal and comparative studies.
As pointed out in the literature, individuals with global competencies have a competitive
advantage in the job market and in their career advancement (Aktas et al., 2017; Streiner et al.,
2015; Schenker, 2019). Furthermore, empirical evidence suggests a strong association between
study abroad program participation and upward social mobility (Dwyer, 2014; Lee et al., 2012;
NAFSA, 2019; Pietro, 2019). Thus, the absence of international exposure may potentially
exacerbate racial inequality in society. Apart from benefiting individuals, equipping future
generations with these skills is also beneficial to society as a whole because globally competent
individuals are usually socially responsible in their actions and decisions (Lilley et al., 2014).
Individuals with global competence are also open-minded, flexible, resilient, and empathetic.
They have knowledge and skills for interacting across multi-cultural settings. These qualities can
help bridge understanding among people from different backgrounds and bring them together for
the greater good. Therefore, the quest for global competence is a crucial responsibility of higher
106

education institutions, not only from the standpoint of their students’ employability benefits but
also from the ideological perspective of higher education’s role in serving the public good.

107

References
Aagaard. (2017). Breaking down barriers: The ambivalent nature of technologies in the
classroom. New Media & Society, 19(7), 1127–1143. https://tinyurl.com/mrx38v3k
Aktas, F., Pitts, K., Richards, J. C., & Silova, I. (2017). Institutionalizing global citizenship: A
critical analysis of higher education programs and curricula. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 21(1), 65-80.
Alhajraf, & Alasfour, A. M. (2014). The Impact of Demographic and Academic Characteristics
on Academic Performance. International Business Research, 7(4).
https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v7n4p92.
Altbach, P. G. (1998). Comparative perspectives in higher education for the twenty-first century.
Higher Education Policy, 11, 347–356.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations
and realities. Journal of studies in international education, 11(3-4), 290-305.
Appiah-Kubi, P., & Annan, E. (2020). A review of a collaborative online international learning.
International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 10(1). 109-124.
Baldassar, & McKenzie, L. (2016). Beyond “Just Being There”: Teaching Internationalization at
Home in Two Qualitative Methods Units. Teaching Sociology, 44(2), 84–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X16631126
Ball, S. J., Dworkin, A. G., & Vryonides, M. (2010). Globalization and education: Introduction.
Current Sociology, 58(4), 523-529. https://tinyurl.com/bdfpmfds
Bandyopadhyay, S., & Bandyopadhyay, K. (2015). Factors influencing student participation in
college study abroad programs. Journal of International Education Research (JIER),
11(2), 87-94.
108

Bird, A. & Osland, J.S. (2004). Global competencies: an introduction. In Lane, H.W.,
Maznevski, M.L., Mendenhall, M.E. & McNett, J. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of
Global Management. A Guide to Managing Complexity, Blackwell Publishing (pp. 57 -
80), Oxford.
Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In The European higher
education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 59-72). Springer.
Beerkens, E. (2003). Globalisation and higher education research. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 7(2), 128-148.
Bennett, M. J. (2012). Paradigmatic assumptions and a developmental approach to intercultural
learning. In Berg, M. V., Paige, R. M. & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad:
What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it (pp. 90-
114). Stylus Publishing.
Bradford, H., Guzmán, A., & Trujillo, M.-A. (2017). Determinants of successful
internationalisation processes in business schools. Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, 39(4), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1330798
Braskamp, L. A., Braskamp, D. C., Merrill, K. C., & Engberg, M. (2014). Global Perspective
Inventory (GPI): Its purpose, construction, potential uses, and psychometric
characteristics. Global Perspective Institute. https://tinyurl.com/ypye27w3
Bretag, & van der Veen, R. (2017). “Pushing the boundaries”: participant motivation and self-
reported benefits of short-term international study tours. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 54(3), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1118397
109

Brown, M., Boateng, E. A., & Evans, C. (2016). Should I stay or should I go? A systematic
review of factors that influence healthcare students' decisions around study abroad
programmes. Nurse Education Today, 39, 63-71.
Bruhn-Zass. (2022). Virtual Internationalization to Support Comprehensive Internationalization
in Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 26(2), 240–258.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153211052776
Brustein, W. I. (2006). Paths to global Competence: preparing American college students to meet
the World. IIE Networker, 23-25.
Bücker, J., & Poutsma, E. (2010). Global management competencies: A theoretical foundation.
Journal of Managerial Psychology. 25(8), 829-844.
Burke, W.W. (2018). Organization change: Theory & practice (5
th
ed.). Sage Publication.
Burke, W.W. & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and
Change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545. https://tinyurl.com/ywrfs8zj.
Caliguri, P., & Di Santo, V. (2001). Global competence: what is it, and can it be developed
through global assignments?. Human Resource Planning, 24(3), 27-35.
Charles-Toussaint, G. C., & Crowson, H. M. (2010). Prejudice against international students:
The role of threat perceptions and authoritarian dispositions in U.S. students. The Journal
of Psychology, 144(5), 413-428.
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, 165-
177.
Colpaert, J. (2020). Editorial position paper: how virtual is your research?. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 33(7), 653-664.
110

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Introduction. In Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.):
Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (pp. 1-18). SAGE
Publications, Inc., https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
Cullen, M., Hardison, C., & Sackett, P. (2004). Using SAT-grade and ability-job performance
relationships to test predictions from stereotype threat theory. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(2), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.220.
Custer, L., & Tuominen, A. (2017). Bringing “internationalization at home” opportunities to
community colleges: Design and assessment of an online exchange activity between US
and Japanese students. Teaching Sociology, 45(4), 347-357.
Dagen, T., Doušak, M., Fink-Hafner, D., Hafner-Fink, M., & Novak, M. (2019). Defining
internationalisation, globalisation, and Europeanisation in higher education. Teorija in
Praksa, 56(2), 643-659,748. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/mr2jhwey
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student
outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3),
241-266.
De Klerk, & Palmer, J. M. (2022). Technology inclusion for students living with disabilities
through collaborative online learning during and beyond COVID-19. Perspectives in
Education, 40(1), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v40.i1.5
Dessoff, A. (2006). Who's not going abroad?. International Educator, 15(2), 20.
de Wit, H. (2011). Globalisation and internationalisation of higher education. International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 8(2), 241-248.
de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher education: global trends and
recommendations for its future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(1), 28-46.
111

de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on the internationalisation of
higher education, revolutionary or not?. In Global Higher Education During and Beyond
COVID-19 (pp. 219-231). Springer. https://doi.org/10.36197/INT.2-2020.01.
de Wit, H., & Merkx, G. (2012). The history of internationalization of higher education. In D. K.
DeardorffH. d. Wit, & J. D. Heyl. The SAGE handbook of international higher education
(pp. 43-60). SAGE Publications. https://tinyurl.com/5ech48ww
Dwyer, M. M. (2004). Charting the impact of studying abroad. International Educator, Winter,
14–20.
Evans, J., Finch, J., Toncar, M. F., & Reid, J. S. (2011). Student perceptions of and preferences
for a short overseas study tour. Contemporary Issues in Education Research , 1(3), 11–
18. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v1i3.1190
Fantini, A. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence. In D. Deardorff. The sage handbook of
intercultural competence (pp. 456-476). SAGE Publications, Inc,
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781071872987.n27
Farrugia, C., & Villarreal, A. (2013). International student mobility in the United
States. International Higher Education, (71), 13-15.
Fisher, C., Hitchcock, L. I., Neyer, A., Moak, S. C., Moore, S., & Marsalis, S. (2022).
Contextualizing the Impact of Faculty-Led Short-Term Study Abroad on Students’
Global Competence: Characteristics of Effective Programs. Journal of Global
Awareness, 3(1), 3.
Fitzsimmons, S. R., Flanagan, D. J., & Wang, X. A. (2013). Business students' choice of short-
term or long-term study abroad opportunities. Journal of Teaching in International
Business, 24(2), 125-137.
112

Franklin, K. (2010). Long-term Career Impact and Professional Applicability of the Study
Abroad Experience. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 19(1),
169–191. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v19i1.279
Gallagher, S. & Palmer, J. (2020, September 29).The pandemic pushed universities online: The
change was long overdue. Harvard Business Review, 29. https://tinyurl.com/mrxxte5j
Ghosh, R. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on the internationalisation of higher education,
revolutionary or not?. In Global Higher Education During and Beyond COVID-19 (pp.
205-218). Springer. https://doi.org/10.36197/INT.2-2020.01.
Global Competence Association. (n.d.). Global competence model. https://tinyurl.com/2p8zmyyc
Gomez-Lanier, L. (2017). The Experiential learning impact of international and domestic study
tours: Class excursions that are more than field trips. International Journal of Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 129-144.
Guillotin, B., & Mangematin, V. (2015). Internationalization strategies of business schools: how
flat is the world?. Thunderbird International Business Review, 57(5), 343-357.
Gullekson, Tucker, M. L., Coombs, G., & Wright, S. B. (2011). Examining intercultural growth
for business students in short-term study abroad programs: Too good to be true? Journal
of Teaching in International Business, 22(2), 91–106. https://tinyurl.com/udf644df
Hallows, Wolf, P. P., & Marks, M. A. (2011). Short-term study abroad: a transformational
approach to global business education. Journal of International Education in Business,
4(2), 88–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/18363261111189504
Hartnett, N., Ro¨mcke, J., & Yap, C. (2004). Student performance in tertiary-level accounting: an
international student focus. Accounting and Finance, 44(2), 163–185.
https://tinyurl.com/ymc3dn8n.
113

Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-
based nursing, 18(3), 66-67.
Hogan, & Warrenfeltz, R. (2003). Educating the Modern Manager. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 2(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2003.9324043
Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Association
of International Educators (NAFSA).
Hunter, B., White, G. P., & Godbey, G. C. (2006). What does it mean to be globally competent?
Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267–285.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306286930
Hunter, W.D. (2004). Got Global Competency?. International Educator, 13(2), 6–12.
Iskhakova, M., & Bradly, A. (2022). Short-Term Study Abroad Research: A Systematic Review
2000-2019. Journal of Management Education, 46(2), 383-427.
Jessop, B. (2018). On academic capitalism. Critical Policy Studies, 12(1), 104–109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2017.1403342
Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L. C. (2016). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and
Mixed Approaches. Sage Publications Inc.
Kaighobadi, M., & Allen, M. (2008). Investigating Academic Success Factors for Undergraduate
Business Students. Decision Sciences. Journal of Innovative Education, 6(2), 427–436.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2008.00184.x.
Kälvermark, T., & van der Wende, M. (1997). Conclusions and discussion. National policies for
the internationalisation of higher education in Europe, 259-271.
Kaushik, R., Raisinghani, M. S., Gibson, S., & Assis, N. (2017). The global aptitude assessment
model: A critical perspective. American Journal of Management, 17(5), 81-86.
114

Kee, V. T. S., Islam, M. Z., Said, T. F., & Sumardi, W. A. (2017). Leadership skills and
competencies of global business leaders. Independent Business Review, 10(1/2), 1-20.
Kerr, S. P., Kerr, W., Özden, Ç., & Parsons, C. (2016). Global talent flows. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 30(4), 83-106.
Knight, J. (2003). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education, 33.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal
of studies in international education, 8(1), 5-31.
Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of
higher education. In SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 27-42). Sage
Publications.
Knight, J. (2020). The internationalization of higher education scrutinized: international program
and provider mobility. Sociologias, 22, 176-199.
Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Past and future.
International Higher Education, (95), 2-4.
Knight, J., & Liu, Q. (2019). International program and provider mobility in higher education:
Research trends, challenges and issues. Comparative and International Education, 48(1).
Kuh, G. D., & Kinzie, J. (2018). What really makes a ‘high-impact’practice high impact. Inside
Higher Ed, 1.
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Leask, B. (2001). Bridging the gap: Internationalizing university curricula. Journal of studies in
international education, 5(2), 100-115.
115

Leask. (2014). Internationalizing the Curriculum and all Students ‘Learning. International
Higher Education, 78, 5–6. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2014.78.5798
Lee, J. J. & Stensaker, B. (2021). Research on internationalisation and globalisation in higher
education: Reflections on historical paths, current perspectives and future
possibilities. European Journal of Education, 56(2), 157–168.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12448
Lee, C. S., Therriault, D. J., & Linderholm, T. (2012). On the cognitive benefits of cultural
experience: Exploring the relationship between studying abroad and creative thinking.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 768–778. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2857
Lewis, W. (2016). Study abroad influencing factors: An investigation of socio-economic status,
social, cultural, and personal factors. Ursidae: The Undergraduate Research Journal at
the University of Northern Colorado, 5(3), 6.
Li, Y. (2013). Cultivating student global competence: A pilot experimental study. Decision
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 11(1), 125-143.
Lilley, Barker, M., & Harris, N. (2014). Educating global citizens in business schools. Journal of
International Education in Business, 7(1), 72–84. https://tinyurl.com/bdz56asn
Liu, Y., Yin, Y., & Wu, R. (2020). Measuring graduate students’ global competence: Instrument
development and an empirical study with a Chinese sample. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 67, 1-13. https://tinyurl.com/393s5mt6
Mapp. (2012). Effect of Short-Term Study Abroad Programs on Students’ Cultural Adaptability.
Journal of Social Work Education, 48(4), 727–737. https://tinyurl.com/5xttnbx5
116

Martins, & Coetzee, M. (2009). Applying the Burke–Litwin model as a diagnostic framework for
assessing organisational effectiveness. SA Journal of Human Resource Management,
7(1), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v7i1.177
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2006). School leadership that works: from
research to results. Hawker Brownlow Education.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education
Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G. N., & Seng, M. S. Y. (2003). The third wave: Future trends in
international education. International Journal of Educational Management. 17(3), 90–99.
https://tinyurl.com/5n7c9w47
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mestre-Segarra, & Ruiz-Garrido, M. F. (2022). Examining students’ reflections on a
collaborative online international learning project in an ICLHE context. System, 105, 1-
15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102714
Mittelmeier, J., Rienties, B., Gunter, A., & Raghuram, P. (2021). Conceptualizing
internationalization at a distance: A “third category” of university internationalization.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(3), 266-282.
Movassaghi, H., Unsal, F., & Göçer, K. (2014). Study abroad decisions: Determinants &
perceived consequences. Journal of higher education theory and practice, 14(1), 69.
Naffziger, D. W., Montagno, R. V., & Montag-Smit, T. A. (2015). Global Competence and
2014's College of Business Student. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice,
15(3), 51.
117

Naicker, A., Singh, E., & van Genugten, T. (2021). Collaborative online international learning
(COIL): Preparedness and experiences of South African students. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 1-12.
NAFSA. (2019). Preparing students for tomorrow’s workforce: The Senator Paul Simon Study
Abroad Program Act. https://tinyurl.com/5nh9a92t
NAFSA. (May 2020). Survey: Financial impact of COVID-19 on international education.
https://tinyurl.com/4cakw9fh
NAFSA. (n.d.). Trends in U.S. study abroad. https://tinyurl.com/yttvxeej
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2019, March 29). The four career
competencies employers value most. https://tinyurl.com/j93asyp6
Nguyen, N. T., Allen, L., & Fraccastoro, K. (2005). Personality predicts academic performance:
exploring the moderating role of gender. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 27(1), 105–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600800500046313
Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalisation at home from a Swedish perspective: The case of Malmö.
Journal of studies in International Education, 7(1), 27-40.
O’Dowd, R. (2021). Virtual exchange: moving forward into the next decade. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 34(3), 209-224.
Open Doors (2021). Duration of study abroad. Retrieved on July 12, 2022
https://tinyurl.com/2p8h33cb
Open Doors (2022). U.S study abroad: Complete data set. Retrieved on June 1, 2023
https://tinyurl.com/mvnc76ee
Open Doors (n.d.). U.S. study abroad student profile. Retrieved on July 12, 2022
https://tinyurl.com/54z6n3k3
118

Open Doors. (n.d.) Online global learning experience 2019/2020. Retrieved on August 13, 2022.
https://tinyurl.com/bdhfxe7d
Open Doors. (n.d.). U.S. study abroad students 1994/1995 - 2018/2019. Retrieved on July 12,
2022. https://tinyurl.com/567hz7bz
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Programme for
international student assessment (PISA) 2018 Global Competence.
https://tinyurl.com/5xrv9tcs
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2021). Indicator B6. What is the
profile of internationally mobile students?. https://tinyurl.com/2cvyzxn4
Pietro, G. (2019, May). University study abroad and graduates’ employability. IZA World of
Labor. 109 (2), 1-12. https://tinyurl.com/58abfs5t
Refae, Kaba, A., & Eletter, S. (2021). The Impact of Demographic Characteristics on Academic
Performance: Face-to-Face Learning Versus Distance Learning Implemented to Prevent
the Spread of COVID-19. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 22(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i1.5031
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage
Publications.
Rubin, J. (2017). Embedding collaborative online international learning (COIL) at higher
education institutions. Internationalisation of Higher Education, 2, 27-44.
Ruth, Brewis, A., Blasco, D., & Wutich, A. (2019). Long-Term Benefits of Short-Term
Research-Integrated Study Abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 23(2),
265–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318786448
119

Sachau, D., Brasher, N., & Fee, S. (2010). Three models for short-term study abroad. Journal of
Management Education, 34(5), 645-670.
Salisbury, M. H., Umbach, P. D., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2008). Going global:
Understanding the choice process of the intent to study abroad. Research in higher
education, 50(2), 119-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9111-x
Salisbury, M. H., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2011). Why do All the Study Abroad
Students Look Alike? Applying an Integrated Student Choice Model to Explore
Differences in the Factors that Influence White and Minority Students’ Intent to Study
Abroad. Research in Higher Education, 52(2), 123–150. https://tinyurl.com/2kt9zsjb
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Samkian, A. (2021). Week 7: Quantitative approach design [PowerPoint slides].
Blackboard@USC. https://tinyurl.com/sw4vxc35
Sarkar, S. (2012). The role of information and communication technology (ICT) in higher
education for the 21st century. Science, 1(1), 30-41.
Saunders, D. (2007). The Impact of Neoliberalism on College Students. Journal of College and
Character, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1620
Schenker. (2019). Fostering Global Competence through Short-Term Study Abroad. Frontiers,
31(2), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v31i2.459
Schunk, D. (2021). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Huisman, J., & Paleari, S. (2016). Why do higher education
institutions internationalize?: An investigation of the multilevel determinants of
internationalization rationales. Higher education, 72(5), 685-702.
120

Skagen, McCollum, B., Morsch, L., & Shokoples, B. (2018). Developing communication
confidence and professional identity in chemistry through international online
collaborative learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(2), 567–582.
https://doi.org/10.1039/c7rp00220c
Skinner, H., & Blackey, H. (2010). Globalisation of business education – a British course or a
British educational experience? Comparisons from a UK university. Journal of Applied
Research in Higher Education, 2(2), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/17581184201000011
Slotkin, M. H., Durie, C. J., & Eisenberg, J. R. (2012). The benefits of short‐term study abroad
as a blended learning experience. Journal of International Education in Business.
Soria, & Troisi, J. (2014). Internationalization at Home Alternatives to Study Abroad:
Implications for Students’ Development of Global, International, and Intercultural
Competencies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(3), 261–280.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313496572
Stebleton, M. J., Soria, K. M., & Cherney, B. T. (2013). The High impact of education abroad:
college students’ engagement in international experiences and the development of
intercultural competencies. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,
22(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v22i1.316
Stevens Initiative. (2021). Virtual exchange typology. https://tinyurl.com/3pjwk5t9
Strayhorn, T. L. (2010). When Race and Gender Collide: Social and Cultural Capital's Influence
on the Academic Achievement of African American and Latino Males. Review of Higher
Education, 33(3), 307-332. https://tinyurl.com/ypwx6ms9
121

Streiner, S. C., Vila-Parrish, A. R., & Warnick, G. M. (2015). An exploratory study of global
competencies considered by multinational companies: A hiring perspective. International
Journal of Engineering Education, 31(5), 1239-1254.
Strong, M. H., Burkholder, G. J., Solberg, E. G., Stellmack, A., Presson, W. D., & Seitz, J. B.
(2020). Development and validation of a global Competency framework for preparing
new graduates for early career professional roles. Higher Learning Research
Communications, 10(2), 67-115.
Stroud, A. (2010). Who plans (not) to study abroad? An examination of U.S. student intent.
Journal of Studies in International Education.
Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in
search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45(8), 913–920.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.913
SUNY COIL Center. (n.d.). Welcome: Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL).
https://coil.suny.edu/
Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education. Higher
education, 48(1), 5-26.
Terry, W. C. (2011). Geographic limits to global labor market flexibility: The human resources
paradox of the cruise industry. Geoforum, 42(6), 660-670. https://tinyurl.com/ybzyzrse
Tucker, M., & Weaver, D. (2013). A longitudinal study of student outcomes from participation
in an international study tour: Some preliminary findings. Journal of University Teaching
& Learning Practice, 10(2), 6.
122

Tyler. (2002). Is the Internet Changing Social Life? It Seems the More Things Change, the More
They Stay the Same. Journal of Social Issues., 58(1), 195–205.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00256
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2013).
Intercultural competences: conceptual and operational framework. Intersectoral
Platform for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence, Bureau for Strategic Planning,
UNESCO. Retrieved August 1, 2022, from https://tinyurl.com/bdsxc2tk
Urtel, M. G. (2008). Assessing academic performance between traditional and distance education
course formats. Educational Technology and Society, 11(1), 322-330.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.11.1.322
Vahed, A., & Rodriguez, K. (2021). Enriching students’ engaged learning experiences through
the collaborative online international learning project. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 58(5), 596-605.
Van Roekel, D. (2010). Global competence is a 21st century imperative. NEA Policy and
Practice Department.
Veletsianos. (2020). Open educational resources: expanding equity or reflecting and furthering
inequities? Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 407–410.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09840-y
Vernon, A., Moos, C., & Loncarich, H. (2017). Student expectancy and barriers to study abroad.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 21(1), 1–9. https://tinyurl.com/23ve7nt5
Virtual Exchange Coalition. (n.d.). What is virtual exchange. http://virtualexchangecoalition.org/
Vogel, R. H. (1987). The making of the Fulbright Program. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 491(1), 11-21.
123

Wächter, B. (2003). An introduction: Internationalisation at home in context. Journal of studies
in international education, 7(1), 5-11.
Wellington, J. (2005). Has ICT come of age? Recurring debates on the role of ICT in education,
1982–2004. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 25-39.
Whatley, M. (2017). Financing Study Abroad: An Exploration of the Influence of Financial
Factors on Student Study Abroad Patterns. Journal of Studies in International Education,
21(5), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315317697798
Winston, A. (2021). Sustainable business went mainstream in 2021. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2021/12/sustainable-business-went-mainstream-in-2021
Zhai, L. & Scheer, S. D. (2002). Influence of international study abroad programs on agricultural
college students. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 9(3),
23-29.

124

Appendix A:
Letter to the Virtual International Business Case Program Coordinator
Dear XXX,
My name is Kanokwan Leonard, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. As part of my dissertation, I am conducting a
comparative research study to examine any changes in students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes
from participating in either the Best Business Practice Around the World (B-PAW) Program or
the Virtual International Business Case (VIBC) Program.
I would like to ask for your kind assistance in sending the attached information to
students who participated in the VIBC program in the academic years 2021–2022 and 2022–
2023 to invite them to participate in the research study. The Best Western University has
approved the research. Data collected from this anonymous online survey is kept confidential
and secure. The participants’ anonymity is protected as required by the stringent research
standards of the Rossier School and the USC Internal Review Board.
Thank you in anticipation for your kind assistance and contribution to this study. I am
hopeful this study will yield useful findings on global competence that can be used to designing
future instructions and programs in enhancing students’ global competence.
If you have any questions or concern, please contact me at kanokwan@usc.edu or XXX-XXX-
XXXX.
Sincerely,
Kanokwan Leonard,
Doctoral Candidate, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California

125

Appendix B:
Letter to the Best Business Practice Around the World Program Coordinator
Dear XXX,
My name is Kanokwan Leonard, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. As part of my dissertation, I am conducting a
comparative research study to examine any changes in students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes
from participating in either the Best Business Practice Around the World (B-PAW) Program or
the Virtual International Business Case (VIBC) Program.
I would like to ask for your kind assistance in sending the attached information to
students who participated in the B-PAW program in the Spring 2019 and May 2022 to invite
them to participate in the research study. The Best Western University has approved the research.
Data collected from this anonymous online survey is kept confidential and secure. The
participants’ anonymity is protected as required by the stringent research standards of the Rossier
School and the USC Internal Review Board.
Thank you in anticipation for your kind assistance and contribution to this study. I am
hopeful this study will yield useful findings on global competence that can be used to designing
future instructions and programs in enhancing students’ global competence.
If you have any questions or concern, please contact me at kanokwan@usc.edu or XXX-
XXX-XXXX.
Sincerely,
Kanokwan Leonard,
Doctoral Candidate, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
126

Appendix C
Survey Recruitment Email
Dear ___________:
My name is Kanokwan Leonard, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. As part of my dissertation, I am researching
the influences of international education programs on students. The Best Western University has
approved the research.
As you have participated in one of the targeted programs, you are cordially invited to
participate in the study by filling out an anonymous online survey questionnaire [survey link
provided] that is anticipated to take 15–20 minutes to complete. At the end of the survey, you
may provide your contact information to be entered into a random drawing to receive one of
five $50 Amazon gift cards. Please note that participation in this study is completely voluntary.
Therefore, your identity as a participant will always remain confidential during and after the
study.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at kanokwan@usc.edu or 323-
788-9876. Thank you in advance for your participation.
Kind regards,
Kanokwan Leonard
Doctoral Candidate, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California

127

Appendix D
Survey Instrument
1. Please select only the program that you participated in.
☐ 2019 B-PAW Program ☐ 2022 B-PAW Program
☐ 2021 Spring VIBC Program ☐ 2021 Fall VIBC Program
☐ 2022 Spring VIBC Program ☐ 2022 Fall VIBC Program
2. Please indicate your B-PAW program location
3. What is your current academic level?
☐ 2
nd
year ☐ 3
rd
year ☐ 4
th
year ☐ Already graduated
4. How do you identify yourself?
☐ Female ☐ Male ☐ None if the above, please identify.
5. Are you a U.S. citizen?
☐ Yes ☐ No
6. Which of the following best describes you (check all that apply)? (This question shows
only to those select “Yes” for U.S. citizenship question.)
☐American Indian or Alaska Native alone, non-Hispanic
☐ Asian alone, non-Hispanic
☐ Black or African American alone, non-Hispanic
☐ Hispanic or Latino
☐ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic
☐ White alone, non-Hispanic
☐ Two or more races (please identify)
128

☐ Some other race, non-Hispanic (please identify)
These two questions below show only to those select “No” for U.S. citizenship question.
6.1 What is your U.S. immigration status?
☐ U.S. Permanent resident
☐ Visa holder (please identify type of visa, such as F-1, L2, B2, etc.)
☐ Undocumented immigrant
☐ Other, please specify.
6.2 What is your country of citizenship?
7. What is the highest level of education your parents have completed?
☐ Some high school or less
☐ High school diploma or GED
☐ Some college, but no degree
☐ Associates or technical degree
☐ Bachelor’s degree
☐ Graduate or professional degree (MS, MBA, PhD, JD etc.)
☐ Prefer not to say
8. What is your approximate average household income (including your parents)?
☐ Less than $50,000 ☐ $50,001-$100,000 ☐ $100,001 – $150,000
☐ $150,001 – $200,000 ☐ $200,001 – $250,000 ☐ $250,000 and above
☐ Don’t know or not sure ☐ Decline to respond
129

9. Question for US citizens: Have you traveled overseas before participating in the program?
Question for non-US citizens: Have you traveled overseas other than coming to the U.S.
before participating in the program?
☐ No ☐ Yes, please indicate the number of countries you have visited
10. Have you lived in other countries more than 3 months besides your own country and the
United States? Select all that apply.
☐ No
☐ Yes, before participating in the program. Please indicate countries and length of stay in each
country (For example, Thailand, 6 months/France 2 years)
☐ Yes, after participating in the program. Please indicate countries and length of stay in each
country (For example, Thailand, 6 months/France 2 years
11. How much interaction do you normally have with international students?
☐ Never ☐ Rarely ☐ Sometimes ☐ Always
12. Why did you decide to participate in the program?
13. Please rate the level of your agreement or disagreement with the following statement.
Statement Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
After participating in the program, my level of knowledge about the history of
at least one other country, apart from my own country, has increased.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
After participating in the program, my level of knowledge about the political
system of at least one other country, apart from my own country, has
increased.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
After participating in the program, my level of knowledge about the
economic system of at least one other country, apart from my own country,
has increased.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
After participating in the program, my level of knowledge about international
business has increased.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
The program helped me better understand the influence of world events on
business.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
The program helped me better understand the role of culture in business
practices.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
My awareness of my own culture has increased since participating in the
program.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
I have paid more attention to global events since participating in the
program.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
130

14. Please rate the issues that are important in conducting international business.
Issues Not
important at
all
Slightly
important
Important Very
Important
Company structure
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Company strategies
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Cultural differences
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Global economy
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Global team management
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Host country’s culture
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Host country’s history
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Host country’s political climate
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Host country’s socio-economic level
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Language barriers
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Leadership styles
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Local consumer behaviors
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Local law and regulatory
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Local consumer behaviors
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Local law and regulatory
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Intercultural communication
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
World political climate
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

15. Please rate the level of your agreement or disagreement that the program helped you gain
or improve the following skills.
Skills Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
Collaboration skills
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Conflict management and conflict resolution skills
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Critical thinking skills
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Creativity skills
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Cross-cultural communication skills
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Cross-cultural collaboration skills
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Cultural intelligence
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Management skills
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Networking skills
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Problem solving skills
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Project management skills
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Team working skills
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Other skills (please indicate)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

131

16. Can you please describe how the program has helped you gain or improve the skills you
described in the previous question?
17. Please rate the level of your agreement or disagreement with the following statement.
Statement Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
After participating in the program, I became more
interested in connecting with people from outside
the U.S. or my own country after participating in the
program.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
As a result of participating in the program, I have more
friends outside the U.S. or my own country.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Before participating in the program, most of my friends
had the same ethnic background as me.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
After participating in the program, I have more friends
who do not have the same ethnic background as me.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
As a result of participating in the program, I am more
confident that I can interact effectively in foreign
countries.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
The program has increased my interest in living or
working in other countries besides the U.S.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
The program has increased my confidence in
conducting meetings effectively in other foreign
countries.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
The program has increased my confidence in working in
a team with diverse cultural backgrounds.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

18. Please rate the level of your agreement or disagreement with the following statement.
Statement Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
I can identify a significant part of my culture. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
I like to learn about other cultures.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
I like to try food from different countries.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Having people who think differently in the team makes
the team weaker.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
I think unpredictable, and complex work is more
interesting than predictable work.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
I have no problem working in a highly ambiguous
situation or setting.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
The work environment strongly influences my style of
leadership.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
I think some cultural norms are outdated.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
I believe my country is the best in the world.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
132

I think only government has the duty to eradicate
inequality.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
19. How has the program influenced your attitudes toward interacting with people with different
perspectives than yours, if any?
20. In what way your participation in the program has influenced your course selection or
academic experience, if any.
21. To what extent do you think that the following features are important to your success in your
future career?
Issues Not important
at all
Slightly
important
Important Very
Important
Having a solid academic record
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Having business knowledge
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Having international experience
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Having the ability to interact with people
from different cultures effectively.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Knowing how to work in a cross-cultural
environment
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Proficient in multiple languages
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Understanding international business
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

22. In what way did your experience in the program shape your career decisions, if any?
23. Can you please describe what you found the most beneficial part of the program and why?
Closing Statement
Thank you for completing this survey. If you would like to be entered into a drawing for one of
five $50 Amazon gift cards, please click on this (a hyperlink will be inserted) to provide your
name and contact information. Please know that this information cannot be connected to this
survey and will only be used for the purpose of the drawing, which is optional.
The separate Qualtrics survey will ask the following.
a. Your last name, first name:
Your email address:

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This comparative mixed-methods study evaluated the effectiveness of two forms of international education programs—a short-term faculty-led program (STFL) and a Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) program— in developing students’ global competencies. The research was guided by two main conceptual frameworks: the global competence conceptual framework and the Burke-Litwin organization performance and change model. In the individual layer, the research findings indicated a relationship between gender and parents’ level of education in influencing individuals’ acquisition of knowledge, while gender and race were found to significantly influence the participants’ attitudes. In the transactional layer, the findings suggested that the short-term faculty-led program yielded greater enhancements in participants’ knowledge and skills, as well as exerted a greater influence on participants’ career plans compared to the COIL program. However, COIL participants demonstrated higher proficiency in project management skills. The qualitative data suggested that team projects, instruction, in-country activities, engagement with various stakeholders, and immersion in a foreign country were the program components that contributed to participants’ acquisition of knowledge and development of skills. The recommendations presented in this study aimed to suggest options that institutions could implement at the transactional and transformational layers to help students develop their knowledge, skills, and global mindset.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Developing global competence in a Sino-US joint university: an evaluation study

PDF

Short-term study tours and global competence development

PDF

Cultivating culturally competent educators

PDF

To be young, global, and Black: an evaluation of African-American college students’ participation in study abroad programs

PDF

The role of the chief diversity officer in virtual exchange

PDF

Preparing the next generation of global leaders: how principals in international studies high schools promote global competence

PDF

Developing socially intelligent leaders through field education: an evaluation study of behavioral competency education methods

PDF

Executive succession planning: a study of employee competency development

PDF

Managing competing stakeholder demands: global leaders’ decision-making amid social backlash

PDF

Practical data science: a curriculum for community colleges

PDF

The importance of being a global citizen: creating and implementing a global curriculum for the Cutting Edge Youth Summit

PDF

Factors contributing to the civic engagement of rural community college students

PDF

Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty

PDF

Measuring the impact of short-term campus exchange programs: an evaluation study

PDF

Globalization of a business school curriculum: the impact of short term study abroad on long term student learning

PDF

Systemic multilayered assessment of global awareness in undergraduate students: an innovation study

PDF

The role of the fieldbook: a pedagogical tool for intercultural learning

PDF

Faculty retention at private colleges in China

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Making a case for teaching religious literacy in Ethiopian schools: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Pibalchon Leonard, Kanokwan (author)

Core Title On the quest for global competencies

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 07/25/2023

Defense Date 06/21/2023

Publisher University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collaborative online international learning,cultural intelligence,global competence,International Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,short-term faculty-led,short-term study abroad,study abroad

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Canny, Eric (committee chair), Chung, Ruth (committee member), Filback, Robert (committee member)

Creator Email kanokwan@usc.edu,kleonard@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113288971

Unique identifier UC113288971

Identifier etd-PibalchonL-12137.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-PibalchonL-12137

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Pibalchon Leonard, Kanokwan

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230725-usctheses-batch-1073 (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.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu