University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The making of global citizens through education abroad programs: aligning missions and visions with education abroad programs

(USC Thesis Other)

The making of global citizens through education abroad programs: aligning missions and visions with education abroad programs

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE MAKING OF GLOBAL CITIZENS THROUGH EDUCATION
ABROAD PROGRAMS: ALIGNING MISSIONS AND VISIONS WITH
EDUCATION ABROAD PROGRAMS

by

Teresa Donahue

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2009

Copyright 2009 Teresa Donahue

ii
Table of Contents
List of Figures.................................................................................................................... vi

Abstract............................................................................................................................viii

Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the research problem.................................................................................. 3
Purpose of the study........................................................................................................ 4
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................ 4
Context of study.............................................................................................................. 5
Historical Context of Study Abroad ............................................................................... 5
Increase in Higher Education Internationalization ..................................................... 5
Types of study abroad programs................................................................................. 7
Study Abroad Programming ....................................................................................... 7
National Response to Globalization............................................................................ 9
Institutional Response to Globalization.................................................................... 13
Trends in Study Abroad................................................................................................ 15
Duration of Study Abroad......................................................................................... 15
Type of Institutions That Send the Most U.S. Students Abroad............................... 16
Destinations and Regions Where Students Go ......................................................... 17
Type of Study Abroad Programs .............................................................................. 18
Weaknesses in Internationalization .............................................................................. 20
Not a Priority for Most Institutions........................................................................... 20
Lack of Depth in U.S. Study Abroad Programs........................................................ 21
California State University Response to Globalization ................................................ 26
Importance of the Study................................................................................................ 36
Research question ......................................................................................................... 37
Significance .................................................................................................................. 37
Conceptual model of this study .................................................................................... 37

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature................................................................................... 40
Methods of data collection........................................................................................ 40
Study Abroad Learning, Multiple Purpose, Multiple Learning Outcomes............... 40
Learning Objectives Associated with Study Abroad................................................ 43
Theories of Learning: How Students Learn.................................................................. 44
Elements of Learning in Study Abroad .................................................................... 45
Pedagogies While Abroad......................................................................................... 53
Process of Cultural Learning .................................................................................... 61
Study Abroad and the Fostering of Global Citizenship................................................ 64
Summary of Study Abroad Research............................................................................ 67

iii

Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology ................................................................ 70
Why Qualitative Design?.............................................................................................. 70
Purpose of the Study..................................................................................................... 71
Research question ......................................................................................................... 71
Methodology................................................................................................................. 71
Qualitative Design .................................................................................................... 71
Role of the Researcher.............................................................................................. 71
Research Design ........................................................................................................... 73
Unit of Analysis ........................................................................................................ 73
Sample....................................................................................................................... 74
Data Collection Methods .......................................................................................... 75
Validity of Interpretation .......................................................................................... 82
Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................... 83
Overview....................................................................................................................... 83
Description of Sample............................................................................................... 84
Organization of the Analysis .................................................................................... 84
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of sample population (N=18) .......................... 85
Levels of Classification for Study Abroad Programs ............................................... 86
Short-Term Programs ................................................................................................... 89
Conclusions for Short-Term Programs ................................................................... 111
Mid-Term Programs ................................................................................................... 113
Finding for Mid-Term Programs ............................................................................ 118
Conclusions of Mid-Term Programs ...................................................................... 135
Long-Term Programs.................................................................................................. 136
Findings for Long-Term Programs ......................................................................... 141
Conclusions for Long-Term Programs ................................................................... 176
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations........................................... 178
Key Elements and Concepts in the Interpretation of this study.............................. 179
Summary of Findings, Interpretations and Conclusions............................................. 181
Findings and Conclusions about Common Themes................................................ 181
Findings and Conclusions about Intercultural Competency ................................... 183
Findings and Conclusions about Transformative Learning.................................... 187
Findings and Conclusions about Unexpected Results and Global Citizenship ...... 191
Implications and recommendations ............................................................................ 199
For Future Research................................................................................................ 199
For Practice ............................................................................................................. 199
References....................................................................................................................... 201

iv
Appendix A: Invitation Letter........................................................................................ 207
Appendix B: Information Sheet...................................................................................... 208
Appendix C: Interview Protocol .................................................................................... 211

v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Number Of U.S. Study Abroad Students .......................................................... 16
Figure 2: Study Abroad Levels......................................................................................... 87
Figure 3: Synthesis Of Levels For The Short-Term Programs......................................... 93
Figure 4: Visual Synthesis Of Levels For The Semester-Long Programs...................... 116
Figure 5: Visual Synthesis Of Levels For Year-Long Programs.................................... 140

vi

Abstract
The primary purpose of this study was to assess the ways in which the short,
semester and year-long study abroad programs that CSU offers promotes
transformational learning, global citizenship and fulfills its mission and vision to
graduate globally competent students.
Both the mission and vision of CSU and Mezirow’s transformative learning
theory or perspective transformation framed this study. The main unit of analysis of
this design was the study abroad programs that CSU offers. This was a qualitative
design based on different student groups disaggregated by program length (short,
semester and year-long) and degree of cultural immersion in the host country. The
sampling strategy was a combination of both maximum variation sampling and
typical case sampling. I collected qualitative data in the form of 18 semi-structured
interviews, six from each, short, semester and year-long programs.
There were three conclusions made from this study. First, in general, the
longer and more culturally immersed students were while abroad, the greater their
gains in cultural competency. Even though language played a role in the ability of
students to immerse in the culture, the lack of target language competency did not
preclude students from gaining some degree of cultural competency. Second, study
abroad programs in this study that promoted transformative learning in students were
the ones that challenged students the most. Language competency did not play a role
in the transformative learning of students. The lack of language competency in fact

vii
made students’ experiences even more challenging. Third, there were two
components in this study that are associated with promoting global citizenship. The
first component is associated with host culture attributes and the second with the
process of conscientization, or the process by which adults “achieve a deepening
awareness of both the sociocultural reality which shapes their lives and …their
capacity to transform that reality through action upon it” (Freire, 1997, p. 27 as cited
in Mezirow, 1991, p. xvii). To conclude, not all study abroad programs that CSU
offers advance its mission and vision to educate intercultural competent students or
prepares them for the challenges of the 21st century as global citizens.

1
The Making of Global Citizens throughout Education Abroad Programs:
Aligning Missions and Visions with Education Abroad Programs
Chapter 1: Introduction
One significant and inescapable force is taking place in shaping the future of
American society: globalization, defined here as “the economic, political, and societal
forces pushing 21st century higher education toward greater international involvement”
(Altbach & Knight, 2006, p. 291). Education mirrors society and the society it mirrors in
modern times is a world society (Anderson, 1982). Thus, the issues is not whether
education must be globalized but rather “…how, with what degree of quality and how
rapidly will American education become more globalized” (Anderson, p.161). There is a
distinction between globalization and internationalization. Globalization is related to the
political, societal and economic forces of the 21
st
century which compel higher education
to increase their international involvement. Internationalization is the practices and
policies that academic institutions, systems and individuals engage with to deal with the
global academic environment (Altbach & Knight). “Globalization may be unalterable, but
internationalization involves many choices” (Altbach & Knight, p. 2).
Indeed, in the past two decades institutions of higher education have made many
choices in their internationalization efforts. Over one-third of institutions have
incorporated international education in their mission statements (Siaya & Hayward,
2003). In addition, an increased number of presidents at colleges and universities have
made study abroad one of their top priorities (Vande Berg, 2004). However, the mission
statements that include the words “global” or “international” when addressing how to

2
educate students to “become sensitive participants in the larger world” are too
vague. They can be open to all kinds of interpretation (Jenkins & Skelly, 2004, p. 2).
Too often, well-intended mission statements do not lead institutions to clarify the
philosophical intent on which structures that send students abroad are developed
and delivered. In other words, for too many institutions of higher education there
seems to be a disconnect between carefully and intentionally matching the words
of mission statements to the kind of education that students receive (Jenkins &
Skelly, 2004, p. 2).

Jenkins and Skelly (2004) believe that some international educator supporters
mistakenly think that “any” international experience, without taking into consider its
structure, would help students to become better citizens of the world. There is a need to
develop new educational models to educate students to become informed citizens who
can find solutions not only to issues that are affecting their community and nation but
also the world (Jenkins & Skelly).
Even many American corporate representatives believe that American colleges
and universities poorly implement their study abroad programs. They are too isolated
and academic, and create, within the host country, “American ghettos” or “mini-
Americas” (Bikson & Law, 1994, p. 26). These types of programs, they believe, do not
promote students to adapt to the host country’s day-to-day life (Bikson & Law).
Currently, a great number of institutions list results of internationalization by numbers:
the number of students who study abroad, the number of international students and
faculty on campus, and the number of international courses in the curriculum (Deardorff,
2004). And even though these numbers are important elements to consider, they do not
suggest a meaningful outcome of internationalization and international education
(Deardorff).

3
Colleges and universities across the United States are facing all new sets of
philosophical, institutional and programmatic questions. These are related to the changes
that are taking place in the study abroad arena (R. Lewin, personal communication, June
8, 2007). Lewis states that political terms articulate the goals of study abroad programs.
That is in how to create global citizens “who are able to affect change in all sectors of
society, including business, government, and the nonprofits in culturally informed and
sensitive ways” (Lewin, n.p.). In a Call for Contributors and Authors issues by Ross
Lewin, Director of Study Abroad at the University of Connecticut, he asked the following
question which, according to him, is at the center of reform in higher education. “If we
are all becoming global citizens, what then are our civic responsibilities?” (Lewin, n.p.)
Indeed, what are they? The answer to this question will also be at the center of this
dissertation and its connection with study abroad programs.
Statement of the research problem
In general, U.S. colleges and universities design and implement study abroad
programs without much reflection about the philosophical, theoretical, pedagogical, and
practical foundation behind these programs. As a result, institutions of higher education
are focusing mostly on increasing the numbers of students who study abroad as the
central sign of their success; therefore they may be sacrificing pedagogy for product and
enlightenment for satisfaction (Lewin, 2007).
California State University (CSU) is no exception to this practice. CSU uses the same
criteria, the increase in numbers, to assess the success of one of its five missions. That all
students will graduate with some degree of global competency to be able to function

4
effectively in the increasingly globalized world. However, there may be a disconnect
between CSU’s mission and vision with the type of study abroad programs that it offers.
Purpose of the study
The primary purpose of this study is to explore the ways in which the short,
semester and year-long study abroad programs that CSU offer promote transformational
learning, global citizenship and fulfills its mission and vision to graduate globally
competent students. Intercultural competency is describe here as the “ability to
communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s
intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes’ (Deardorff, 2008).
Definition of Terms
For this study, I use the following definitions for terms used:
Conscientization: The process by which adults “achieve a deepening awareness of
both the sociocultural reality which shapes their lives and …their capacity to transform
that reality through action upon it” (Freire, 1997, p. 27 as cited in Mezirow, 1991, p.
xvii).
Intercultural competency: The “ability to communicate effectively and
appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills,
and attitudes’ (Deardorff, 2008).
Transformative learning:
The process of becoming critically aware of how and why our presuppositions
have come to constrain the way we perceive, understand and feel about our world;
of reformulating these assumptions to permit a more inclusive, discriminating,
permeable and integrative perspective; and of making decisions or otherwise
acting on these new understandings (Mezirow 1991, p. 14).

5
Reflective Transformation: Transforming the emotional reaction and the
opinions, beliefs, attitudes that constitute our meaning perspectives.
This includes changes in interest, goals, awareness of problems, awareness of
contexts, critical reflexivity and action, openness to alternative perspectives,
ability to participate freely and fully in rational discourse, and willingness to
accept consensual validation as mode of problem solving in communicative
learning” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 226).

Global citizenship:
A global citizen is an individual with a commitment towards social and economic
justice and social responsibility.
Context of study
To stress the importance of this study, I will present in this section the context of
study abroad programs through a brief outline of its historical content. I will also present
the study abroad programs available for students in the United States. And finally, I will
present the responses to globalization and internationalization by the nation, institutions
of higher education and by California State University.
Historical Context of Study Abroad
Increase in Higher Education Internationalization
In the past two decades colleges and universities have increased their international
activities in volume, complexity and scope (Altbach & Knight, 2006). There are various
international activities. They range from creating satellite campuses at international sites
to serve international students to increasing traditional study abroad programs. These are
designed to improve students’ international perspectives and skills such as language
abilities and cross-cultural competencies (Deardorff, 2004). The American Council on

6
Education found that over one-third of the institutions incorporated international
education in their mission statements (Siaya & Hayward, 2003). An increased number of
presidents at elite and non-elite colleges and universities have made study abroad one of
their top priorities. They believe that a world-class education requires that students learn
“out in the world” as well as on the home campus (Vande Berg, 2004).
Just two decades ago, universities designed study abroad programs for languages
and social science students and there was little interest in documenting the benefits of a
study abroad experience (Vande Berg, 2004). But in the past two decades study abroad
has increasingly moved from the sideline to central stage of the curriculum at some
colleges and universities (Lincoln Commission Report, 2005). In academic year
2005/2006, 223,534 students studied abroad. This represents an increased of 150 percent
in the past decade, from less than the 90,000 students in 1995/96. But despite these gains,
this represents less than 2 percent of the American university and college enrollment
(Open Doors: Report on International Exchange, 2007). In addition, when study abroad
is examined in the light of the type of institutions that send students abroad, two types of
institutions prevail: small liberal arts colleges and large research institutions (Lincoln
Commission Report). Out of the 4,200 American colleges and universities, 108 account
for 50 percent of students abroad. Small liberal arts colleges send abroad the largest
portion of their student body. Community colleges, which enroll 40 percent of all
American undergraduates and serves financially challenged, minority and first-generation
students, send only 2.5 percent of its students abroad (Lincoln Commission Report).
Minority students who study abroad are underrepresented.

7
In addition, almost 60 percent of American students study in Europe. This is
despite the growth in importance of the Pacific Rim as economic power, and the
emergence of India, China, and countries of the former Soviet Union as strong economic
players. Even though Latin America accounts for 16 percent of students, students go
mostly to only three countries: Mexico, Costa Rica and Chile (Open Doors: Report on
International Exchange, 2007).
Types of study abroad programs
There it has been an explosion of the type of study abroad programs available to
students. We can distinguish these programs by length of sojourn, language and cultural
preparation, primary motivation of learner, degree of socio-cultural difference, second
language use, level of learning structure/support; type of residence, degree of cultural
contact (immersion), degree of self-direction, and degree of cultural analysis (Slimbach,
n.d.). These features shape the fundamental differences in the cultural and academic
experience they promote. They can also serve as a base to compare different study abroad
programs (Stimpfl & Engberg, 1997). These elements suggest there are conditions that
have greater potential for promoting not only student development but community
development (Slimbach).
Study Abroad Programming
Two conflicting truisms dominate the current study abroad programming: The first of
them is that “longer is better than shorter.” The second is that “something is better than
nothing” (Spencer & Hoffa, 2002, n.p.). The first truism originated in the 1920s and the
traditional “Junior Year Abroad.” Then universities assumed that duration was one of

8
many significant elements shaping the long-term impact a study abroad program
could have on students. The other elements were cultural and language immersion, an in-
depth pre-departure preparation, and an informed curricular and reentry articulation on
campus. Long-term program proponents, according to Spencer and Hoffa, believe that
building cross-cultural skills, the primary pedagogical value of study abroad, can only be
achieved with time. There is a need to live long enough in the host country environment
to understand fully its inherited values and to establish friendships with native residents.
They conclude that institutions that prefer long-term programming, either an academic
year or semester abroad, have several features that contribute to priceless lessons. These
features combining unanticipated experiential learning that takes place outside the
classroom with high-quality instruction that teaches students about the people who live
there, the new cultural environment and about themselves.
The second truism suggests that “something is better than nothing” (Spencer and
Hoffa, 2002, n. p.) to serve the needs of “nontraditional” students. These are students
who are unwilling or unable to study abroad for one quarter, semester or a year for
various personal, academic and economic reasons. The reasons range from double, or
even triple, academic majors, or a structured field of study such as engineering; family
responsibilities or loss of income. They add that “Indeed, the dynamic growth in overall
national numbers and the diversity of program types, locations, and student backgrounds
over the past decade or so is due almost exclusively to short-term programming.” The
average short-term program takes place during the summer months, between academic
terms, over Spring Break and they are in general faculty-led and discipline specific.

9
National Response to Globalization
It is of national interest for the United States to have an international educational
policy to address the lack of knowledge and skills needed for a global workforce of
American students (NAFSA, 2000). There has been some progress in advancing
international education. In initiatives like the one President Clinton signed in 2000. This
was the first-ever Executive Memorandum on international education. Also the one the
Senate unanimously passed as a resolution calling for an international education policy.
But the fact remains the United States does not have an official policy on international
education (NAFSA).
However, this may soon change. On Tuesday, June 5
th
, 2007 The United States
House of Representatives passed the Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act (HR 1469) by
unanimous consent. The Senate introduced Bill S.991 on March 27, 2007, to match HR
1469. S.991 and will be up for a vote by the Senate (NASULGC, 2007). The Simon
Study Abroad Foundation Act is a comprehensive policy set forth by the late Senator Paul
Simon who believed that preparing more global minded leaders was of a national
importance. For a few years before his death in 2003, he worked with congressional leaders
and the international education community to create a new Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad
Fellowship (Lincoln Commission Report, 2005). Senator Simon believed the next step in
the evolution of American Higher Education was to promote and democratize
undergraduate study abroad (Lincoln Commission Report). His vision was that by the
year 2017-18 at least 1 million undergraduate students in the United States will study
abroad yearly for academic credit. This would represent about 50 percent of all

10
undergraduate degrees awarded yearly by the United States at colleges and
universities (Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act of 2007).
The Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act grants 85 percent of its funds (which
should begin at $50 million and increase to $125 million per year in the academic year
2011-12) to scholarships, up to $5,000 a student. Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act
proposes to distinguish between the Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship and the Lincoln
Study Abroad Scholarship. Students who earn a minimum of 12 units abroad will receive
the Fellowship. Students who earn less than 12 units but not fewer than three units will
receive the Lincoln Scholarship.
Senator Simon believed that his vision would not be achieved without legislation
to make study abroad accessible to all students, and especially for minority, low income
students (Lincoln Commission Report, 2005). Senator Simon believed that making study
abroad the norm and not the exception would take legislation similar to the land-grant
university system, and the enactment of the GI Bill (Lincoln Commission Report).
The Lincoln Commission Report (2005) outlines several reasons for supporting
and democratizing abroad programs:
1. Globalization and Economic Competitiveness. The United States military, diplomatic
and economic challenges are global in nature. Brazil, China, India and the former
Soviet Union are emerging players in the world economy and are doubling the size of
the global labor force. The Middle East is a region with great challenges and contains
75 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. One in six American jobs is linked to

11
international trade. Corporate leaders rank international curricula as one of the
highest priorities in higher education.
2. National Security. Study abroad is one of the major components to produce foreign
language speakers making it essential to national security. More than 65 federal
agencies, from the Peace Corps to the Central Intelligence, need to fill 34,000
positions that require foreign languages. However, this need is unmet and must rely
on outside contractors. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Army, the
Department of Commerce and the Department of State reported significant shortages
of translators, interpreters, intelligent specialists and diplomats with the knowledge of
foreign culture and language skills. These skills, they argue, are required “for
successful job performance’ (p.8).
3. U.S. Leadership. “There is a consensus among most American and many people
abroad the United States should be a global leader” (p. 8). Even though many
citizens and students are keen to take on international leadership roles, most
Americans have never been abroad. Only 20 percent of Americans own passports.
The United States is leading “by necessity and default” (p. 8), but it is ill equipped to
take on this role.
4. Educational Value of Study Abroad. “Study abroad is a powerful educational
experience” (p. 8). The Institute for the International Education Studies (IES)
conducted research among students who studied abroad for the last five decades, from
1950 through 2000 and reported that their study abroad experience still influences the
way the see world events. For students who studied abroad during the 1990s, IES

12
found out that 70 percent of them agreed that their study abroad experience
encouraged them to study another culture. Of these, 80 percent agreed that study
abroad increased their interest in academic work. Finally 40 percent of them still were
using another language other than English regularly in 2004.
5. Active Engagement in the International Community. “Wise stewardships of the
nation’s well-being argues for a prudent course of action: ensure that many more
undergraduates experience, study in, and communicate with other cultures so that
they can learn to ‘hear’ what others are saying, speak with them in their language, and
continue to serve as goodwill ambassadors throughout their lives” (p. 10).
6. In addition, the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship would address the
inequalities of underrepresented groups studying abroad including community college
students.
There are several questionable assumptions about these statements. The first is that
students who study abroad will become better citizens regardless of the length and the
structure of the program (i.e., cultural immersion, degree of socio-cultural difference,
second language use, etc.). The assumption is that students who study abroad are going to
engage actively in the community, achieve language proficiency and cultural competency
and will become affianced citizens who will learn to “hear” what others are saying. This
assumption is independent of the length and structure of the program. The minimum
requirement for the Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship is 12 units credit and the Lincoln
Scholarship is less than 12 units but not fewer than three credits. There are not specific
rules in the Lincoln Commission Report, 2005 that outline precise program structures and

13
criteria about the degree of language and cultural immersion that Lincoln Scholars
and Lincoln Fellows ought to have. Therefore, Lincoln Scholars and Lincoln Fellows
may take part in American enclaves even if they go to “nontraditional” locations (i.e.,
non European countries). They can also take part in programs that are poorly designed.
That is, programs that provide minimum cultural immersion that are only a few weeks in
length, as subscribed by most American students (Open Doors: Report on International
Exchange, 2007). They may take part in programs with conditions that run the risk of not
providing benefits to either residents or participants. These programs in fact may
unintentionally promote, instead, stereotypical and superficial views of the local culture
(Slimbach, n.d.).
The second questionable assumption is that many people in the world believe the
United States should be a global leader. Americans have been called “The Ugly
American.” Americans have been exporters of their cultural and militaristic values
(Ledere & Burdick, 1958, in Smith Rotabi, Gammonley & Gamble, 2006; Clark, 2003).
Because of the material wealth of Americans they may run the risk of being out of touch
with the realities of poor people when students travel to less developed countries. They
may appear to lack compassion, be arrogant and ethnocentric (Smith Rotabi, et al.).
Institutional Response to Globalization
One of the responses of colleges and universities to globalization has been the
internationalizing programs and developing a wide array of initiatives to form students
with international skills and knowledge (Siaya & Hayward, 2003). Internationalization
has been defined in many ways. One of them is the practices and policies that academic

14
institutions, systems and individuals engage in to deal with the global academic
environment (Altbach & Knight, 2006). It also has been defined as incorporating an
intercultural/international dimension in service, teaching and research. International
education has been defined as the different activities of international focus courses,
language study, and study abroad (Siaya & Hayward). The following review focus on the
study abroad component of internationalization that is taking place at colleges and
universities.
Over one-third of colleges and universities have incorporated international
education in their mission statements. Study abroad is becoming a graduation
requirement at some colleges and universities and for some majors within these colleges
and universities (Siaya & Hayward, 2003). For example, the president of the University
of Minnesota, Twin Cities campus, has the goal that 50 percent of all undergraduate
students take part in study abroad. Currently in academic year 2005-2006, they sent
abroad 1,981 of their students. This represents almost 15 percent of their undergraduate
population. New York University sent in 2005-2006 academic year 2,809, which
represents 15 percent of current undergraduate enrollment. Their goal is to have half of
their students to study abroad. Baltimore’s Goucher College, a small private institution, is
requiring, since 2006, that all its undergraduate students take part in at least one three-
week intensive course abroad. The institution is offering $1,200 vouchers to each student
to offset travel costs. Finally, Harvard University has plans to make study abroad a
degree requirement as articulated in its education mission statement:
With influence comes responsibility….Harvard College has a responsibility to
educate its students — who will live and work in all corners of the globe — as

15
citizens not only of their home country, but also of the world, with the
capacity not only to understand others, but also to see themselves, and this
country, as other see them….[W]e propose to provide, and we will expect, an
international experience — defined as study, research, or work abroad —of all
Harvard College students (Kirby, 2004, cited in The Lincoln Commission Report,
2005).

Other colleges and universities have similar statements such as New York
University: “…a conviction that interaction with new ideas and those who are different is
valuable and necessary, and a commitment to educating students who are true citizens of
the world” (New York University, Mission Statement, n.d, web site). Michigan State
University declares on their Mission Statement “Prepare graduate and undergraduate
students for global/international leadership and participation” (n.d., web site).
Trends in Study Abroad
Duration of Study Abroad
While the number of students who study abroad has increased in the last ten years
(see Figure 1), the time that students study abroad has become shorter. The number of
students who study abroad in a short-term program in academic year 2004/2005 was 56
percent. This represents an increase from academic year 1993/94, when the number was
45 percent (Open Doors: Report on International Exchange, 2006). Short-term programs
take place between academic terms, over Spring Break, or during the summer months. An
increasing number of colleges and universities are offering short-term programs as part of
students’ international experience. “Indeed, the dynamic growth in overall national
numbers and the diversity of program types, locations, and student backgrounds over the
past decade or so is due almost exclusively to short-term programming” (Spencer &
Hoffa, 2004). The proportion of students who study abroad for one semester remains

16
unchanged since 1985, with 38 percent of students. In contrast, there has been a
decline in the proportion of students who study abroad for one academic year from 18
percent in 1985 to 6 percent in academic year 2005/06 (Open Doors: Report on
International Exchange, 2006).
Figure 1: Number of U.S. Study Abroad Students
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
1985/86
1987/89
1989/90
1991/92
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
0999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
Academic Year
Source: Institute of International Education
Num ber of Students

Type of Institutions That Send the Most U.S. Students Abroad
Students who study abroad differ by type of institution. Fifty nine percent of
students who study abroad during academic year 2005/06 were attending a
doctoral/research extensive and intensive institution. Twenty one percent enrolled in
master’s I & II institutions. This is followed by 16 percent of students who attend
baccalaureate colleges. Finally, only 2 percent were from an associate institution even
though these institutions enroll more than 50 percent of all students in higher education
(Rajika, Bhandar, & Witherell, 2007).

17
The 2006 Open Door Report stated that 38 U.S. campuses, mainly large
research institutions, issues academic credit for study abroad last year to more than 1,000
of their students. New York University is the number one sending institution (2,611 out
of 38,390). This is followed by Michigan State University (2,385 out of 36,072).
University of Texas at Austin sent (2,169 out of 50,000). Penn State University Main
Campus (2,084 out of 32,000). University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (1,836 out of about
27,000). University of Florida sent (1,805 out of 50,000). University of Pennsylvania
sent (1,744 out of 19,816). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign sent (1,739 out of
30,895). University of Georgia sent (1,731 out of 25,144). Finally, University of Virginia
sent (1,684 out of 19,000).
Even though these large institutions send an overall large amount of students,
many other small institutions send a larger amount in proportion of their students’
population. The top ten institutions which send each more than 80 percent of their
undergraduate students at some point of their studies are: Austin College, Colby College,
College of St. Benedict/St. John's University, Davidson College, DePauw University,
Dickinson College, Elon University, Lee University, Lewis and Clark College, and St.
Olaf College (Rajika Bhandar & Witherell, 2007).
Destinations and Regions Where Students Go
Open Doors: Report on International Exchange (2007) reports an increased
interest in non-European destinations. These have been the less traditional sites such as
Asia, with 9 percent of the students, a 26 percent gain. Latin America is up 14 percent,
with 15 percent of students. Africa is up 19 percent, with 4 percent of the students.

18
Finally, the Middle East is up 31percent, with 1 percent of the students. About 58
percent of all U.S. students who study abroad do so in Europe (130,274). This represents
a smaller proportion of students than in prior years which is down from 60 percent in
2004/05, and showing a gradual decline from 65 percent a decade ago.
There were also increases in students studying in India, up 20 percent, with 2,115
students. Israel is up 22.5 percent with 1,981 students. Peru is up 31 percent with 1,135
students. South Korea is up 32 percent with 1,267 students. Belgium is up 28.5 percent
with 1,126 students. Dominican Republic is up 27 percent with 922 students. Hong Kong
is up 22 percent with 915 students. Tanzania is up 19 percent with 557 students. Turkey
is up 53 percent with 694 students. Vietnam is up 13 percent with 390 students. Finally,
Jordan is up 81 percent with 309 students.
The top three major fields of study of Americans studying abroad, according to
Open Doors: Report on International Exchange, 2007 report, are the social sciences with
22 percent, business and management with 18 percent, and humanities with 14 percent.
Over the past decade the percentage of study abroad students majoring in business has
grown from 14 percent to 18 percent.
Type of Study Abroad Programs
There has been an increase in the number of study abroad choices for students.
Large institutions offer a vast array of study abroad programs to its students. However,
students at small institutions may have few, if any, choices of study abroad offered by
their own schools (The Lincoln Commission Report, 2005). Therefore students from
these institutions have the alternative to go abroad via the programs at other institutions

19
that accept them. They can also take part in programs provided by for-profit
organizations, called program providers. The latter types of programs can be substantially
more expensive than the regular student exchange programs. They can cost as little as
$2,000 a semester. Depending on the visiting region, study abroad programs offered by
program providers cost from $10,000 to $18,000 a semester (The Lincoln Commission
Report, 2005). There are different kinds of study abroad programs that institutions
manage. They range from programs that require total immersion in the culture and the
language of the host country, such as the dual or triple-degree programs that some
universities offer, to programs that are one to three-weeks long. In this short-term
program, students seldom need any previous knowledge of the host country’s language or
culture. These short-term programs also house students with other American students
during the program. For-profit organizations usually provide these last programs.
In the last decade there has been an explosion of for-profit study abroad programs.
This includes directories that contain over 25,000 opportunities abroad. These
opportunities are study abroad, internships, volunteer opportunities, teaching abroad,
language schools and much more (Go Abroad web site: http://www.goabroad.com/).
Other are guides such as Peterson’s study abroad, which offer more than 1,900 semester
and yearlong study abroad programs and more than 1,300 overseas programs that range
from 1 to 2 weeks, which includes winter options. These programs do not include the
summer and winter programs that these students’ own colleges and universities offer.

20
Weaknesses in Internationalization
Not a Priority for Most Institutions
Study abroad programs have increased. This increase has been steady. Over one-
third of institutions have incorporated international education in their mission statements.
Despite these gains, the facts remains that the other two-thirds have not. This means that
most institutions show a low-level of commitment to internationalization (Siaya &
Hayward, 2003). There is no debate among higher education leaders about fostering the
international knowledge, perspectives, and skills that students need to confront the
challenges of the 21
st
century (Siaya & Hayward). In addition, the level of support of
international education requirements, activities and programs are high among faculty and
students. In 2002 the American Council on Education (ACE) conducted three national
surveys from 752 U.S. colleges and universities. These institutions ranged from
community colleges, liberal arts colleges, comprehensive universities, and research
universities. ACE collected data from these same institutions and from 1,027
undergraduate faculty. Finally, ACE also collected information from 1,290
undergraduate students. ACE found out that more than 50 percent of students agreed that
university should require all undergraduates to study a foreign language if they do not
already know one. Sixty-five percent agreed that universities should require all students
to take courses covering international topics. In addition, almost half of the students
reported that they “would like to participate” in a wide variety of international activities.
From the viewpoint of faculty, they agreed that they had a responsibility to teach students
international skills and knowledge. Sixty-seven percent of all faculty agreed that it was

21
the responsibility of all faculty to provide students with an international awareness
of other cultures and international issues (Siaya & Hayward).
But despite all this support from students and faculty for internationalization, the
fact remains that 64 percent of institutions of higher education have not included
internationalization in their mission statements. Sixty-nine percent have not mentioned
internationalization as one of their main priorities in their strategic plans. Sixty-six
percent have no procedures in place to assess their efforts at internationalizing their
campuses. For these reasons, the American Council on Education (ACE) has the
following recommendations to institutions of higher education. ACE recommends that
institutions of higher education make internationalization an institutional priority. ACE
recommends doing so by including internationalization in their mission statements, and
making it more visible in their strategic plans, and by assessing their institutional efforts
(Siaya & Hayward, p. 75).
Lack of Depth in U.S. Study Abroad Programs
As currently carried out, some international educators believe, many study abroad
structures are not promoting in students the tools to examine the increasingly complex
issues of the world (Barbour, 2006; Jenkins & Skelly, 2004; Smith Rotabi, et. al., 2006;
Slimbach, n.d.). There is a need for education models to teach students to become
informed citizens who can find solutions not only to issues that affect their community,
nation, and the world (Barbou; Jenkins & Skelly; Smith Rotabi, et. al.; Slimbach).
However, the wording in mission statements that includes the words “global” or

22
“international” are too vague and can be open to all kinds of interpretation
(Deardorff, 2004; Jenkins & Skelly, p. 2).
Too often, well-intended mission statements do not lead institutions to clarify the
philosophical intent upon which operational structures that send students abroad
are developed and delivered. In other words, for too many institutions of higher
education there seems to be a disconnect between carefully and intentionally
matching the words of mission statements to the kind of education that students
receive (Jenkins & Skelly, 2004, p. 2).

As a result, Jenkins and Skelly (2004) believe that many colleges and universities
are failing in their responsibility to foster global citizenship. Barbour (2006) believes that
an educational program needs to be more than tourism. Study abroad programs “should
deepen students' moral sensibility, elicit their compassion, arouse their sense of injustice,
and sharpen their understanding of world problems. This includes our society's role in
creating and perpetuating suffering” (Barbour, p. B24). Some international educator
supporters have the wrong idea that “any” international experience abroad, without
consideration of the structure, would help students to become better citizens. That is,
citizens who will contribute to foster a better understanding among people from different
cultures (Jenkins & Skelly, 2004).
Colleges and universities are prompting students to approach study abroad as they
do everything, as consumers. If students look upon study abroad programs as another
commodity, these students will not be prepared or expected to experience the complexity
and reality of the host country (Slimbach, n.d). Colleges and universities are offering
study abroad as an “add on” and a way to compete for better students Roochnik (2001).
He cites an article from the New York Times stating that New York University "dangled

23
four trips to Europe as part of a study-abroad program" to recruit one particularly
strong student (p. 9).
Even many American corporate representatives believe that American colleges
and universities are poorly implementing study abroad programs. They are too isolated
and academic. They believe that these programs create “American ghettos” or “mini-
Americas” within the host country (Bikson & Law, 1994, p. 26). They suggest that these
types of programs do not compel students to adapt to the host country’s day-to-day life
(Bikson & Law, 1994).
The issue has emerged about the type of programs and structures colleges and
universities need to create to foster global citizenship in their students. The complexity of
this task starts with its definition. It is possible to assess a competence but this
measurement will depend on its definition (Klemp, 1979).
Global citizenship is not a straightforward concept; therefore its definition does
not have a straightforward answer. The idea of global citizenship is the idea of humans
being citizens of the world. It is a challenge to talk about the idea of global citizenship
due to its many interpretations (Williams, 2002). Global citizenship can be an answer not
only to particular issues, events or problems. Rather, it can be an answer to how we view
ourselves relative to the cosmos and not only to planet Earth (O’Neill, 2002).
In addition, global citizenship can be broken down by its components. That is, by
its “ethical” or the “citizenship” components. Here is where the key intellectual debates
are taking place (Dower & Williams, 2002). The ethical component deals with the types
of norms and values that a person who advocates himself or herself as a global citizen.

24
This in turn relates to the question if a global citizen has the right and the active
responsibility of making this a better world. While the ‘citizenship’ component is
connected to the question about the sense in which a global citizen is a ‘citizen” (Dower
& Williams, 2002, p. 5):
Whilst many who call themselves world citizens are quite content to think of
themselves as agents who accept global responsibility (and thus give the word
‘citizen’ no real conceptual work to do at all), it is an important question to face:
is there a plausible and substantive sense of ‘citizen’ in which it makes sense to
say that we are global citizens (Dower & Williams, 2002, p. 5)?

In other words, Dower and Williams (2002) add that as the world is today, it is an
unrealistic idea of being a world citizen in the sense of being a citizen of the world. On
the other hand, they state, it is possible to argue that institutions, practices, and processes
exist and give validity to the argument that we are indeed ‘citizens’ outside the borders of
our nation-states. Such examples are nongovernmental organizations, the observance of
human rights and the spread of the Internet networking, respectively. In addition, they
add, to what exists, there are also pressures for strengthening global civil societies and
global democracies to address the “democratic deficit.” Finally, they conclude that
“…global citizenship that takes on some institutionalized form may be necessary in order
to recover political power over the increasing reach and the de-territorialized capital of
transnational corporations” (Dower & Williams, p. 6).
But there is at least one significant aspect which everyone using the term global
citizen will accept. Even if by its acceptance it would imply that we are not global
citizens. That is that a global citizen is a constituent of a wider society of all humanity. A
humanity which goes beyond and encompasses more than that of a nation state of which

25
we usually believe to be citizens. The importance of this membership, if indeed
people would admit that they are global citizens, would be a major obligation, allegiance
or identity that goes further than the nation-state (Dower & Williams, 2002).
It is in this regard that colleges and universities need to define carefully and
articulate the terms that foster global citizenship in its students. Is it in its ethical
component with the major obligations and allegiances that align with this concept? Or is
it in its citizenship component without a conceptual framework behind this word? The
answer to this determination should guide the type of programs and structures needed to
foster the type of global citizens they aspire to create.
But despite their internationalization efforts, most institutions of higher education
have not made much progress. They “have a long way to go before all students graduate
with international skills and knowledge” (Siaya & Hayward, 2003, p. 73). They have an
even further way to go before they can achieve fostering global citizenship in its students.
Institutions of higher education have shown a low level of express commitment to
internationalization in their practices and policies (Siaya & Hayward). There is a large gap
between the express interest in international education programs and activities for both
faculty and students and actual participation in these activities. Foreign language
enrollment as a percentage of total student population has remained the same since the mid
1970s. Finally, even though the number of students who study abroad has increased, the
length of time that they study abroad has decreased substantially, 91 percent of them going
abroad for one semester or less (Siaya & Hayward, 2003, p. 75).

26
Even thought the interrelatedness among people of nations has increased, there
has been an ever increasing cultural, political and economic gap between the United States
and the rest of the world (Jenkins & Skelly, 2004). But why should higher education care?
The reasons are many but the most pressing one is that the line between the “outside” and
the “inside” of this world has disappeared: in the “ecology” of globalization “what affects
one part ripples through the totality” (Berry, 2002, p. 234).
California State University Response to Globalization
California State University (CSU) is an urban university with an enrollment of
about 33,000 students. Of these, 41.5 percent are men and 58.5 percent are women; 44.7
percent are white, 22.7 percent are Hispanic, 7.3 percent are Filipino, 7.3 percent are
other Asian, 4.1 percent are African-American, 2.1 percent are international students and
10.7 percent are other or not stated. It has 985 full-time faculty and 810 part-time faculty.
Of the full-time faculty, 62 percent are men and 38 percent are women, 75 percent are
white, 10 percent are Asian, 8 percent are Hispanic, 3 percent are African-American.
In 1996 CSU hired a new President who in his first initiative called on all its
constituents to help him to develop a “Shared Vision” which would guide him for the
next ten years of his tenure. CSU constituents developed a strategic plan consisting of
five goals. One of them is to create a global university in order to educate students for a
global community (CSU Mission and Goals). CSU’s goal is that “all students will
graduate with some degree of global competency to be able to function effectively in the
increasingly globalized world” (CSU Mission and Goals). The following is the rational
for this mission:

27
The great universities of the twenty-first century will be global universities.
Capitalizing on its existing ties with international institutions and universities, we will
expand opportunities afforded by our special location on the U.S.-Mexico border.
CSU will seek new and innovative ways to prepare students to function effectively in
a variety of cultures and settings. We will increase the number of students and faculty
studying abroad as well as the number of international students and scholars on our
campus. We will use our considerable network of international partnerships both to
learn and to teach in the global community (CSU Mission and Goals).

In 1996, only about 75 students had any international experience as part of their
education at CSU. In 2006-2007, about 20 percent (about 1,600 students) of its
graduating class of about 8,000 students took part in study abroad. With this, CSU
became second in the nation for students studying abroad in its Carnegie category.
CSU’s ultimate goal is to have a minimum of 30 percent of each year’s graduating class
of about 8,000 a year to study abroad. This represents about 2,400 students a year. As of
fall of 2007, 12 programs at CSU have study abroad as one of their graduation
requirements: (1) Environmental Sciences, (2) European Studies, (3) International
Business,(4) International Emphasis in Economics, (5) International Security and
Conflict Resolution, (6) International Security and Conflict Resolution, (7) Latin
American Studies, (8) Music-Performance Major, (9) Recreation Administration, with an
Emphasis in Sustainable Tourism Management, (10) Spanish, (11) Theater-Performance,
and (12) University Honors Program. In addition, central administration is actively
encouraging more academic programs (with monetary incentives, such as faculty travel
grants to create study abroad opportunities for students) to make study abroad part of
their graduation requirements. However, up to this date, there have been no official
efforts by CSU to operationalize the notion of global competence. CSU does not have in

28
place an evaluation program that allows them to assess if students who study abroad
are achieving the global competency that CSU aspires to foster in its students.
The Organization of International Programs at CSU
There are two official organizations at CSU in charge of advancing CSU’s goal to
graduate students with some degree of global competency. These are the Office of
International Programs, a division of Academic Affairs, and the International Student
Center, a division of Student Affairs. The Assistant Vice President of International
Programs manages the Office of International Programs and reports to the Provost and
VP of Academic Affairs. To advance CSU goals to increase numbers of students who
study abroad, the Assistant Vice President of International Programs has established a
system. This system consists of awarding $3,000 grants to CSU professors to cover travel
expenses and to help them develop programs that “involves CSU students and that will
produce measurable results” (Office of International Programs web site). The programs
that are being created in this way, for the most part, are one time only programs (the time
that the grant is received) and they do not become institutionalized. Almost 500
professors have participated in this program.
A director leads the International Student Center and reports to the VP of Student
Affairs. This office receives and processes applications for both international degree-
seeking students and exchange students. There are more than 1,200 international degree-
seeking students at CSU and we receive less than 300 exchange students a year. The
International Student Center also is in charge of processing applications for students who

29
study abroad. The academic portion of study abroad has to be done by each student
with their own department, with few exceptions noted below.
There are other colleges, departments and programs that have their own study
abroad program directors or coordinators. One of these programs is International
Business (IB). IB has 700 plus students. Study abroad or an internship abroad is
mandatory for all IB students. The IB Chair manages IB and has its own study abroad
staff. This staff consists of two program coordinators. They administer both international
students and IB students who study abroad. IB is in charge of running their own study
abroad programs in all aspects. This ranges from looking for their own partner
universities, developing information sections, and articulating courses with universities
abroad.
The Undergraduate Division hired, in October of 2007, an international programs
coordinator. She manages and promotes study abroad programs with students in this
Division. Finally, the College of Business Administration hired, in the summer of 2005, a
study abroad program director to create, manage and promote study abroad programs for
the 7,000+ students in this College.
In addition, CSU has an International Programs Council (IPC) which meets once per
semester. The IP Council reports directly to the University Senate. The purpose of the
IPC is “To provide overall guidance and policy direction for the continuing development
of international activities at CSU and to fully engage all the relevant parts of the
university community to support international programs” (OIP web site). The IPC
consists of students, faculty, administrators, the College of Extended Studies, the CSU

30
Foundation, and the Campanile Foundation. The purpose of the IPC, as stated on
their web site, is “to discuss a broad range of issues dealing with international programs”
(OIP web site). There are 30 members of the IPC.
In 2005, the International Student Center, the College of Business Administration,
the Office of Advising and Evaluation, and the Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Division
created an ad hoc committee. This committee meets every month to identify and address
barriers faced in creating and implementing study abroad programs. The ad hoc
committee presents issues that cannot be solved at the lower level that require changes in
policy at the University level to higher administration.
Programs that CSU Offers
Like the national trend, there has been an explosion of the type of programs that
CSU offers to its students. These programs range from one day visits to a maquiladora
across the Mexican border to dual and triple-degree programs which require a minimum
of a years and a half abroad. International Business (IB) has the highest and strictest
requirements regarding study abroad out of all study abroad programs at CSU. IB was
one of the first programs at CSU that sent students abroad after its creation in 1989. IB
students need to choose a language, among seven choices (i.e. French, Spanish, Italian,
etc.) and a region of study, among nine regions (i.e. North America, Eastern Europe,
Asia, etc.). In addition IB students take business courses. This would be the equivalent of
having a business major and two minors, one in a language and another in a
regional/cultural study. When IB students graduate they must be fluent in their target
language (except for Japanese, Chinese, and Russian). Language competency is assessed

31
by a language exit examination which all students must pass. Study abroad or
interning abroad is compulsory for all 700+ IB majors. They have to do so in the region
and the language of their emphasis and for a minimum of one semester in total immersion
with local students. In addition, about 20 percent of IB students take part in dual or triple-
degree programs.
IB was the first program in the United States that developed dual and triple-
degree programs. Students in these programs spent a minimum of two years abroad and
receive dual or triple-degrees, one from CSU and another one or two from the students’
host country or countries. IB offers seven dual-degree programs with schools in Brazil,
Canada, Chile, Italy and Mexico and two triple-degree programs with universities in
Canada and Mexico and Chile and Mexico. As with all other IB programs, while abroad,
dual and triple-degree program students take courses with local students in their language
of emphasis. In the triple-degree program with Mexico and Canada, students go to a
university in the province of Quebec, Canada. Hence, students need to learn both French
and Spanish to participate in this program. The IB program has consistently ranked
among the 15 best IB programs in the nation. In 2002 it won the best study abroad
program in the nation by the New York-based Institute of International Education’s (IIE)
Andrew Heiskell Awards, which honors best practices in study abroad programs.
Most other exchange programs at CSU, except for Spanish majors, do not have
any language or cultural immersion requirements. Forty-eight percent of students who
study abroad for a semester or a summer at CSU do so via program providers, these are
for-profit organizations. Nineteen percent of students at CSU participate in exchange

32
programs. Students in these exchange programs take courses at one of CSU’s partner
universities with local students, mostly in English. Nine percent of students conduct
research abroad. Eight percent participate in CSU’s faculty led programs. Eight percent
complete internships abroad. Four percent participate in alternative Spring break. Three
percent participate in a Transborder program, usually for one day to visit a maquiladora
in Tijuana, Mexico. Two percent of students complete bilingual credentials. Two percent
participate in year-long programs offered by the California State University System.
Finally, one percent participate in winter break programs. Students who study abroad can
do so in English (mostly do), even if it is in a country where the main language of
instruction is not English and they do not have to take courses with local students. Most
independent and short-term programs are American enclaves where students take courses
with other American students.
In reviewing these numbers, there has been a year over year increase in students
who study abroad: from 79 students in 1996 to 1,600 in 2006. The places and length of
time that students study abroad are similar to the national composition, even though the
following numbers are for academic year 2006/07 other previous years has more and less
the same composition. Most students, about 56 percent, complete short-term programs
during summer, winter and spring break terms. This includes programs that are only a
few hours of duration when students cross the San Diego/Tijuana border to visit a
maquiladora as part of a class project. Less than 6 percent of students that study abroad
do so for a year. About 37 percent study abroad for one semester. Europe remains the
most popular place to study with some 56 percent of the students. The second position is

33
Latin America with 26 percent, with 14 percent in Mexico, 3 percent in Costa Rica
and Brazil and 2 percent in Chile.
Students who take part in these programs must attend a compulsory pre-departure
orientation on a Saturday morning. This orientation covers practical concerns such as
visas, travel insurance, and superficial cultural issues. Other than that, in general, there is
not reflection mechanisms embedded in study abroad programs. In addition, CSU does
not have any official program evaluation in place. Students who come back from study
abroad programs have the option of completing a returnee questionnaire highlighting
their experiences. However, students do not debrief academic advisers or formally reflect
learning that took place while abroad.
Programs Evaluations
If CSU is judged by its mission of increasing faculty and students abroad, CSU has
been successful. Data about the increase of numbers is pervasive. It can be found in the
Shared Vision Reports, in official publications such as CSU monthly newsletters. The
Shared Vision Reports, which first published in 1999, shows also the increases in
numbers of students who participate in study abroad programs as a measure of advancing
CSU’s mission of creating a global university. These numbers have increased in the last
10 years from 230 to 1,600 placing CSU as second in the country in the category of
Research University with High Activity. The Assistant Vice President of International
Programs sent an e-mail to the International Programs Council and affiliates listing these
four points as a highlight of CSU success of our international programs:

34
1. In our category of Research University with High Activity, we are ranked
second in the nation (by Institute of International Education’s Open Doors
Report). For the first time we sent more students abroad than Miami University in
Oxford, Ohio; but BYU in Provo, Utah, sent more than us.
2. For all universities, we are ranked 23rd in the nation. This is the first time we
have made this top 40 list, which includes all U.S. institutions. We are ahead of
such places as USC, Univ. of Maryland, Syracuse University, Univ. of Colorado,
Univ. of Wisconsin (Madison), Cornell, and UCSD.
3. Within California, we are second only to UCLA in the rankings for all California
universities. The only other CSU Universities of note are Cal Poly, SLO with 817
and CSULB with 435, but we are far ahead of them, as we are of all the UC's
except UCLA.
4. The report is based on 2005-2006 data, when we sent 1,440 students abroad. Last
year we sent 1,600 (personal communication, November 16, 2007).
Thus as stated in the mission statement about the increased of number of students
who study abroad, CSU has been successful and uses data to highlight this achievement.
However, regarding its mission “to prepare students to function effectively in a variety of
cultures and settings” there is no information, data, or evidence of this outcome. There is
neither a list of any specific, measurable learning outcomes desirable or expected of
students who study abroad listed at the International Student Center or at the Office of
International Programs.

35
The success of programs at CSU is judged only, like most other programs as
described by Deardorff (2004), by the increased number of students who study abroad.
Even though these numbers are an important figure to evaluation they do not suggest a
meaningful outcome of internationalization and international education (Deardorff,
2004). Study abroad is a relatively new field of research (Deardorff, 2006; Hunter 2004;
Hunter & Godbey, 2006) and CSU offers a wide range of program. Hence, it would be
important to know if all, some or none of the study abroad programs are advancing
CSU’s mission. That is that all students will graduate with some degree of global
competency to be able to function effectively in the increasingly globalized world. But
there is a paucity of research in this area. In short, CSU lacks certainty that all of their
study abroad programs are being effective to achieve its goal of global competency for its
students.
There are several reasons why I believe that CSU has focused mainly on the
increase of numbers as their main evidence of success and why the University has not
developed any official evaluation activities for its study abroad programs. First, counting
number of students abroad has an undeniable value in public relations, annual reports,
trustee meetings and faculty committees. This also has become “the measurement— of an
institution’s commitment to overseas study”. Finally, this have become a great “recruiting
tool” in the “market” that is facing intense competition to attract “…the most talented
students, outstanding faculty and staff, public and private funding, research funding, and
strategic partners who can advance their influence and agendas” (Engle & Engle, 2003, p.
1; Michigan State University’s Web Site). Therefore as Engle and Engle state, it is

36
tempting to see an association between the pressure to increase numbers and the
tendency to favor programs that are easy to carry out and attract the widest student base.
These are programs such as short-term summer and educational travel, which in general,
do not require cultural and linguistic preparation. As stated before, the fastest growing
field in study abroad programs is in the short-term programs (Spencer & Hoffa, 2002, n.
p.). Program evaluations take time and commitment and the willingness to suspend
programs that are not advancing colleges and universities missions’ statements to educate
global citizens.
Importance of the Study
California State University (CSU) was ranked 2
nd
in the United States in 2007 for
the number of students who study abroad, by the Institute of International Education’s
Open Doors Report). In 2002, the Institute of International Education recognized CSU as
a model of internationalization. Also in 2002, the New York-based Institute of
International Education awarded the Andrew Heiskell Award to CSU’s International
Business Program. This award honors best practices for internationalizing universities.
In addition, CSU was the first in the nation to develop dual and triple-degree programs
with universities through the world. Additionally, 12 of its majors require study abroad as
graduation requirements. Finally, higher administration is actively encouraging more
programs to require study abroad. But despite all these achievements, CSU has not
developed any formal mechanism to assess if all, some, or none of the study abroad
programs in which its students participate are advancing its mission and vision to
graduate globally competent students.

37
Research question
The following is the specific research question that will be explored at this study:
In which ways do the short, semester and year-long study abroad programs that
CSU offer promote transformational learning, global citizenship and fulfills its mission
and vision to graduate globally competent students?
Significance
This study intends to contribute to the theories that guide the philosophical,
pedagogical and practical development of study abroad programs. I plan to present
theoretical assumptions that can link transformative learning with international education,
specifically as it is related to study abroad programs. This connection can guide the
theoretical rationale behind creating global citizens through study abroad programs. In
addition, the theory surrounding the idea of transformative learning can provide a more
balanced view about the purpose that now exists regarding study abroad programs
(Jenkins & Skelly, 2004). The purposes of study abroad programs today are: 1) to prepare
students for a global labor market; 2) to prepare students to contribute to global economic
competitiveness; and 3) as an issues for national security for the United States. But study
abroad can and should also contribute to create a self-aware, self-reflective individual
who is willing to struggle to create a new social order through reflection and action upon
the world to transform it (Freire, 1990).
Conceptual model of this study
The conceptual framework for this dissertation is based in the theory of
transformative learning or perspective transformation. Transformative learning or

38
perspective transformation is a process that goes beyond acquiring factual
knowledge. It is rather a process of learning that transforms in a meaningful way
(Mezirow, 1991). Mezirow argues that transformative theory is an incorporation of ideas
from a large array of writers in the fields of psychology, sociology, philosophy,
neurobiology, religion, linguistics, and education as well as his own ideas about “…the
dynamics of making meaning, reflection, and transformative learning” (p. xv).
Specifically, transformative learning is:
The process of becoming critically aware of how and why our presuppositions
have come to constrain the way we perceive, understand and feel about our world;
of reformulating these assumptions to permit a more inclusive, discriminating,
permeable and integrative perspective; and of making decisions or otherwise
acting on these new understandings (Mezirow 1991, p. 14).

The process of transformative learning or perspective transformation is a multi-
stage process as outlined by Mezirow (1991) that leads to accepting new meaning or
rejecting new meaning in favor of old assumptions. This process starts as a result of any
major challenge or disorienting dilemmas to an established perspective. These challenges,
or disorienting dilemmas, can be either the result of cumulative events or one shocking
event such as divorce, death, illness, promotion or retirement. They can as well be the
result from an eye opening discussion, poem, book or painting. They also can come from
the effort to make sense of a new culture with a way of life that contradicts our own
previously accepted assumptions (italics added). These challenges are painful because
they threaten people’s sense of self and often call into question deeply held personal
values (Mezirow, 1991, p. 168). A key element in this process of transformative learning
is the dimension of conscientization. Mezirow adopted this concept from Paulo Freire.

39
Conscientization is the process by which adults “achieve a deepening awareness of
both the sociocultural reality which shapes their lives and …their capacity to transform
that reality through action upon it” (Freire, 1997, p. 27 as cited in Mezirow, 1991, p.
xvii).
Not all learning is transformative (Mezirow, 1991). Making learning
transformative requires to “reflectively transforming” the emotional reaction and the
opinions, beliefs, attitudes that constitute our meaning perspectives. This includes:
Changes in interest, goals, awareness of problems, awareness of contexts, critical
reflexivity and action, openness to alternative perspectives, ability to participate
freely and fully in rational discourse, and willingness to accept consensual
validation as mode of problem solving in communicative learning” (p. 226).

Mezirow states that adult educators need to actively encourage the learners to
become more critical reflective, and to participate in rational discourse and action so
perspective transformation can take place. Perspective transformation, I believe, ought to
be a main goal for study abroad, therefore this will provide the conceptual framework for
this study.

40
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
Introduction
This chapter will start with an introduction of the multipurpose, multi-learning
attribute to study abroad. Then the focus will shift to the theories of learning. Next I will
proceed to review the research available on study abroad learning outcomes and the
connection of the research between learning and study abroad. After that, I will discuss
the research regarding the connection between these two topics and how they both
contribute, or not, to the fostering of global citizenship.
Methods of data collection
The sources for this literature review include books, book chapters, dissertations,
journal articles, and electronic publications. The sources were obtained from citations in
electronic databases and broad Internet searches. The data bases examined include Eric,
Jstore, ProQuest, and Google. The key words used were study abroad, cultural
competency, global competency, global citizenship, learning outcomes, transformational
learning, cross-cultural learning, and international education. Overall, more than 1,000
sources were identified, but only about 80 were selected based on the topics covered in
this dissertation: global citizenship, cultural competency, internationalization in higher
education and transformational learning. Most articles were selected based on quality
(i.e., peer reviewed) and dates of publication (within the last ten years).
Study Abroad Learning, Multiple Purpose, Multiple Learning Outcomes
About 60 percent of the studies that I found about learning outcomes for study
abroad are related to second-language acquisition. About 10 percent of them focus on

41
cross-cultural/intercultural/global competencies. The rest covered a wide range of
topics from identity formation, cross-border education, learning communities, university
environment, curriculum development, to workforce development in business, education,
civil education and study abroad program providers.
The research on learning outcomes of study abroad mostly highlight the positive
effects that study abroad has on college students (e.g., Bayne, 2003; Briere, 1986;
Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Lambert, 1993; Orahood, Kruze & Pearson, 2004; Shannon,
1995; Rubin & Sutton, 2004; Talburt & Stewart, 1999; Tolliver, 2000; Langley & Breese,
2005). The study abroad outcomes range from acquiring knowledge and developing skills
such as intellectual and personal growth to changing attitude such as cultural sensitivity
and intercultural awareness. Many of these learning outcomes are psycho-social.
Nevertheless, these studying abroad outcomes are difficult to generalize due to the
different types of psychological instruments used and the differing patterns of their
findings (Sutton & Rubin, 2004). However, these authors conclude that “taken as a
whole, this body of research suggests that study abroad has a healthy effect on many
psycho-social outcomes” (p. 68).
Taken as a whole, also, the most common finding in study abroad research is
about the “life changing”, transformational experiences that students have while abroad.
According to Ingraham and Peterson (2004), some of the effects of studying abroad were
“quite specific in nature such as the desire to learn another language or appreciation of
art, …but more were described as pervasive, intangible change of perception of the world

42
and one self” (p. 94). The authors then quote students who participated in two types
of programs, one in Europe and the other one in Latin America respectively:
It is…interesting to see what attitudes, behavior and other personality traits have
stayed the same in myself, now that I am free from U.S. and home influences. I
feel like I have greater understanding of who I am and why, now that I can look at
myself in a completely different situation. It was almost like an experiment: take
away natural surroundings and friends and family and see what stays the same. It
is incredible how clear my perception of my own self — my values, strengths and
weaknesses —— is now that I have looked at it more objectively.

This is odd because I studied abroad to learn to learn facts, statistics, and to gain
knowledge. But instead I came away realizing more about myself than anything
else. I realize more my intellectual interests, more my ability to communicate,
and, once more, my place in the world. I realize how much I can depend on
myself and how much I need to depend on others. If I had the chance, I would do
the trip all over again. It broadened in every sense my ideal of the world
(Ingraham & Peterson, 2004, p. 94.)

Bayne (2003) also states that “students who go abroad learn as much about
themselves as about the host country” (p. 199). And Shannon (1995) further
recommends: “I think the programs that most seriously engage teenagers’ interest are
those that take them to the land of their ethnic roots. They will be visiting places that
have been hallowed in family lore and will respond to that emotionally; they will feel that
they have in some way, come home” (p. 96).
In summary, the dominant research questions in the literature of study abroad are
related to teaching and learning of foreign languages, and the cultural learning that
coincides with those activities (Brandt & Manley, 2002). Other dominant research
questions are related to the impact that study abroad has on students’ psycho-social
attributes such as self-efficacy and students’ self-awareness of their own culture. Also,
others are related to students’ skills to understand and communicate with people who are

43
culturally different. Finally, others are related on the impact that study abroad has on
students’ intellectual, personal and professional growth (Ingraham & Peterson, 2004).
The prevailing research methodologies used in the assessment of learning outcomes for
study abroad are qualitative methods, such as multiple case studies and historical case
methodology. Some of these studies use mixed methods. Most of them use self-
assessment survey instruments. A few use quantitative research only.
Learning Objectives Associated with Study Abroad
There are several learning objectives associated with study abroad. They can be
grouped into four broad categories:
1) Generic cognitive skills: problem solving ability, decision-making, knowing “how
to learn.”
2) Social skills: the ability to work effectively in groups with colleagues of diverse
backgrounds (both cultural and professional), the ability to communicate
effectively both in writing and in speech.
3) Personal traits: flexibility, adaptability, openness to new ideas and practices;
empathy with others’ perspectives; commitment to quality work; innovativeness.
Finally,
4) Cross-cultural competences: ability to function across cultures; develop cultural
and ethnic tolerance (Bikson & Law, 1994).
These are just some of the main categories among many others such as second-
language acquisition and global competence. Some of these objectives are uncontested

44
and have clear definition, others do not and here is where several substantive debates
regarding study abroad programs emerge as it will be presented in the following sections.
Theories of Learning: How Students Learn
Even though Terenzini (1999) did not describe the process of learning as it relates
to study abroad programs, his description can be apply to the learning that may take place
in these types of programs. Individuals learn when they are confronted with “the
Different”, the new, the challenging or something that has never been experienced before
(Terenzini, p. 4). But for learning and development to take place, there should be a
particular amount of challenge. If the challenge is mild, there is incorporation to the new
information to what individuals already know without learning taking place. If the
challenge is more substantial a re-evaluation of current mental patterns, values and
beliefs take place. This achieves both restoring equilibrium and solving the cognitive
dissonance that the substantial challenge is producing. Then adaptation takes place and
learning and development occurs. If the challenge is so great that it threatens the
foundations of current mental structure there is a rejection and learning will not take
place (Terenzini).
In addition to the level of the adequate amount of challenge for learning to take
place, there are other dimensions that affect learning. One of these is the degree of the
learner’s involvement in the learning experience; this is the active participation of the
learner with “the Different”, the encounter. Even though the encounter is an essential
condition for learning, it is not enough. For learning to take place, it is necessary to
engage in reflection of the encounter with “the Different” to stimulate “deeper learning”

45
and consolidate what has been learned. Also, learning does not happen only at
certain days or at certain times. The stimuli are constant at academic and non academic
settings hence learning can constantly take place. Learning is best when it is “situated.”
This is when it takes place in a real context and when it has real meaning, and the learner
wants to solve the challenge at hand. Finally, the degree of support the learner receives in
a challenging situation is also essential to promote successful learning (Terenzini, 1999,
p. 35).
Elements of Learning in Study Abroad
It is believed that since study abroad takes place in unfamiliar settings students
are forced to evaluate constantly their common way of thinking and learning takes place.
However, many study abroad programs at American colleges and universities are often
criticized for being poorly implemented, being too isolated and academic, and for
creating, within the host country, “American ghettos” or “mini-Americas” (Bikson &
Law, 1994, p. 26); “Treating students as paying customers with needs is to deprive them
of unfamiliarity and ambiguity, the troubling interaction with which is the heart of the
successful sojourn” (Engle & Engle, 2003, p. 5). Therefore, it is of critical importance to
put attention to program design. Since as described before, for learning to take place the
right amount of challenge has to be present, in addition to all the other elements
conducive to learning. There are other innumerable variables in the components of study
abroad programs that would either foster or preclude learning. These are intimately
related with the elements of learning listed above. These elements can be classified into

46
the following categories: what happens before, during and after students study
abroad (Stimpfl & Engberg, 1997).
Before the Study Abroad Experience
Students’ pre-sojourn attitudes and expectations: Among the elements that need
to be assessed for the pre-sojourn, are students’ pre-sojourn attitudes and expectations
(Herman, 1970; Kitsantas, 2004; and Smith, 1955, cited in Stimpfl & Engberg, 1997).
Herman, Kitsantas and Smith conducted empirical research and found that student’s
attitudes and expectations before their study abroad experience was highly correlated
with post-sojourn attitudes. Herman conducted research among 87 students who studied
for a year at the Hebrew University of Israel. He concluded that the pre-sojourn attitudes
were highly correlated with post-sojourn attitudes. Kitsantas administered pre and post-
sojourn Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) to 232 students. They were
enrolled in study abroad courses offered in England, Italy, Greece, France, and Spain in
2002. He concluded that the overall students' cross-cultural skills and global
understanding improved. However, students' goals to study abroad influenced the
magnitude of these outcomes. Finally, Smith administered pre and post-sojourn
attitudinal skills to 183 tourist and students who spent a summer in Europe in 1950. In
addition, he conducted 39 personal interviews with participants of the same group. He
compared this data with a stay-at-home control group. He concluded that the changes in
attitude of post-sojourn participants were more likely related with their pre-sojourn
attitude than what happened while they were away.

47
During the Study abroad Experience
Some of the most important elements of the continuum process of a sojourn are
the elements that take place during the sojourn. There are multiple elements that can
promote or preclude learning. There are different ways to classify these elements: level of
cultural immersion. This is the level of exposure the sojourner has with the host culture.
Level of synthesis, these are experiences that take place out-of class and puts students in
direct contact with the host culture. Finally, level of difference, this is the degree in which
the host culture differs from the home culture (Stimpfl & Engberg, 1997). Within these
above listed components we need to evaluate: 1) program duration; 2) entry language
competence of participants; 3) extent to which target language is used in coursework on
site; 4) context of academic work; 5) type of housing arrangements; 6) provisions for
guided cultural/experiential learning; 7) and structured opportunities for students to
reflect on their cultural experiences (Engle & Engle, 2003, p. 8).
In addition, Engle and Engle propose a further classification of these seven
program components into five different levels. These levels classify the extent in which
these seven program components are present in study abroad programs. As a
consequence, this will determine the type of cross-cultural competency that should be
realistically expected at each level of experience. The program levels progress from
three-weeks in duration to a minimum of one semester abroad. They also progress from
programs that take place mostly in English with other Americans with minimum contact
with the local culture to programs in which students take courses with local students in
the local language. In addition, these programs progress from programs with organized

48
tours with other American students with minimum contact with the locals to
programs that require total cultural immersion. Finally, they also progress from programs
that require minimum preparation and orientation to the pre-sojourn and with no self-
reflection before, during or after the sojourn to programs with intensive pre-sojourn
preparation in the history, politics and economics of the visited culture with active
reflection before, during and after the sojourn. These program levels are classified by
Engle and Engle as follows:
Level One: Study Tour,
Level Two: Short-Term Study
Level Three: Cross-Cultural Contact Program
Level Four: Cross-Cultural Encounter Program
Level Five: Cross-Cultural Immersion Program
Program Duration
One of the areas in which study abroad is experiencing the most substantial
growth in the past few decades has been in the short-term programs. Gudykunst (1979,
cited in Medina–López–Portillo, 2004) believes that “contact of only a short duration
does not allow enough time to establish attitudes to change; the short duration of the
contact results in an incomplete psychological experience for the participants” (p. 4). In
addition, short-term study abroad programs may run the risk of not providing benefits to
either residents or participants. In addition, they may unintentionally promote instead
stereotypical and superficial views of the local culture (Slimbach, n.d.). Intercultural
communication expert, Milton J. Bennett (1993) believes that a minimum of two years in

49
the host country is required to acquire the type of behavior necessary to achieve a
new worldview (p. 55). Some empirical research supports this notion and some others do
not.
Among the empirical research that supports the theory that more is better are the
studies conducted by Ingraham and Peterson (2004), Medina–López–Portillo (2004), and
Neppel (2005), among others. Ingraham and Peterson (2004) from Michigan State
University assessed the impact of study abroad in the acquisition of what they believe are
the attitudes, knowledge and skills that students need to work and live in the 21st century.
These are intellectual and personal growth, intercultural awareness and professional
development. Based on the theories of learning, they hypothesize that study abroad
would: “1. Facilitate students’ intellectual growth; 2. Contribute to students’ professional
development; 3. Accelerate students’ personal growth; 4. Develop students’ skills for
relating to the culturally different; and 5. Enhance students’ self-awareness and
understanding of their own culture” (p. 84). They assess this impact in 1,200 students by
using both qualitative and quantitative data. They specifically used student self-
assessment questionnaires, faculty observations, secondary data analysis and surveys by
other campus units. The results of this study were that the five factors in their study were
all moderately and positively correlated with each other at a statistically significant level.
They also found that the length of the sojourn is positively correlated with each of these
five factors, as the length of the program increased the mean rating also increased.
Medina–López–Portillo (2004) conducted research on the link between the
development of intercultural sensitivity and program duration. Her hypothesis was that

50
“program duration is a significant variable in students’ abilities to integrate
culturally while abroad and that it may be an important predictor of one specific element
of intercultural learning, the development of intercultural sensitivity” (p. 180). Medina–
López–Portillo states that it is important to acknowledge the difference between
intercultural competence and intercultural sensitivity since they are not the same, they
can be envisioned as “two sides of the same coin.” Intercultural sensitivity is related to
the individual’s psychological capability to deal with cultural differences based on his or
her own developmental process. Intercultural competence is related with the
manifestations of external behaviors of individuals as they operate in a foreign cultural
context (p. 180). Her research is based on three different models or theories. These are:
the Intergroup Contact Theory, The Model of the Transformation Process, and the
Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). Her study was conducted with
28 students from the University of Maryland who participated in two different language-
based programs. One was a seven week summer program in Taxco, Mexico (18 students)
and the other was a 16-week semester program in Mexico City (10 students). Her study
was based on case study methodology and used both qualitative and quantitative
measures. She collected pre-departure and post-program data which consisted of face-to-
face interviews, the administration of the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), and
a demographic questionnaire designed to collect information about students’ previous
intercultural experiences. The results of her study support the hypothesis that duration of
study abroad programs do matter. “Unlike the students in Taxco, those in the longer
Mexico City program returned home showing: (1) significant development of

51
intercultural sensitivity as defined by the Intercultural Development Inventory, (2)
broader vocabulary and examples with which to talk about cultural differences, (3) a
deeper understanding of Mexican culture and its people, and (4) a critical—and
informed—point of view regarding the United States, its culture, and its international
politics” (p. 191).
For her master thesis, based on students’ learning theories, Jill M. Neppel (2005)
examined the effect of the length of a study abroad program on achieving four learning
outcomes. These were cognitive complexity, liberal learning, personal philosophy, and
interpersonal self-confidence among 471 study abroad participants at the University of
Maryland. Data was collected through a web-based survey instrument and an analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) was employed in the research design with gender and academic
class standing as covariates. The results found that each of the research hypotheses is
statistically significant. The amount of growth in cognitive complexity, liberal learning,
personal philosophy and interpersonal self-confidence was found to be significantly
higher in the self-reported scores of those respondents who studied abroad on long-term
programs rather than short-term programs.
Among the empirical research that does not support the theory that more is better
is the one conducted in 2002 by the International Education of Students (IES), a 54-year-
old, not-for-profit academic consortium. Dwyer (2004) wrote about this longitudinal
study aim to measure the longitudinal correlations between specific program features and
various students’ outcomes. These features were housing choice, duration of study,
language study, participation in an internship or field study, enrollment in university

52
courses among others with a variety of students. The purpose of the study was to
compare end of academic term evaluation results with longitudinal results. They drew
data from 50 years of programming, in 25 program locations, in 14 countries. These
representing diverse academic models that range from ‘island’ programs to full
immersion to direct enrollment and with various housing arrangements from apartments,
dormitories to home stays. The study consisted of a survey, answered by 3,723 of IES
alumni, with 28 questions and sub-questions which were divided into 3 types. These were
basic demographics, impact of key study abroad elements, and impact of study abroad on
select behaviors, attitudes and specific achievements. The survey results are reported
across five areas: general findings, academic attainment, intercultural development,
career impact and personal growth. Out of the total sample of 3,723 respondents 32
percent (1,191 students) studied for a full year and 62 percent (2,308 students) studied for
a semester, 6 percent (224 students) studied abroad with IES for a summer term. All the
results reported a statistical significance at a .05 level across five areas. These are general
findings, academic attainment, intercultural development, career impact and personal
growth, regardless of which decade students studied abroad, the type of program in which
they participated and the length of time of the program. Specifically, the survey found
that in the academic part, studying abroad reinforced commitment to foreign language
study in 88 percent of students who studied abroad for a full-year, in 84 percent who
studied for one semester, and in 90 percent who studied for summer term. It also
influenced subsequent educational experiences in 91 percent of students who studied
abroad for one year, in 85 percent who studied for one semester and in 84 percent who

53
studied for a summer term. In the intercultural development area, study abroad
helped students to better understand their own cultural values and bias in 99 percent of
students who studied abroad for one year, in 97 percent who studied for one semester,
and 95 percent who studied for a summer term. It also continues influencing students’
interaction with people from different cultures in 97 percent of students who studied
abroad for one year, in 93 percent who studied for one semester and in 92 percent who
studied for a summer term. In the career impact area, students who studied abroad
reported that the experience ignited interest in career direction in 70 percent of students
who studied abroad for one year, in 59 percent of students who studied for one semester
and in 59 percent of students who studied for a summer term. Finally, in the personal
growth area students who studied abroad reported that studying abroad had a lasting
impact on worldview in 97 percent of students who studied abroad for one year, in 95
percent of students who studied for one semester and in 92 percent of students who
studied for a summer term.
In short, there are contradictory findings about the impact that program duration
has on students. Among the empirical research that supports the theory that more is better
are the studies conducted by Ingraham and Peterson (2004), Medina–López–Portillo
(2004), and Neppel (2005). Among the empirical research that does not support the
theory that more is better is the one conducted by Dwyer (2004).
Pedagogies While Abroad
One important aspect that affects student’s learning while they are abroad are
pedagogies. There are different pedagogical methodologies being used to achieve the

54
various goals stated about study abroad programs. But in particular, these
pedagogies help students reflect on their learning and the impact that their study abroad
experiences have on their understanding of self and the “other”.
Brandt & Manley (2002) have worked with more than 1,000 students, in ten
years, who study abroad for a minimum of one semester. They have worked with a
writing technique known as the Fieldbook, which is based on the principles of
constructivist teaching. This is a pedagogical tool to promote experience-based study
abroad. The main goal of the Fieldbook is “encouraging students to think about and relate
what they have learned from lectures and readings in classes to information derived from
out-of-classroom experiences” (p. 115). This in turn improves writing skills and the
creation of new knowledge. The methodology of this research is applied research case
study. The purpose is to analyze the function of the Fieldbook as both assessment and a
pedagogical tool, in an attempt to appreciate why and how it is effective (or not). The
authors state that they have chosen to use the historical case methodology because there
is a scarcity of research available in the literature about the pedagogy of study abroad.
This is despite the educational nature of study abroad. They believe that there is a “need
to identify and explain the particularities or details of a phenomenon, such as an
educational innovation [the Fieldbook] and why it worked or failed. The case study
method, we believe, affords a strong and supple net for capturing and displaying the
relevant details of the Fieldbook story” (p. 114). In general, according to the authors,
students, evaluator and teachers who use the Fieldbook confirm its value. This is assessed
by end-of-program interviews with staff and program evaluations. This is intended to

55
assess and assist learning in the study abroad context. Brandt and Manley believe
that, in a sense, a triangulation of the effectiveness of the Fieldbook to evaluate and
promote student learning in intercultural settings has been established. This is due to the
agreement among the various constituents of this technique.
Tolliver (2000) believes that studying in Africa is one of the most powerful and
pedagogically rich ways to promote learning about the impact of racism in America as
well as about race and racial identity. Tolliver coordinates, as a program director, a three-
week travel course to Ghana, West Africa. He does so along with other professors from
the history and psychology department on alternate years. The course has a focus on
history, spirituality, healing, and on culture. Most of the course work is experiential in
nature and takes place “in the field.” It has visits to village chiefs, community leaders,
priestesses and healers, nongovernmental organizations, among others. But the course is
designed, according to Tolliver, to go beyond “curiosity about the exotic ‘other’ in an
effort to affect self-understanding through cross-cultural interactions” (p. 12). A critical
part of the course aside from academic content, involves self-assessment and reflection. It
includes small group discussion, journaling, among other pedagogies such as visits to the
Slave River and the Slave Castles. This confronts students with the goal to help them to
examine how this learning experience will enhance their understanding of themselves as
both members of their own particular culture and as individuals. As students come back
to the United States, Tolliver states, they have been reported major changes in them.
These are changing academic majors, becoming more willing to talk to their families and
friends about racism and oppression. These students also become more involved in

56
intercultural activities like the one affiliated with the sister cities between Chicago,
Ghana and Accra. Studying abroad in Africa does not provide a “quick fix” for
confronting the problems of racism and cultural ignorance in America (Tolliver).
However, studying in Africa can provide “a broad classroom in which to support the
cognitive, affective, and behavioral knowing that is critical to fruitful dialogue about
race, racism, and the racial legacy in America” (p. 115). No theory was explicitly stated
in the guidance of this case study.
Langley & Breese, (2005) conducted research which involved 23 students who
studied for a year in Ireland. The authors stated that little research has been done in out of
class experiences. This fact guided their research questions: “1) the way in which the
orientation to the Ireland program encouraged involvement in out-of-class activity; 2) the
way in which students learned the Irish culture as participant observers, interacting
sojourners, and travelers, and; 3) the effects of study abroad on attitudes towards other
cultures” (p. 316). The theory of this research was based on Spradley’s (1980) theory of
means-end domain of semantic relationships. This theory states that “students studying
abroad function as ethnographers, gathering empirical evidence about their host culture”
(p. 320). The methodology for this research was descriptive qualitative research using
focus groups and a long interview. The results of the research were that the Ireland pre-
departure orientation had a great impact on these students. The reason where that students
in the program had the opportunity to talk to former student participants of who
persuaded them to be active participants in the Irish culture out of the classroom settings.
Because of this participation students do not stereotype people as much from other

57
cultures and become less judgmental. In addition, students who took part in this
program learned about the Irish culture through experience, meaning though observation,
travel and interaction, and not through lecture. Hence the authors advise to use former
participants in their programs as ambassadors.
Effects/Impact
“Virtually every aspect of an experience associated with study abroad involves
student learning” (Ingraham & Peterson, 2004, p. 84). For this reason there is the
expectation of great impact of study abroad programs in students who participate in them.
Specifically, some of the most desirable outcomes for study abroad are psycho-social
attributes. These are self-efficacy, students’ self-awareness of their own culture, and the
students’ skills to understand and communicate with people who are culturally different.
There is also the impact that study abroad has on students’ intellectual, personal and
professional growth (Ingraham & Peterson, p. 94).
Some of the most sought after and expected outcomes in study abroad are the ones
related to career impact. Orahood, Kruze and Pearson (2004) conducted research about
the impact of study abroad in career goals, at Indiana University, Kelly School of
Business (KSB). This was a comparative study between students who study abroad and
the ones who did not. The intend was to assess the validity of previous research on the
impact of study abroad in business students with regards to job search and career plans.
This study was based on social learning theory career decision-making and learning
experience. The theory states that there are four factors that influence and interact in the
career of individuals. They are learning experience instrumental (direct) and associative

58
(observational) learning. Their research question asked if business students who
study abroad become more interested in positions with an international dimension than
business students who have not studied abroad. They apply a self-assessment survey
instrument to 231 business students at the KSB. The results were that 93 percent of
students who study abroad reported having an interest or a strong interest in working for
a multinational company with overseas offices. Eighty eight percent of study abroad
participants reported either an interest or strong interest in working overseas. While only
51percent of non-study abroad participants reported an interest or strong interest in
working overseas.
Younes and Asay (2003) evaluate the impact of international study experiences
on college students, from a Mid-West state university during a visit to three different
cities in Europe. These visit ranged from 13 to 16 days of students and faculty from
Social Work who visited Scandinavia, from Family and Consumer Science who visited
England, France and Italy, and from the Department of Art who visited Italy. They had
different learning objectives and different leadership styles. This is a qualitative,
multiple-case study based on “a philosophical, ontological assumption that reality is
subjective and multiple as experienced by the adult learners participating in this study”
(p. 142). They asked for voluntary participation among student members of these three
tours. The volunteers were observed and given three in-depth questionnaires at pre-tour,
mid-point and post-tour. They also compiled and collected demographic information in
all 54 participants regarding, age, gender, marital status, grade point average, ethnic
background and class standing. The focus of the questionnaire was about each

59
participant’s experience as a member of the group and their educational experience.
They triangulated the data by using questionnaire, observations, and verbal feedback
from the participants. All tours had significant similarities in the results. Formal and
incidental learning was tracked based on the different objectives of the tour. “Incidental
learning was anticipated, but surprisingly emerged as having a greater force than
anticipated, affecting the group process and the overall learning experience” (p. 143).
Despite of the courses focus and format, the setting, the students’ specific experiences, all
of them had educational gains. These were in the three themes that emerged from the
evaluation of the data: personal growth, educational gains and group dynamics. The
authors concluded that students better learned the course material due to the incidental
learning settings. That is, the world as a classroom which transcends traditional learning
pedagogies.
Stephenson (1999) conducted research to evaluate the effect that study abroad has
on cultural perceptions and personal values. He studied students in study abroad but also
their host families and on selected university professors in the host country in Santiago,
Chile. The research questions in this study were the following:
What aspects of values appear to change the most as a result of study abroad?
How do interactions with host nationals affect the students’ views of both
themselves and the ‘other’? Does the presence of foreign students affect members
of the host society who have extended contact with them? Is the outcome of the
exchange experience in terms of cross-cultural understanding any different for
participants in study abroad programs located in countries with lower living
standards than their home (p. 1)?

The author’s theory is based on three premises. First in the assumption that a
study abroad experience will lead to a better view of the “other” when in fact some times

60
these programs have caused an opposite effect. Second that it is essential to broaden
the scope and take into consideration that a relationship is a two way interaction. This
affects value orientation and perceptions, not only in the student but people at the host
country as well. Finally, there is a need to consider the host country’s specific conditions
that can affect the outcome of the study abroad experience.
Stephenson (1999) administered a before and after self-reported questionnaire and
follow up interviews to 52 students and Chilean host families and 33 Chilean professors.
The results of this study suggest that both the Chilean host families and the Chilean
university professors did undergo some transformations/changes as a result of their
relationship with the U.S. students. But the changes were different than what they were
expecting. For U.S. students, they were expecting to have more difficulty with the
Spanish language. But cultural differences were more stressful than anticipated as well
the differences in view between class and race in Chile and the US, in addition to time
use, sexism and lecture style used by Chilean professors. For the host families the most
significant result was the reaffirmation of their own sense of being Chilean and a deeper
appreciation of their own culture. Specifically in the area of family values, which Chilean
families believe are positive values. One of the advantages most often mentioned by the
host family was that their view of the “other” was markedly affected. But this happened
without changes in their own values, perspectives and beliefs. Chilean professors noted
the most value and opinion changes due to the presence of the U.S. students. They
believe that U.S. students affected both the classroom environment and the university.
Their presence increased racial tolerance, even if it was unintended.

61
The results from all three groups examined in this paper demonstrate one
salient fact: cultural patterns are firmly rooted within most individuals, and not as
open to modification as many people assume. This is not to say that culture is not
flexible and open to change. Rather, it is to present the caveat that one should not
assume that cultural change will necessarily occur as a result of a study abroad
experience (Stephenson, 1999. p. 36).

Process of Cultural Learning
But how does learning and specifically cultural learning takes place? What is the
process to become culturally competent? “Culture learning is the effort to gain insight
into how cultural strangers live” (Hess, 1997, p. 9); cultural learning is a process.
Progress in this process needs to be earned by investing work in preparation. Just like
language is learned, study abroad, and specifically cultural learning, can be placed on a
similar scale of this model (Engle & Engle, 2003). There are different models that explain
how learning takes place. One of them is the Developmental Model of Intercultural
Sensitivity (DMIS) created by Milton Bennett (1993) which explains the reactions of
people to cultural difference and identifies several states in that process:
Charting a journey from denial and defense through minimization, acceptance,
adaptation and integration, Bennett’s model reinforces the lesson, at once hard
and comforting, that our relations with a new culture are dynamic, evolutionary,
and ‘developmental.’ At whatever departure point a student begins, the goal of
overseas education could be summed up as movement as far as possible forward
on this scale (Engle & Engle, 2003, p. 7).

Bennet’s (1993) scales move from the continuum of ethnocentrism, defined as a
state of belief that the world is the same as his or hers, to ethnorelativism, defined as the
realization that cultures relate one another within a cultural context (Medina-Lopez-
Portillo, 2004).

62
Another model that explains cultural learning or how a person becomes
intercultural competent or explain their cultural adaptation is the concept of cultural
shock. In 1954 the anthropologist Kalvero Oberg coined the term cultural shock. It
describes the feelings of anxiety and distress that people face when they are presented
with a new culture. This anxiety is experienced by people who are faced with an
unfamiliar environment:
It is the shock of the new. It implies that the experience of the new culture is an
unpleasant surprise or shock, partly because it is unexpected and partly because it
can lead to a negative evaluation of one's own culture. It is also known as cross-
cultural adjustment, being that period of anxiety and confusion experienced when
entering a new culture. It affects people intellectually, emotionally, behaviorally
and physically and is characterized by symptoms of psychological distress
(Leggat & Stewart, 1988, p. 84).

Confronting a new culture can create a sudden and sometimes unpleasant feeling
which forces a person to reevaluate both their own culture and the new host culture
(Pederson, 1995). Not too long ago, cultural shock was associated only with a negative
experience or the “medical model” as described by Leggat and Stewart (1998) above.
But nowadays, culture shock is related to the “education model” and describes “the
adjustment period as a state of growth and development which – however painful it might
be – may result in positive and even essential insights” (Petersen, 1995, p. 9).
Several stages have been identified with the cultural shock process such as
Oberg’s (1960) five stage model listed in an ascending order towards cultural
competency. These are the honeymoon, negative attitudes, recovery, and enjoyment.
There is also Adler’s (1975) five stage model that goes from contact, disintegration,
reintegration, autonomy to independence. This model views cultural shock “as a process

63
of intercultural learning, leading to greater self-awareness and personal growth”
(Pedersen, 1995, p. 8). This model has developed a more positive perspective of a
learning/growth approach and it has contributed to highlight the transformation of a
stranger’s affective, cognitive, and behavioral being in the progression of becoming
intercultural competent (Taylor, 1994, p. 156).
None of these models and theories individually can fully explain the complex
process of intercultural learning. Therefore, there have been attempts in the past decade
to both identify and synthesize these and other major theoretical approaches and
psychological models into a cohesive and comprehensive model (Ward, 2004). One of
these models is the “ABCs of acculturation” (Ward). This model identifies three of the
major broad theoretical approaches of cultural contact. The first one is the affective or
stress coping theories. This theory deals with the process involved in coping with cultural
change. It also deals with the characteristics of both the circumstances and individuals
that may impede or facilitate adjustment to a new cultural environment. These
characteristics are personality, coping strategies, life changes, cognitive appraisal of
change and social support. The second one is the behavioral or culture learning theories.
This theory deals with the process involved in acquiring specific skills for sociocultural
adaptation such as language fluency, contact with host nationals, culture-specific
knowledge, intercultural training, previous experience abroad, cultural distance, and
cultural identify. Finally, the third one, the cognitive or social identification theories that
deal with the process involved in developing, changing, and maintaining identity and
issues such as prejudice, stereotypes, attributions, attitudes, and discrimination (Ward,

64
Bochner, & Furman, 2001). The ABCs model of acculturation is but only one
among the many models attempting to explain the complexity that exists in the process of
intercultural learning.
In summary, cultural learning is a complex, multilevel process that takes work,
preparation, time and effort. It cannot be explained by only one model or theory but
rather by a multiple and complex interrelated processes which take place in cultural
contact (Engle & Engle, 2003; Hess, 1997; Landis & Bhawuk, 2004; Ward, 2004; War,
Bochner, & Furman, 2004).
Study Abroad and the Fostering of Global Citizenship
But intercultural competency or awareness of others is not and end in itself. This
is “rather the first step in the development of an intellectual process by which the students
will be able to approach social and political problems” (Brewer, 2004, p. 10). The
College Learning for the New Global Century (2007) report, issues by the National
Leadership Council for the Liberal Education & America’s Promise, states that
educational policy has emphasized attention to expansion of access, accountability and
reduction of cost. However, educational policy has left out another very important issues
that will affect American prosperity. This is what contemporary college students need to
know and will be able to do upon graduation (italics added). The report stresses the need
to calibrate the education students are receiving. This calibration should be not only the
real-world demands of work but also with the personal and social responsibility of the
students at both the national and global level. They are calling for a dramatic shift in the
focus of education from the accumulation of course credits to the development of “real-

65
world capabilities.” These capabilities can be applied to solve the complex and
challenging problems students will face in the 21
st
century (p. 5).
The world in which today’s students will make choices and compose lives is one
of disruption rather than certainty, and of interdependence rather than insularity.
To succeed in a chaotic environment, graduates will need to be intellectually
resilient, cross-culturally and scientifically literate, technologically adept,
ethically anchored, and fully prepared for a future of continuous and cross-
disciplinary learning. Learning about cultures and social structures dramatically
different from one’s own is no longer a matter just for specialists. Intercultural
learning is already one of the new basics in a contemporary liberal education,
because it is essential for work, civil society and social life (College Learning for
the New Global Century, 2007, p. 15).

The same overlook is happening now with defining global citizenship and the
learning outcomes for study abroad programs. The study abroad literature does not
address directly the type of inner characteristics global citizens ought to have in order to
address the type of pressing challenges human beings are facing in the 21st century.
Education abroad is facing the same question that education has faced about whether
education should serve the state and society or the individual. The answer to this question
leads to one of two paths. These are “toward the development of personal skills that have
practical value or toward the cultivation of a sense of wisdom or humanity; it is the
professionals versus the humanists” (Adams & Carfagna, 2006, p. 163). The same two
apparently clashing paradigms about the purpose of study abroad are taking place
nowadays (Pesakovic, 2007). The first one is the “practical” which sees study abroad as a
“growth and benefit paradigm.” The logic behind this is that study abroad would provide
the knowledge of the “other” for personal gains. This is by studying abroad and acquiring
knowledge of the “other” can make students more competitive and get a better job. This
in turn will enhance the workforce of the nation and, as a consequence, the nation’s

66
competitiveness. The second is the “idealist” that views study abroad as a “global
community and peace promotion paradigm.” This believes that by learning about other
people and cultures once become more tolerant and less ethnocentric and as a
consequence this promotes peace (Stephenson, 2006, in Pesakovic, 2007, p. 275).
But the power of both of these paradigms can be enhanced by overcoming the
either-or questions and by striving to link them instead (Adams & Carfagna, 2006).
Narrow learning that focuses only on technical and professional aspects ignores the
realities of the new global economy. This new economy has careers that are too volatile.
The information learned in this new economy becomes obsolete in a five-year period, for
the most part, due to how fast this information is created and advanced. Therefore, the
key for to success for citizens in the 21
st
century will be related not with the fact that they
have more information but in their ability to locate and use this information to solve
problems (Adams & Carfagna, 2006; College Learning for the New Global Century,
2007). These are issues such as economic disparities, sustainable life-styles, and conflict
resolution (Moffatt, 2007). These are the interconnected dilemmas that outline the three
moral imperatives of our times and that needs to be addressed to positively alter the
future of our planet (Moffatt). Hence the most important characteristic needed for the
challenges of the 21st century “is the ability to deal with serious worldwide problems as a
member of a worldwide society” (Parker, Ninomiya & Cogan 1999, p. 125).
With this goal in mind, one can start to discuss the type of cognitive, moral,
ethical, social, and emotional characteristics global citizens ought to have. But most
importantly, with the type of study abroad programs that institutes of higher education

67
ought to develop to foster these characteristics in its students. The most effective
programs to foster global citizenship are the programs that go beyond academic tourism
and force students not just to go into another culture but to enter into this other culture
and be part of this other culture (Berry, 2002). I propose the following definition for
global citizenship as individuals who experience:
A deep, structural shift in their basic premises of thought, feelings, and actions; a
shift in consciousness that dramatically and irreversibly alters their way of being
in the world; such a shift involves to understand themselves and their self-
locations; their relationships with other humans and with the natural world; their
understanding of relations of power in interlocking structures of class, race and
gender; their body-awarenesses, their visions of alternative approaches to living;
and their sense of possibilities for social justice and peace and personal joy as
described by O’Sullivan and Morrell (2002, p. 327) about transformative learning.

Summary of Study Abroad Research
Study abroad research indicates multipurpose, multiple learning outcomes that are
wide in range but mostly highlight the positive outcomes that study abroad has on college
students. The dominant research questions in the literature of study abroad are related to
teaching and learning of foreign languages. They are also related to the impact that study
abroad has on students’ psycho-social attributes as well as in students’ intellectual,
personal and professional growth.
Theories of learning and how students learn can provide insights about the
process of cultural learning that can take place when students are abroad. There are
several conditions that need to be present for learning to take place when students are
abroad. Students need to encounter the right amount of challenge. They have to get
actively involved in the learning experience. They must engage in reflection. They need
be constantly stimulated with both academic and non-academic. It is required that they

68
are exposed to “situated” learning. Finally they have to receive the right amount of
support (Terenzini, 1999, p. 35). Besides these fundamentals of learning other elements
have to be taken into consideration such as: the program duration, the entry language
competence of participants, extent to which target language is used in coursework on site,
context of academic work, type of housing arrangements, provisions for guided
cultural/experiential learning, and structured opportunities for students to reflect on their
cultural experiences (Engle & Engle, 2003, p. 8).
The process of cultural learning is explained by different models and theories
such as the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) which moves along
the continuum of ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. It is also explained by the five stage
theory of cultural shock that moves in ascending order from the honeymoon, negative
attitudes, recovery to enjoyment. Another model is Adler’s (1975) five stage model that
goes from contact, disintegration, reintegration, autonomy to independence. Among
others is also the “ABCs of acculturation” model which identifies three of the major
broad theoretical approaches of cultural contact: the affective or stress coping theories,
the behavioral or culture learning theories and the cognitive or social identification
theories. But cultural learning is a complex, multilevel process that takes work,
preparation, time and effort and cannot be explained by only one model or theory (Engle
& Engle, 2003; Hess, 1997; Landis & Bhawuk, 2004; Ward, Bochner, and Furman,
2004).
But intercultural competency or awareness of others is not and end in itself. It is
“but rather the first step in the development of an intellectual process by which the

69
students will be able to approach social and political problems” (Brewer, 2004, p.
10). There is a call for education to calibrate the education students are receiving with not
only the real-world demands of work but also with the personal and social responsibility
of the students. This is at both the national and global level and with life in a complex
and fast-changing society. The same type of calibration needs to take place with the
learning outcomes for study abroad programs. The study abroad literature does not
address directly the type of inner characteristics global citizens ought to have in order to
address the type of pressing challenges human beings are facing in the 21st century.
Education abroad is facing two apparently clashing paradigms about its purpose
the “growth and benefit paradigm” and the “global community and peace promotion
paradigm” (Pesakovic, 2007, p. 275). But the power of both of these paradigms can be
enhanced by overcoming the either-or questions (Adams & Carfagna, 2006). Narrow
learning does not prepare students for the volatile careers and global issues that students
will face in the 21st century such as economic disparities, sustainable life-styles, and
conflict resolution (Adams & Carfagna, 2006; College Learning for the New Global
Century, 2007; Moffat, 2007). Hence the most important characteristic needed for the
challenges of the 21st century “is the ability to deal with serious worldwide problems as a
member of a worldwide society” (Parker, Ninomiya, & Cogan 1999, 125).

70
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology
Introduction
Colleges and universities throughout the United States design and implement
study abroad programs without much reflection about the philosophical, theoretical,
pedagogical, and practical foundation behind their creation. Institutions of higher
education mostly focus on increasing the numbers of students who study abroad as the
central sign of their success; therefore they may be sacrificing pedagogy for product and
enlightenment for satisfaction (Lewin, 2007).
California State University (CSU) is not the exception to this practice. CSU uses
the same parameter, the increase in numbers, to assess the success of one of the main five
goals as stated at its mission statement. That is that all students will graduate with some
degree of global competency to be able to function effectively in the increasingly
globalized world. However, there may be a gap between what California State University
aspires to achieve with the study abroad programs and what it offers.
Why Qualitative Design?
This study was suited to a qualitative design for several reasons. First, there has
been little research on the connections between study abroad and the making of global
citizens. Second, no recognized theory has been developed specific to this topic. Finally,
it is necessary to focus on the various forms of study abroad programs CSU develops,
recommends and offers in order to increase the number of students who study abroad.

71
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of this study was to assess the ways in which the short,
semester and year-long study abroad programs that CSU offers promote transformational
learning, global citizenship and fulfills its mission and vision to graduate globally
competent students.
Research question
This study was guided by the following research question:
In which ways do the short, semester and year-long study abroad programs that
CSU offers promote transformational learning, global citizenship and fulfills its mission
and vision to graduate globally competent students?
Methodology
Qualitative Design
This was a qualitative design based on different student groups disaggregated by
program length and degree of cultural immersion in the host country.
Role of the Researcher
I was born and raised in Mexico City. I came to the United States at age 29. I
attended San Diego City College and transferred to California State University (CSU) to
enroll in the newly developed International Business program. I have been at CSU since
1991. My first two years as a student and then as study abroad program coordinator and
then director of two different types of programs that had generated two different sets of
experiences.

72
My first two years at CSU were as a student enrolled at their International
Business (IB) program and later in their MBA program. In 1993 the same IB program
hired me to implement the first dual-degree program in the nation between Mexico and
the United States. In my 12 year tenure with IB, I developed nine dual and two triple-
degree programs. In addition, I developed a robust network of student exchange programs
with Universities throughout the world. In 2002 the New York-based Institute of
International Education awarded IB the Andrew Heiskell Award for the Best Study
Abroad Program in the nation.
Since it inception IB’s explicit focus was to educate students in the language and
culture of the world to incite mutual respect and understanding among future business
leaders. To this end IB requires that all its students specialize in one region and area of
the world. The IB program is equivalent of having a business major and a minor in both a
language and in a regional/cultural area of study. In 1992, study abroad became
mandatory for all 700+ IB majors. IB majors have to study abroad for a minimum of one
semester, in the language and the region of the students’ emphasis of study along with the
local students. IB students must complete an internship at home or abroad, and they need
to pass an exit language proficiency examination. More than 20 percent of all IB students
participate in the nine dual and triple degree programs that IB offers. Hence dual and
triple-degree program students study for a minimum of a year and a half abroad with
most of them doing it for two years.
Since June of 2005, I have been working as study abroad program director for the
College of Business Administration (CBA). The IB program is housed under the College

73
of Arts and Letters and it is a Bachelor of Arts degree. CBA has 6000+ students and
on the average only 11 students per year studied abroad. The first year of my tenure I
increased the number of students to 90, the second year to 159 and this third year to 197
students. However, on average 26 percent of these students study in programs which are
short in duration (summer programs), “island” programs and mostly conduct courses in
English. There is not a requirement to take any language or cultural course before the
study abroad experience. Students in the CBA can study abroad at many of these “island”
programs that are offered through program providers.
Therefore I have seen two different ways in which programs are being approached
by students and conceptualized and developed by administrators. My doctoral
dissertation questions have thus emerged as the result of these two disparate types of
experiences and approaches toward international education.
Research Design
Unit of Analysis
The main unit of analysis of this design was the study abroad programs that CSU
offers within all of its components. Students were analyzed by subgroups. First by the
length of program (i.e., short, semester long, and a year or more long programs) and by
the degree of cultural immersion at their host country (i.e., host language used, classes
taken with local students, outside classroom activities, etc.).

74
Sample
This was a qualitative designed based on different student groups disaggregated
by program length and degree of cultural immersion in the host country. In this study, I
did not use any control groups.
I work at California State University (CSU) as the director of study abroad programs
for the College of Business. As such, I had direct access to students who already have
studied abroad, the intended samplings for this study. First I contacted, via e-mail, 215
students who studied abroad through the various programs at CSU. Out of these 215
students, 94 were business students and the rest, 121, were students from other majors. I
received only 32 responses from students who wanted to participate in this study. Out of
these 32 responses only two students were not business majors. Therefore I decided to
concentrate my study on only business students.
The sampling strategy was a combination of both maximum variation sampling and
typical case sampling. The maximum variation sampling came from the wide variety of
study abroad programs that CSU offers. The typical case sampling came from the typical
students’ experiences who participate in these different types of study abroad programs.
The assumption was that students who have participated in the same type of programs
(i.e., short, semester and year-long or more programs) have an average or typical
experience. I found support for this assumption after I finished the interviews. However, I
did find among these students with a “typical” experience, within this maximum variation
programs sampling, a student who belonged to an outlier sampling. I was originally
planning to interview about 10 junior and seniors students from each of the three program

75
categories (i.e., short, semester and year-long or more programs) for a total of 30
undergraduate students. However, after I interviewed six students from each program
group, well-delineated themes and patterns emerged eliminating the need to interview
more students.
I followed the guidelines set by the Institutional Review Board in matter of
confidentiality and ethical issues. In addition, I also followed the ethical issues checklist
provided by Patton (2002). I explained, in a clear and brief way, the purpose of my
research. I have kept the promises that I made. I did not put my research subjects under
any risk. I have kept confidentiality in all data that I collect. I have concealed the names
and any other information that may identify the persons that I interviewed for this study. I
have stored data in places and forms in which I am the only one with access. I was clear
about data ownership. I disclosed and added, in the Information Sheet, that data obtained
during these interviews that are being used only for this dissertation. I kept boundaries
when I collected data and did not push to gather data if the interviewees felt
uncomfortable. Finally, I was guided by the Belmont Principles: respect for persons,
beneficence, and justice.
Data Collection Methods
I collected qualitative data in the form of semi-structured interviews. Interviews
lasted between 35 minutes to one hour and ten minutes. I tape recorded these interviews
to capture the complete statements made by the interviewees. I collected field notes that
reflect my impressions about the interviewee’s body language and expression. I do not
believe that the students that I interviewed for this research biased their responses

76
because I am part of the university administration. Before the interview, I told
students the importance for them to be honest with their responses. I reassured them that
there were not right or wrong answers. I also told them that the purpose of the interview
was not to make our program look good but to learn about their actual experiences,
regardless of the outcome.
Interview questions. Each of the interview questions that I asked students were related
to the research questions listed before (See Appendix C). The students’ questions were
intended to evaluate the impact of the different types of study abroad have on students’
attitudes, behaviors and skills. Student questions were developed based on the literature
review of transformational learning, global citizenship, cultural competency and the
mission and vision of CSU. One more question related to career goals was added after the
first few interviews (Patton, 2002).
Collecting and interpreting the data took place during late summer and fall of 2008. I
started setting interviews after my Institutional Review Board proposal was approved in
late June. I interviewed students who participated in study abroad programs during the
summer and fall of 2007 and 2008. Data interpretation was completed by the end of
2008.
Data Management. I always scheduled enough time after the interviews for data
clarification, elaboration, and evaluation. I also reflected on the quality of the information
that I received and wrote down my impressions about the settings and the interview such
as reactions of the interviewee to the questions and the rapport between me and the
interviewee. This helped me to assess how well I did with the questions and to evaluate

77
the need to change the flow of these questions or adjust the content of the questions
themselves.
In addition, I transcribed my interviews and field notes the same week that I collected
them. I collected my data during week days and transcribed them over the weekends.
This data transcription provided me with the opportunity to immerse in the data and
emergent insights (Patton, 2002). I transcribed whole interviews and became familiar
with all the material and all my field notes.
Data Analysis. Data collection and data analysis proceeded simultaneously, as stated
above. I always scheduled sufficient time after the interviews for data clarification,
elaboration, and evaluation and wrote down ideas and interpretations that emerged
following the interviews. I marked them down as “emergent, field-based insights to be
further reviewed later” (Patton, 2002, p. 384). However, I did not engage in too much
data analysis while I was still collecting data in order to avoid any premature conclusions
that would interfere with the nature of qualitative design (Patton, 2002).
Organizing the data. I started my data analysis by conducting an inventory of all the
data that I collected. I verified that all my field notes were completed. I made sure that I
have collected all the data that I needed for my study. I reviewed that all interview
transcripts were completed. I also made sure that my data was properly labeled for
manageable retrieval. In short, I got “a sense of the whole” (Patton, 2002, p. 440).
Once I have collected all my data, I engaged in data “reduction” and “interpretation”
in order to identify patterns, themes and/or categories by engaging in both inductive and
deductive analysis. My inductive analysis began with an emic analysis, this is an

78
inventory and definition of key terms, phrases and practices that are special to
students who study abroad. I then followed with an analyst-constructed typology and
made explicit and identified patterns that looked as if they did not exist and remained
unseen by the people that I studied (Patton, 2002). My deductive analysis was based on
the theory of transformational learning and the literature of global competency, global
citizenship and by the mission and vision of CSU.
Specifically, global citizenship, global competency and transformative learning
theory shaped the type of questions that I asked students in this study. As I interviewed
students I was looking for signs of critical awareness of how and why their
presuppositions or sociocultural reality have come to constrain the way they perceive,
understand and feel about their world. I also evaluated whether students had reformulated
these assumptions to permit a more inclusive, discriminating, permeable and integrative
perspective of the world. Finally, I also looked for signs of whether students were making
decisions or otherwise acting on these new understandings (Mezirow, 1991). Specifically,
students were evaluated by their degree of awareness, understanding, acceptance and
respect, appreciation and valuing and developing new attitudes, skills and behaviors in
reaction to those from other cultures (Deardorff, 2004). In operational terms, students’
interviews were evaluated for awareness, attitudes and skills/behavior based on the
Interview Protocol listed in Appendix C.
Awareness:
1) Critical awareness of how and why their presuppositions or sociocultural reality have
come to constrain the way they perceive, understand and feel about their world.

79
Specifically, as it relates to study abroad I assessed the Degree of awareness,
understanding, acceptance and respect, appreciation and valuing and developing new
attitudes:
• Awareness of what is going on in the world and understanding the examples of
globalization the students had witnessed and accepted cultural differences
• Awareness of where the student is from and how students’ culture differs from
others
• Types of reflection about experiences
o Ways in which students convey their travel description, such as: 1)
“travel” only experiences; 2) in the form of reportorial style; 3) a
collection of incremental events; 4) or adding to a comprehensive, deeper
understanding of the world
o Focus on the experiences and not the lessons learned
• Evidence of reinforcement about the differences in his/her culture and an
opinionated “rightness” about his/her own
• Evidence that the student has been greatly affected by the variety of experiences
s/he has had
The following six questions listed in the interview protocol in Appendix C evaluated
Awareness as described above:
1. How has your view of other cultures changed?
2. What is your view about the United States now?
3. How is that different than before?

80
4. What did you learn about yourself?
5. What were the most outstanding experiences that you had during study abroad?
6. What are the most pressing problems humans are facing?
Attitudes:
2) Whether students have reformulated these assumptions to permit a more inclusive,
discriminating, permeable and integrative perspective of the world. Specifically as it
pertains to study abroad:
• Evidence of developing a global view
• Evidence that experiences and projects are taken onto a wider understanding of
significance
• Willing to let experiences happen without a lot of moral or value judgment
• Frame of reference to the culture (e.g., positive or negative)
• Evidence of wonderment and fascination in the differences found in other
countries
• Level of interest (i.e., high or low) in cross-cultural topics and experiences
• Levels of intolerance (i.e. high or low) for cultural diverse perspectives and
practice
• Evidence of bias
• Evidence in change in attitude in a negative direction
• Negative or stereotypical opinions about host country
The following six questions listed in the interview protocol in Appendix C evaluated
Attitudes as described above:

81
1. What is it that you learned about your host country?
2. What else have you learned from your study abroad program?
3. In which types of activities did you participate that put you in direct contact with
the local people at your host country (i.e. community service, research project,
etc.)?
Skills/Behavior
3) If they are making decisions or otherwise acting on these new understandings.
Specifically as they relate to skills and behaviors in reaction to those from other cultures:
• Use of adjectives that denote non acceptance of differences in the culture
• Types of descriptors used for cultural customs that denote understanding or not
• Evidence of change in values, attitudes, knowledge or skills
The following six questions listed in the interview protocol in Appendix C evaluated
Skills/Behavior as described above:
1. Tell me about a time that you encountered a conflict while abroad?
How did you resolve it?
What was the outcome?
What lessons did you learn from this experience?
2. How has your study abroad program altered your levels of participation in local,
national or international politics?
Adapted from the ACE/FIPSE Rubrics (2007)
I developed a coding scheme to bring order to my data analysis. I read my data
first and gave them names to create an index copy. During the second reading I provided

82
coding in a systematic way. I then conducted a logic analysis of emerging patterns
and represented them as dimensions, themes, categories which I then analyzed back and
forth between actual data and logical construction in search for meaningful patterns.
Finally, I created cross-classification matrices to exercise my logic. I did not use
qualitative analysis software to manage my data.
Validity of Interpretation
The validity of this study was achieved by triangulation. Triangulation was obtained
by the following. I interviewed students who have participated in different types of study
abroad programs. I used different methods of analysis in the form of interviews,
document analysis from web sites’ mission and visions as stated by CSU’s different
departments and programs. Finally, I used both deductive and inductive methods on data
analysis. Deductive analysis was guided by the theory of transformational learning and
by CSU’s objectives and mission. Inductive analysis was used to identify new themes and
patterns that emerge during this study.
Final Products. The final report is a case study. The case analysis is organized around
the different types of study abroad programs (i.e., short, semester and year or more-long
programs) in which students participated. The purpose is to report variations in common
questions and patterns of major program experiences within each given study abroad
category.

83
Chapter 4: Findings
Overview
This chapter presents research results designed to explore the ways in which study
abroad programs at California State University (CSU) create educational opportunities to
fulfill its mission and vision to graduate globally competent students and promote
transformational learning and global citizenship. The following research question shaped
this study:
In which ways do the short, semester and year-long or more study abroad
programs that CSU offer promote transformational learning, global citizenship and
fulfills its mission and vision to graduate globally competent students?
Both the mission and vision of CSU and Mezirow’s (1991) transformative
learning theory or perspective transformation shaped the conceptual framework of this
study. Specifically, transformative learning is:
The process of becoming critically aware of how and why our presuppositions
have come to constrain the way we perceive, understand and feel about our world;
of reformulating these assumptions to permit a more inclusive, discriminating,
permeable and integrative perspective; and of making decisions or otherwise
acting on these new understandings (Mezirow 1991, p. 14).

This study also evaluated students’ intercultural competency. Intercultural
competency encompasses their degree of awareness, understanding, acceptance, respect,
appreciation, valuing and development of new attitudes, skills and behaviors in reaction
to those from other cultures (Deardorff, 2004). The study also evaluates students’ sense
of global citizenship, i.e., their degree of self-reflection, self-awareness, compassion and
their realization of injustice and suffering in the world.

84
In addition, the Levels of Classification for Study Abroad Programs
presented below will provide guidance in the reporting of the findings in Chapter 5. It
will also help when I analyze, in Chapter 5, the type of program components, and
program levels, that are more likely to promote intercultural competency,
transformational learning and/or global citizenship. As stated in Chapter 2, in the
literature reviewed, there are certain program components (i.e. program length, home
stays, guided reflection on the experiences, etc.) that are more likely to promote certain
results in students who participated in these different types of programs.
Description of Sample
For this study I conducted eighteen semi-structure interviews to address the
research question stated above.
During the summer and fall of 2008, I contacted, via e-mail, 215 junior and senior
business students who studied abroad between the fall of 2006 and spring of 2008. I sent
both the invitation letter and the Information Sheet approved by the institutional review
board (See Appendix A and B). Thirty-two students answered my e-mail and expressed
their willingness to take part in this study (six students from both short and year-long
programs, and 20 of semester-long programs). I interviewed eighteen students (see Table
1): six from short-term programs (less than one semester); six from mid-term programs
(one semester); and six from long-term programs (two semesters or more).
Organization of the Analysis

Interview results were concurrently analyzed and organized in four ways: (1)
around program length (i.e., short, mid and long-term); (2) around Engle and Engle’

85
(2003) seven program components and five levels of classification as described
below; (3) around thematic responses that emerged in this study; and (4) around the
extent to which these program components promote transformational learning, cultural
competency and global citizenship.
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of sample population (N=18)
Characteristics N % of N
Age
21-25 16 83.33
26-29 1 11.11
47 1 5.55
Class Standing
Senior 13 72.22
Junior 5 27.78
Majors (all students are business students)
Accounting 1 5.55
Finance 5 27.48
International Business 2 11.11
Information Systems 1 5.55
Management 5 27.48
Marketing 4 22.22
Race
African-Filipino-American (one male) 1 5.55
Filipino-American (two males, two females) 4 22.22
Mexican-American (two females, one male) 3 16.17
Somalia-American (one male) 1 5.55
Vietnamese-American (one female) 1 5.55
White (five females, three males) 8 44.44
Gender
Female 8 44.44
Male 10 55.55
TOTAL STUDENTS 18 100

86
Levels of Classification for Study Abroad Programs

Before I report the findings, it is worth revisiting Engle and Engle’s (2003)
proposed hierarchical classification of program types, as described in Chapter 2. This
level of classification is relevant for this study since, as per the literature reviewed, there
are certain program components and program levels more likely to promote intercultural
competency, transformative learning and/or global citizenship. Therefore, in this study,
the Engle and Engle’s levels of classification will be used to assess the type of outcomes
based on their proposed level of classification. Engle and Engle classification organizes
study abroad opportunities into seven program components and five program levels. This
classification system offers an integrated understanding of study abroad programs. The
program components progress from: Short to long-term programs. Programs complete
mostly in English to programs in which students take courses with local students in the
local language. Programs done with organized tours with other American students, with
minimum contact with the local culture to programs with total cultural immersion for a
minimum of one semester. Programs that require minimum preparation and orientation to
the pre-sojourn and with no self- reflection before, during or after the sojourn to pre-
sojourn preparation in the history, politics and economics of the visited culture with
active reflection before, during and after the sojourn. Program Components: 1) program
duration; 2) entry language competence of participants; 3) extent to which target
language is used in coursework on site; 4) context of academic work; 5) type of housing
arrangements; 6) provisions for guided cultural/experiential learning; 7) and structured
opportunities for students to reflect on their cultural experiences. In addition to five

87
Program Levels: Level One: Study Tour, Level Two: Short-Term Study, Level
Three: Cross-Cultural Contact Program, Level Four: Cross-Cultural Encounter Program,
Level Five: Cross-Cultural Immersion Program (Engle & Engle, 2003, p. 8). For a visual
synthesis of study abroad levels see Figure 2.
Figure 2: Study Abroad Levels
Program
Components
Level One:
Study Tour
Level Two:
Short-Term
Study
Level Three:
Cross-
Cultural
Contact
Program
Level Four:
Cross-
Cultural
Encounter
Program
Level Five:
Cross-
Cultural
Immersion
Program
Duration Several days
to a few
weeks
3 to 8
weeks,
summer
programs
Semester Semester to
academic
year
Semester to
academic
year
Entry
target-
language
competency
Elementary
to
intermediate
Elementary
to
intermediate
Elementary
to
intermediate
Pre-
advanced to
advanced
Advanced
Language
Used in
course work
English English and
target-
language
English and
target-
language
Predominate
ly target-
language
Target-
language in
all
curricular
and
extracurricu
lar activities
Academic
work
context
Home
institution
faculty
In-house or
institute for
foreign
students
Student
group or
with other
international
students
In house
student
group

Local
norms,
partial or
complete
direct
enrollment
Housing Collective Collective
or home
stay
Collective,
home stay
visit, home
stay rental
Home stay
rental or
integration
home stay
Individual
integration
home stay

88
Figure 2, Continued, Study Abroad Levels
Source: Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2003). Study abroad levels: Toward a classification of
program types. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 9, 1-20.
Program
Components
Level One:
Study Tour
Level Two:
Short-Term
Study
Level Three:
Cross-
Cultural
Contact
Program
Level Four:
Cross-
Cultural
Encounter
Program
Level Five:
Cross-
Cultural
Immersion
Program
Provision
for cultural
interaction,
experiential
learning
None None None or
limited
Optional
participation
in
occasional
integration
activities
Required
regular
participation
in cultural
integration
program,
extensive
direct
cultural
program via
service
learning,
work
internship
Guided
reflection on
cultural
experience
None Orientation
Program
Orientation
program
Orientation
program,
initial and
ongoing
Orientation
program,
mentoring,
on-going
orientation
or course in
cross-
cultural
perspective,
reflective
writing and
research

Again, this level of classification will provide guidance when I analyze the type of
program components, and program levels, that are more likely to promote intercultural
competency, transformative learning and/or global citizenship.

89
Short-Term Programs

For the short-term programs (three to eight weeks), I interviewed six students
with the following characteristics. I will use pseudo names for these students to conceal
their identity. (1) Jody, who participated in the Costa Rica Program. She is a 21 year old
junior, white female, Management major, who studied abroad during the summer of
2007. (2) Daniel who participated in the Germany Program. He is a 21 year old senior,
Vietnamese-American male, Management major, who studied abroad during the summer
of 2008. (3) Brady who participated in the Italy Program. He is a 21 year old senior,
white male, Finance major, who studied abroad during the summer of 2008. (4) America,
who participated in the Italy Program. She is a 22 year old senior, Mexican-American
female, Management major, who studied abroad during the summer of 2006. (5) Erica,
who participated in the South Africa Program. She is a 22 year old senior, white female,
Marketing major, who studied abroad during the summer of 2006. (6) Errol who
participated in the United Kingdom Program. He is a 22 year old senior, Pilipino-
American male, Marketing major, who studied abroad during the summer of 2007.
Before I present the interview findings from these six students, I want to point out
what these students share in common. No one had studied abroad before. All of them
took courses with students from their home university, except for Erica who studied in
South Africa. No one had any strong cultural preparation before going abroad other than
some reading that they did on their own. All students, except for Daniel in the Germany
program, took part in programs led by their home campus faculty. Four of them did not
speak the language of their host county, except for Jody who studied in Costa Rica and

90
Errol in the UK program. Everyone took courses in English, except for Jody who
took a Spanish course in Costa Rica. Finally, five out of the six students participated in
programs where English was not the language of the local culture, with the exception, of
course, Errol in the UK program.
Again, the level of classification presented below will provide guidance in the
reporting of the findings. It will also help when I analyze, in Chapter 5, the type of
program components, and program levels, that are more likely to promote intercultural
competency, transformational learning and/or global citizenship. As stated in Chapter 2,
in the literature reviewed, there are certain program components (i.e. program length,
home stays, guided reflection on the experiences, etc.) that are more likely to promote
certain results in students who participated in these different types of programs.
It is worth noting that not all programs fall within only one program level (i.e.
Level One: study Tour or Level Five: Cross-Cultural Immersion). The reason is that all
study abroad programs here analyzed have different program features. These features fall
under different program levels. For example, the Costa Rica program falls under three
program levels. It is placed at Level One: Study Tour, in two program components. First,
this is a faculty lead program from students’ home campus. Also the program does not
provide guided reflection on the cultural experience. It is also at Level Two: Short-Term
Study, in two program components. This is a four week program and courses are taken in
both English and Spanish. It is at Level Four: Cross-Cultural Encounter, in two program
components. It has a home stays with local families and provides occasional integration
activities with the host family and the locals.

91
The Germany program falls under three levels of classification. It falls in
Level One: Study Tour, in two program components. Courses in this program are
conducted in English and the program does not provide guided reflection on the cultural
experience. It is also in Level Two: Short-Term, in two program components. This is a
three-week program. And it provides collective housing with students from the home
campus and other international students. It is also at Level Four: Cross-Cultural
Encounter Program, in three program components. The course is given by several
German professors. Students take the course with some German students and with other
International students. Finally, students take the course with German students and they
are paired from the beginning with these students on a “buddy” program. In addition to
the classes, German students have social contact with students and invite their own
German friends to participate in these social programs
The Italy program falls under two levels of classification. America and Brady
participated in this program. The two levels are the following. Level One: Study Tour, in
two program components. Courses in this program are conducted in English and it does
not provide guided reflection on the cultural experience. It is also at Level Two: Short-
Term, in three program components. All faculty in this program were international
professors. This is an eight week program. It provides collective housing with students
from the home campus and other USA students. It has no provision for cultural
interaction with local people.
The South Africa Program has features that fall under three levels of
classification. It is at Level One: Study Tour, in four program components. This is a two

92
week program. The classes are conducted in English. This is a faculty led program
from students’ home campus. It provides collective housing with students from the home
campus. It is also at Level Four: Cross-Cultural Encounter, in two components. Students
in this program attended lectures and discussions concerning South African history and
culture before travel. This program also provides guided reflection on the cultural
experience. Students in this program attended lectures and discussions concerning South
African history, culture before travel. In addition, students chronicle their experience
through journals and similar writing. Upon return, students make at minimum of one
approved individual presentation to a campus or community group about the trip, South
Africa and/or AIDS. This program is also at Level Five: Cross-Cultural Immersion, in
one program component. This is a service learning program that requires extensive
cultural interaction with the locals
The United Kingdom (UK) program falls under three levels of classification. It is
at Level One: Study Tour, in two program components. This is a faculty led program
from students’ home campus. This program does not provide guided reflection on the
cultural experience. It is also at Level Two: Short-Term, in four program components.
This is an eight-week-long program. Students in this program also take a second class
with a lecturer from the host country university. It provides collective housing with
students from the home campus. It does not have any provision for cultural interaction
with the locals. Finally, this program is also at Level Five: Cross-Cultural Immersion, in
two program components. This program is located in the United Kingdom. Therefore,

93
students speak the host country language. Students in this program obviously speak
the host country language.
In short, not all short-term programs analyzed in this study are equal. The
relevance of this fact, as it relates to this study, is that some of these programs have more
program components at a higher level regarding cultural contact and/or cultural
immersion. This in turn has, as per the literature reviewed, more potential to promote
cross-cultural competency, transformative learning and/or global citizenship. For this
reason, this program classification will guide the program findings in this chapter. For a
visual synthesis of where these six short-term programs fall within the Engle and Engle’s
(2003) proposed model for levels of classification of study abroad programs see Figure 3.
The name of countries where the programs took place is placed inside the box, in italics,
where the programs are classified.
Figure 3: Synthesis of Levels for the Short-term Programs
Program
Components
Level One:
Study Tour
Level Two:
Short-Term
Study
Level Three:
Cross-
Cultural
Contact
Program
Level
Four:
Cross-
Cultural
Encounter
Program
Level Five:
Cross-
Cultural
Immersion
Program
Duration Several days
to a few
weeks
South Africa
3 to 8
weeks,
summer
programs
Costa Rica
Germany
UK
Semester Semester
to
academic
year
Semester to
academic year
Entry
target-
language
competency
Elementary
to
intermediate
Elementary
to
intermediate
Costa Rica
Germany
Italy
Elementary
to
intermediate
Pre-
advanced
to
advanced
Advanced
UK

94
Figure 3, Continued Synthesis of Levels for the Short-term Program
Program
Components
Level One:
Study Tour
Level Two:
Short-Term
Study
Level
Three:
Cross-
Cultural
Contact
Program
Level
Four:
Cross-
Cultural
Encounter
Program
Level Five:
Cross-Cultural
Immersion
Program
Language
Used in
course work
English
Italy
South Africa
English and
target-
language
Costa Rica
Germany

English
and target-
language
Predomina
tely
target-
language
Target-language
in all curricular
and
extracurricular
activities
UK
Academic
work
context
Home
institution
faculty
Costa Rica
South Africa
In-house or
institute for
foreign
students
Italy
UK
Student
group or
with other
internation
al students

In house
student
group

Germany

Local norms,
partial or
complete direct
enrollment
Housing Collective
South Africa
Collective
or home
stay
Germany
Italy
UK
Collective
home stay
visit,
home stay
rental
Home stay
rental or
integration
home stay
Costa
Rica
Individual
integration
home stay

Provision
for cultural
interaction
experiential
learning
None

None
UK
None or
limited
Optional
participati
on in
occasional
integration
activities
Costa
Rica
Germany

Required
regular
participation in
cultural
integration
program,
extensive direct
cultural
program
South Africa
Guided
reflection on
cultural
experience
None
Costa Rica
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
UK
Orientation
Program
Orientatio
n program

Orientatio
n
program,
initial and
ongoing
South
Africa
Orientation
program,
mentoring, on-
going
orientation or
course in cross-
cultural
perspective

95

Findings for Short-Term Programs
Common Emerged Themes
There were six common themes that emerged among the experiences of students
who studied abroad in the short-term programs. The themes will be presented in order of
their magnitude. That is, to the degree and extent that impacted or affected the majority
of students.
Barriers for cultural interaction with locals: The first and most significant theme
that emerged was the barriers that all students faced to have cross-cultural contact,
encounters and immersion with the locals. Students who studied abroad in short-term
programs had several barriers which precluded them from interacting with locals and
integrating into the culture. Not all students in the short-term program had the same, or
all, barriers. The barriers are listed below in order of magnitude, from the most the least
important:
1. The short duration of the program was the barrier that had the most impact on all
students. The short duration of the program precluded all students for having
cultural immersion with the locals. All students experienced this barrier.
2. Lack of provision for cultural interaction with the locals. This barrier precluded
students for having cross-cultural contacts and encounters with the locals. This
barrier impacted three students.

96
3. Taking courses with home institution students. This barrier precluded
students from having cross-cultural contact and encounters with the locals. This
barrier impacted three students.
4. The lack of entry target-language competency. This barrier precluded students
from having cross-cultural contact and encounters with the locals. Three students
encountered this barrier.
Even though the short duration of the program is the barrier that had the most impact
on the cultural immersion with the locals for all students, I will address this barrier at the
end. I will address first barriers two thru four. This analysis will provide a background
and a context for the short duration of the program barrier.
The second most significant barrier that three students encountered was the lack
of provision for cultural interaction with locals. America and Brady in the Italy program
and Errol in the UK programs experienced this barrier. In addition, barriers three and
four, taking courses with home institution students and a lack of entry target-language
competency played a significant role in accentuating barrier number two.
America, Brady and Errol in the Italy and the UK programs where in programs
that had only other American students mostly from their home campus. Students in these
programs live with other American students, also from their home campus. Because of
the structure of the program, America, Brady and Errol spent most of their time with
other American students. They traveled, took courses and socialize mostly with other
American students. Most students who participate in these programs traveled every
weekend. Brady told me about his travels:

97
Every weekend we packed our bags and went somewhere new. We traveled
to Venice; we traveled to Rome, to Paris, Barcelona. It was so amazing. It was
fun, a different hotel every weekend or a different hostel.

Because these students traveled all the time with other American students and
took classes also with other American students, they did not have the opportunity to
establish relationships with the locals. In addition, neither one of these two programs had
any provisions to have cultural interaction with the locals. For example, when I asked
Brady if his main friendships were with other American students, he replied:
For the most part, yes, most of my relationships were with other Americans. I did
not make foreign friendships or meet foreign people out there, just some random
people here and there, nothing really long-term.

America, Brady and Errol told me that they had minimum contact with the locals.
Not so much because they did not want to interact with them but because they told me
that it was difficult to approach the locals. For Brady, language was one of the main
barriers that precluded him for more interaction with the locals. For example, I asked him
if he would have liked to have had more interaction with the locals, he replied:
It would have been nice. But we did as much as we could by just speaking
English. We went to shops and stores and individual establishments. That was
pretty much the majority of the interaction that we had with the locals. Language
was the main barrier, no so much the culture. Like I said before, having known
the language would have made a difference. We would have been able to talk to
people in the street or wherever you wanted to talk to someone.

But language was not the only barrier that precluded these students from
establishing contacts with the locals. America in Italy spoke Spanish fluently so she was
able to understand Italian. Errol in the UK program spoke the local language as well.
What precluded these two students from establishing cross-cultural contacts and
encounters with the locals was the lack of provision from their programs to have cultural

98
interaction with the locals. The other reason was the structure of their programs.
They were, most of the time, socializing, traveling and taking courses with fellow
students from their home institution. For that reason, it was hard for them to break this
cycle and mingle with locals, they told me.
The other three students, Jody, Daniel and Erica in the programs in Costa Rica,
Germany and South Africa did have provisions in their programs for cultural interaction
with the locals. Even though Jody in Costa Rica program took courses with other
American students and with a faculty from her host institution, her program had other
components which allowed her to connect with the locals. She went to Costa Rica to take
Spanish courses and to learn about the history of this country. She had taken some
Spanish courses and some Latin American courses before she arrived there. For these
reasons, Jody was able to interact with the locals. The professor, who taught the Latin
American history course in Costa Rica, was a faculty from Jody’s home campus.
However, this professor was a native Costa Rican who knew the country and the culture.
He also often had local guess speakers who provided insight into the local economy and
political policies of this country. Finally, Jody lived with a host family and spoke only
Spanish with them.
In Costa Rica I had a lot of contact with the locals. I lived with a family and I met
their extended family. They would take me to some of their friend's houses. I had
a lot of time to explore and had time to meet the locals. When I was there, I went
out with my host brother and we did amazing things because I was willing to step
out of my comfort zone. You get out of it (the study abroad experience) what your
put into it. You have to be the one who makes the effort to open up and approach
the locals and make the effort of meeting people and make connections.

99
Daniel in Germany also had provisions in his program that allowed him to
interact with the locals. This student took a course that several local professors taught. It
was an intensive three-week course. Students met eight hours per day for class, five days
a week. Part of the program included intensive German. Besides having seven other
students from his home campus, the class included German students and students from
other countries. These are the comments from this student about his classmates:
It was definitely great to see all the different countries represented. Meeting the
different people was just amazing. The good thing about this program is that there
were people from South Korea, Canada, Idaho, and China. We still e-mail each
other now. The people from China are like, “you should come over here and
watch the Olympics” and things like that. It was so funny. It was just amazing to
meet those types of people. It was interesting meeting some of these people there.

The university also provided activities that promoted intercultural interaction with
German students and, as an extension, with the friends of these students and other locals.
These are the comments from Daniel about the activities that took place in this program:
For our first activity, they took us on a scavenger hunt. That was a way that all
German students got to meet the study abroad students. From there we exchanged
e-mails, and cell phone numbers. From there, they called us to go out at night
after our classes. They brought in their friends and we met.

The friendships that Daniel established with the German students during his three-
week program have been extended. These German students are now (fall 2008) on this
student’s home campus in the United States. They now meet one another regularly. These
meetings in Germany, with these particular students, were a conscious design of the
German program. It was intended as a win-win situation. The logic was to establish
contact between the three-week program students from all over the world with German
students. These German students had already applied to take part in an exchange program

100
with the visiting students’ home institution during the following fall. As a result,
German students would host foreign students while they were in Germany and German
students would be hosted in turn when they visited their new friends abroad.
The students that we met in Germany are studying now over in the US. When we
were there they showed us the whole city, and now they are over here, we are
taking them around and showing them our city. They came over and I felt like I
was back in Germany again. It was so cool. They want us to go back to Germany
and they want to travel with us. I want to go back so bad that I want to use this as
my graduation gift from everybody.

Again, the structure of the program forced visiting students to establish
relationships not only with the locals but with other international students. This was,
despite the initial level of stress and awkwardness, the structure of the program provided
for the students who took part of this program. As presented in the previous section,
America, Brady and Errol in the Italy and the UK programs had a hard time establishing
cross-cultural contacts and encounters with the locals. Daniel did not have a problem
establishing cross-cultural encounters because of the structure of the program. Daniel felt
anxious and awkward at the beginning. But after the initial reaction, he wanted to extend
the program. These are his comments:
The people who participated in the study abroad program were initially
segregated into groups, such as American, Chinese, etc… At first it maybe
awkward, weird and different; I felt like I was a freshman again in college…. But
after that, nobody wanted to go home. People were crying when we were saying
goodbyes... Everybody loved the program so much and everybody wanted to stay
longer.

Finally, when I asked Daniel if he cared to add anything else about his study
abroad program, he replied:

101
That was the best six weeks of my entire life (he traveled few weeks before
and after the program). I would do it again in a heart beat. Everybody should do
it, but do it for a longer time.

The South Africa program is a service learning program. Because of this
structure, it allows students to have a cross-cultural encounter with the locals. In addition,
this is the only program, out of the six evaluated, that provided guided reflection on the
cultural experience. This was a two-week program. However, it had a strong pre-
departure preparation component. Students in this program had courses that met a couple
of times a month. They had lessons about the history of Apartheid. The program also
prepared students for what the situation was going to be like in Africa. When I asked
Erica about the activities she took part in that put her in direct contact with the locals, she
replied:
We went to Cape Town and Johannesburg. We visited some of the small school
children in various townships. We also visited with aid workers from the Peace
Corps. We got to talk to the students but it was such a short period of time that we
really did not bond much. But I now know more people in Johannesburg who I
still e-mail. She was going to this business program that they have set up. That is
when I met this girl who was part of this program. I still keep in touch with her.
We went to this refuge house where people who were affected by a variety of
situations can go. The CSU program helped build some of the things that they
have in this area. We just helped them prepare for their graduation ceremonies for
all of the students. We ironed graduation gowns. That was a really powerful
experience.

But even Jody, Daniel and Erica who had provisions for cross-cultural contact and
encounters in their programs did not achieve cultural immersion due to the short duration
of the program barrier. The most significant barrier that four out of the six students cited
that preclude them from more meaningful interaction with the locals was the short
duration of their programs.

102
The reasons these six students chose to study in a short-term program in the
first place were varied. The only exceptions were Erica and Daniel in the Africa and
Germany programs. They both shared the same reason: both were afraid of a longer-term
program. Daniel told me that he was “completely terrified” to study abroad for the whole
semester. Erica told me that she chose her two-week program because she was “very
scared” to do a long-term program because she had never done anything international
before. Hence Erica and Daniel shared the same reason for choosing a short-term
program. The other four students had different reasons for doing so. America in Italy had
job constraints that precluded her for studying abroad in a long-term program. Jody in
Costa Rica did so because she studied before with the professor who offered this short-
term program. Brady in Italy wanted originally to study abroad in France for one
semester but he missed the application deadline for this program. Therefore, his only
option, at that time, was to participate in a short-term program. Finally, Errol in the UK
did so because of the reputation of the program and the positive associations that he had
with Oxford University. Oxford is offered only as a short-term program.
Four of the six students believe that studying abroad for such a short period of
time was not enough. These four students were Erica in Sough Africa, Jody in Costa
Rica, Daniel in German and America in Italy. All four believed that their short-term
programs provided only a superficial exposure to the culture and only increased their
desire to discover new cultures and ways of being. These were the comments from Erica,
America and Daniel respectively:
Because I loved the South Africa program so much, I could not believe that I was
only going to spent two weeks out of the country. I needed to do something else.

103
Two weeks were not enough. It (the South Africa program) was good
because I was so scared at first because I never had been in anything international
and I had no idea what to expect. But I was so excited to do another program.

It was Florence that made me want to study abroad again. It made me realize that
it was so much more than the way the university is back at home; different ways
of viewing life. That is the reason that I decided that I needed to do more study
abroad. My major is management. I wanted to know how people were. I was, OK,
if I am going to be a manager sometime in the future, this is what I would need to
do with certain types of personalities.

Honestly, I was terrified to go for a whole semester. But now, after going for three
weeks, I wish I could stay the whole semester. But I was completely terrified to
go for the whole semester. Now I have the guts to go for a whole semester. But
unfortunately I don't have the room in my schedule to do that. Three weeks was
definitely not enough at all.

Erica, Jody and America had already completed additional study abroad
programs. Erica in South Africa completed another short-term program in Cypress the
following summer and a semester long program in Spain. Jody in Costa Rica has
completed another short-term program in Cypress and is planning to study in Spain for
one semester during spring of 2009. America in Italy has completed a short-term program
in the Netherlands and a semester long program in Korea. She is also planning to study
for another semester in Thailand. Daniel in Germany will not do another study abroad
program, despite his desire to do so, because he wants to graduate “on time.” The other
two students, Errol in the UK and the Brady in Italy did not express a desire to complete
any additional programs.
In short, the following four program components, as per Engle and Engle (2003)
levels of classification, preclude these students from achieving cross-cultural contacts,
encounters and immersion with locals. The short duration of the program was the barrier
that had the most impact on all students. The lack of provision for cultural interaction

104
with the locals was the second most significant barrier for three of these students.
Taking courses with home institution students negatively impacted three students.
Finally, the lack of an entry target-language competency barrier affected three students.
Impact on Career Plans: The second most important theme that emerged among
students who participated in the short-term study abroad program was the impact that
their study abroad had on the career decisions for all six students. None of these students
changed the focus of their career plans. However, they did change the scope and the place
where they want to work. All students retained the main focus of their studies, such as
human resources, finance, music industry, etc. However, all six students now want to
work overseas. For example, Jody in the Costa Rica program is still planning to focus on
human resources but she would like to do it abroad, ideally, in a not-for-profit
organization. But before that she would like to participate in either the Peace Corps, the
Fulbright program or to teach English in another country. She is looking into all these
three possibilities. These are her reflections:
I definitely have had an increase urge to work in the international field and to do
something maybe with international business or even I have been looking into
volunteering abroad, maybe doing some community service. I have not done any
international community based service. I really would like to do something. I read
a lot about conservation and ecotourism while I was in Costa Rica. I have been
really interested in working in human resources for some non profit organization
that deals with conservation efforts. I definitely want to do more to help.
Definitely this is a direct result of my study abroad program.

The other five students have not changed the focus of their future careers either
but have changed the scope and the place where they want to work. Daniel in Germany
told me that he would love to get a job that would allow him to travel. He always wanted
to work in the music industry for a record label. However, record labels are usually based

105
in the US, he added. So now he would like to get in a position to manage a band and
travel around. His desire to travel, he told me, was the result of his study abroad
experience.
A similar thing happened to Brady in Italy. He stated that before he studied
abroad his plans were to work in the corporate world or work in finance at home. Now he
is looking for opportunities abroad. Brady wants to live abroad.
Even though America is scheduled to graduate at the end of spring 2009, she has
no career plans. The only thing that she is sure of is that she wants to see other countries;
maybe even teach English abroad, ideally in Portugal, Thailand, Malaysia or Africa.
For Erica her career plans have changed more dramatically as the result of her
study abroad experience. She applied to participate in the Fulbright program in Peru and
she told me:
Studying abroad has changed my vision for what I want for a career. I really want
an international component to be part of it. I know that, even if the job that I find
does not involve a service aspect or if it does not give back to people of the
international communities, I still want part of my life to have a service component
or a volunteer component.

A similar situation happened to Errol in the UK. Even though the focus of the
career plan of this student did not change, the location did. Errol studied marketing with
a specialization in integrated marketing communication. He graduated in May 2008. He
works full-time for a sports marketing company; a small company by his own account,
which serves 800 sports marketing executives. Errol told me that he is not currently
looking for another job right now even though this job does not have an international

106
dimension. However, he told me, his plans for his future career goals are
international in scope.
Studying abroad has made my career plans expand dramatically. I think that a lot
of people don't understand that there is such more of the world. They don’t
understand how they can go to different countries and work there. My knowledge
of where I want to work has expanded to Europe, the United States and
Canada…Studying abroad has expanded my career goals.

In short, even though the focus of the career plans for the students in these short-
term programs did not change, the scope and locations did. All six students are planning
to work in their originally intended areas, such as finance, human resources etc. but they
all would like to do so internationally.
Developed Self-Confidence and Independence: The third most important theme that
emerged among all six students who participated in the short-term study abroad programs
was the development of self-confidence and independence. That is, they developed a
sense of confidence in their ability to be independent, to not be afraid of trying new
things and to adapt to new challenges. They feel more comfortable traveling to other
countries and to interact with the local people. They are more patient towards foreigners.
And finally, they are not afraid to be the first ones to establish a conversation. One of the
students who developed a greater sense of confidence was Daniel in the Germany
program. He was “terrified” to study abroad at first for one semester so he chose a short-
term program for that reason. However, Daniel told me that now, after his study abroad
experience, he has the “guts” to study abroad for a whole semester and he wants to go
back to Germany, not only to visit, but to live there. Brady in Italy also learned to not be
afraid to try something new, to meet new people and to go out on his own and he added:

107
I always thought that I wanted to do things by myself. By going abroad I
proved to myself that I am capable of living on my own somewhere. I love it that
I was able to adapt to different cultures and try to fit in.

Jody in Costa Rica told me that she gained a sense of independence because she had
the opportunity to handle some of her travel arrangements. She also stated that studying
abroad has given her the confidence to be independent. Jody now has more confidence in
herself and her abilities to be able to live on her own. America in Italy developed a great
sense of confidence as well. So much so that she went to China by herself without
knowing any Chinese. Errol in the UK told me that, as the result of his study abroad
experience, he now is not afraid to start a conversation or try to find a connection with
people he had never met before. Finally, Erica in South Africa told me:
I learn that I am capable of doing and managing things and situations that I would
never imagine before. When you go abroad you encounter so many challenges
that you would never imagine encountering in your own home. Just having gone
through all that, and make it through, made me stronger.

To conclude, all students abroad in these short-term programs developed a sense
of confidence in their ability to be independent, to not be afraid of trying new things and
to adapt to new challenges.
Political Participation: four out of these six students who participated in the
short-term programs have not increased their level of political participation. This refers to
voting, protesting, lobbying, trying to persuade others to vote, joining a political party,
standing as a candidate in an election, joining a non-governmental advocacy group, or
participating in a demonstration. This was the fourth most important theme found in the
short term programs. However, studying abroad has made four of these students more
aware of political issues at home and abroad. This awareness ranges from wanting to help

108
recent immigrants to the United States to reading more about politics. The only two
students who have changed their political participation are Jody and Erica in the Costa
Rica and South Africa programs. Erica applied to participate in the Fulbright program.
She also has been more active politically since she returned from her study abroad
experience:
I definitely would not have applied for Fulbright if I had not studied abroad. That
is something that I cannot even fathom before. I also joined this group that I found
out about called "New Friends in America." It is essentially a group that is
interested in doing work with refugees from Sudan who have come over to the
United States. I have helped in whatever capacity that I can. Being aware that
those things are going on in the community it is so important to me and it has
changed my vision for what I want for a career.

Jody is more involved politically now and has more appreciation for international
politics. She told me that she understands that she has the power to help people in
unfortunate circumstances. This student is looking into the Fulbright program or the
Peace Corps and she added:
I don't know for sure what it is that I am going to do, but I have been looking into
these options. Definitely this is a direct result of my study abroad program. I
thought about it before, but when I came back, I knew that it was something that
not only I wanted to do but I could do. I have the confidence to say, OK, I can do
that now. It is a big commitment to go somewhere for a year or two years. I have
been talking to a former participant in the Peace Corps and to the coordinator of
the Peace Corps on campus.

Again, the other four students have not changed their level of political
participation but they told me that they are more aware of local and international political
issues. Brady in Italy told me that he is now more interested in learning about political
issues at home and abroad. America in Italy told me that she now reads more about
political issues in different countries because she has been in those countries. But she still

109
does not want to get involved in politics. However, she is now more involved with
the International Student Center at her home institution and is volunteering to help
foreign students. Daniel in Germany told me that his study abroad program has changed
his awareness to sensitive issues like health care.
The Germans don't have free health care, but it is included because they paid
more taxes, so it is nice for them. The Germans were appalled that we had to pay
money to see a doctor even if we have insurance. If they are sick and need to see a
doctor, they don't have to pay anything. I still don't know how I feel about
universal health care. Here you hear “free health care is terrible; it is socialism.
Everybody has to pay way high taxes and wait long hours, in long lines, to see a
doctor.” But I asked, while I was there, how long does it take to see a doctor?
They told me only ten minutes. Just like here. Sometimes it takes me longer to see
a doctor over here and it costs me $40 dollars with insurance. But then again, they
can pay up to 51% tax. I don't know. It just made me aware of things. I definitely
will not debate anybody but it made me more aware.

The same thing has happened with Errol in the UK program. He told me that he is
now more in tune not only with United States politics but other countries’ politics as well.
Study abroad has also helped him to be more critical about the interrelation of the world
of politics and economics and he added:
I try to go that extra mile before I make connections, not only in politics but
economically. If we are struggling, how does that affect other countries? Once I
came back things changed because I was so aware of things. They are so many
differences but also similarities about our countries as far as government lie.

To conclude, study abroad changed the political participation in only two of the
six students in the short-term programs. Four of them did not change their levels of
political participation but they told me that their study abroad programs did make them
more aware of local and international political issues.
Commitment to a second language: The final most relevant theme found among
the short-term students was that only two of the six were committed to learn a second

110
language after their abroad experiences. Jody and Erica in the Costa Rican and South
African program have added a language minor to their studies. The reason they added a
language minor are similar: for career purposes. However, their commitment to a second
language was not the same when they first studied abroad. Jody had taken some Spanish
courses in high school and had taken a couple of courses at the 100 level before she went
to Costa Rica. Even though one of the primary reasons to study in Costa Rica was to
improve her language skills, a Spanish minor was not in her plans. Nevertheless, after her
study abroad experience, she is planning to take another year to graduate and go to Spain,
in the fall of 2009, to complete her Spanish minor.
Erica never intended to study another language when she entered the university;
she wanted to graduate as soon as possible. Her study abroad experience completely
changed her mind. She decided to complete a Spanish minor and studied in Spain during
the fall of 2007semester.
After my study abroad experience I felt that I needed to have a second language at
least at the conversational level because knowing only English is a handicap,
especially in the business world. We are in such an international environment. I
also began taking Chinese this last semester too (spring of 2008) and I am taking
another Spanish class. I used to be afraid of languages. I stop taking Spanish after
the requirement for a couple of years. But then when I got into the traveling I
realized that if I wanted to do something that was really significant with my life
and really get on the cutting edge, on the forefront of what was going on, I needed
to suck it up and deal with that.

Daniel in Germany and America in Italy expressed an interest in learning a
second language also, though they do not yet have specific plans on how they will
achieve this goal. Daniel told me that he would love to learn German because he wants to
go back there some day to work. However, he is not currently taking any language

111
courses as of fall of 2008 nor has any specific plans on how he is going to learn
another language. He plans to graduate at the end of spring of 2009. Brady in Italy told
me that he wants to learn a second language but he has no specific plans either. He will
graduate in the spring of 2009. Brady told me that he knows that there are international
opportunities in business and that he would like the opportunity to travel or even live
abroad. I asked him if he wanted to learn another language and he responded:
Absolutely, you get so much more ahead if you are able to communicate. When I
was there (Italy) I felt like I was missing something. I felt so restricted. I couldn’t
do some things because I couldn’t speak the language.

However, Brady is not taking language courses right now (fall 2008) either, and
this is his last semester at college. In short, even though these two students told me that
they want to learn another language, they have not yet made any specific plans of how to
fulfill this commitment.
Finally, America and Errol in the Italy and the UK programs did not express a
desire to learn another language.
In conclusion, four out of the six students who studied abroad in the short-term
programs expressed a desire to learn a second language. However, only two of these four
students have transformed this desire into actions. One of them has already completed a
Spanish minor, and the other is taking Spanish courses for her minor and will complete it
during fall of 2009.
Conclusions for Short-Term Programs
Short-term programs fall within different levels of classification as proposed by
Engle and Engle (2003). However, most program components are classified in Level

112
One: Study Tour Program and Level Two: Short-Term Study Program. Students
who participated in the short-term programs faced the following four barriers that
precluded them from achieving cross-cultural contact, cross-cultural encounter and/or
cross-cultural immersion. The barriers are listed in their order of magnitude, from the
most to the least important. The short duration of the program was the barrier that had the
most impact on all students. The lack of provision for cultural interactions with the locals
was the second most significant barrier for three of these students. Taking courses with
home institution students negatively impacted three students. Finally, the lack of an entry
target-language competency barrier affected three students.
Despite these limits, all students developed a certain degree of self-confidence
and sense of independence. In addition, the program impacted the career decisions of all
students. Students also developed, in different degrees, critical awareness of how their
culture differs from others. In addition, these short-term programs provide an incentive,
for three of them to participate in other study abroad programs. Four out of the six
planned to learn a second language. What these short-term programs did not do, for four
out of these six students, was to increase their levels of political participation. However,
these programs did make all of them more aware of some of the political issues that the
world is facing such as health care and immigration.
To conclude, the short-term program experience affected all students who
participated. However, the degree and scope of the impact was different for each of them.

113

Mid-Term Programs

For the mid-term programs (one semester), I interviewed six students with the
following characteristics. (1) Helen who participated in the France Program. She is a 47
year old senior, white female, Management major, who studied abroad during the fall of
2006; (2) Brett who participated in the Italy Program. He is a 21 year old junior, white
male, Marketing major, who studied abroad during the spring of 2007; (3) Evelyn who
participated in the Korea Program. She is a 23 year old senior, Filipino-American female,
Marketing major, who studied abroad during the spring of 2007; (4) Monika who
participated in the Netherlands Program. She is a 22 year old senior, Filipino-American
female, Accounting major, who studied abroad during the fall of 2007; (5) Kacey, who
participated in the Singapore Program. She is a 21 year old junior, Filipino-American
female, Finance major, who studied abroad during the spring of 2007; and (6) Markku
who participated in the Semester at Sea Program. Semester at Sea is a program sponsored
by the University of Virginia. Students take courses on shipboard that travels around the
world in either one semester or the summer. He is a 22 year old senior, white male,
Finance major, who studied abroad during the spring of 2007.
Before presenting the interview findings conducted with these six students, I
would like to state a few things that these students have both in common as well as how
they are different. None of them had studied abroad before. None of them had any strong
cultural preparation before they went abroad besides some reading that they did on their
own. They all traveled extensively either within their host country and/or outside their
host country. All of them were traditional college age students, with the exception of

114
Helen who studied in France who, by her own definition, is a “middle age, older
returning student.” As listed above in the levels of classification: none of them spoke the
language of their host county. They all took courses in English. Finally, they all took part
in programs where English was not the language of the local culture.
Differences included: only four out of the six students took courses with local
students; the other two students, Brett and Markku in the Italy and Semester at Sea
programs, took courses with other American students. And only four out of the six
students lived with either local or other international students; the other two students,
Brett and Markku, lived with other American students.
The six different programs, in which these students participated, represent
different levels in the Engle and Engle (2003) level of classifications. The six semester-
long programs are classified as follows. The six are at Level One: Study Tour, in two
program components. In all six programs classes are conducted in English. All programs,
with the exception of the Semester at Sea program, do not provide with guided reflection
on the cultural experience. Students received only a pre-departure orientation that covers
mostly logistical matters and very superficial cultural issues. This orientation does not
provide any reflection on cultural experience at any point of students’ study abroad
experiences. These programs are at Level Three: Cross-Cultural Contact, in four program
components. Students in all six programs had no target-language competency. For the
Italy and Semester at Sea programs, the academic work takes place in student groups
with other American students. In the Italy and Semester at Sea programs students are
housed with other American students. In the Italy and Semester at Sea programs there are

115
no provisions for, or very limited, cultural interaction with the locals. These
programs are at Level Four: Cross-Cultural Encounter, in two program components. All
six programs are one semester long. Four out of the six programs, the Korea, France,
Netherlands and Singapore, have provisions for cultural interaction since visiting
students take courses with local students. This allows visiting students to work in school
projects together and have occasional integration activities. However, these programs
provide very limited activities outside class for cultural integration. Finally, these
programs are at Level Five: Cross-Cultural Immersion, in three program components.
The Semester at Sea program provides a guided reflection on cultural experiences via a
mandatory course called Global Studies. This is a comprehensive interdisciplinary course
that complements and illuminates the voyage itinerary country by country. Four out of
the six programs, the Korea, France, Netherlands and Singapore, have direct enrollment
with local students. For the Korean program only: it requires participation in cultural
integration. Students in this program are given the opportunity to get free housing and
$500/month stipend when they teach English to Korean students for 12 hours per week.
Upon arrival to Korea, students are paired up with a Korean student who serves as a
mentor. In addition, students participate in several cultural activities with Korean
students, as part of their work assignments, such as writing articles for their international
students’ magazine. See Figure 4 for a visual synthesis of where these semester-long
programs fall within the Engle and Engle’s (2003) proposed model for levels of
classification of study abroad programs. The name of countries where the programs took

116
place is placed inside the box, in italics, where the programs are classified within the
program component and the program level.
Figure 4: Visual Synthesis of Levels for the Semester-Long Programs
Program
Components
Level One:
Study Tour
Level Two:
Short-Term
Study
Level Three:
Cross-
Cultural
Contact
Program
Level Four:
Cross-
Cultural
Encounter
Program
Level Five:
Cross-
Cultural
Immersion
Program
Duration Several days
to a few
weeks

3 to 8
weeks,
summer
programs

Semester
France
Italy
Korea
Netherlands
Singapore
At sea
Semester to
academic year

Semester to
academic year

Entry
target-
language
competency
Elementary
to
intermediate.

Elementary
to
intermediate.

Elementary
to
intermediate,
France
Italy
Korea
Netherlands
Singapore
At Sea
Pre-advanced
to advanced
Advanced

Language
Used in
course work
English
France
Italy
Korea
Netherlands
Singapore
At Sea
English and
target-
language

English and
target-
language

Predominately
target-
language
Target-
language in all
curricular and
extracurricular
activities

Academic
work
context
Home
institution
faculty

In-house or
institute for
foreign
students

Student
group or
with other
international
students
Italy
At Sea
In house
student group

Local norms,
partial or
complete
direct
enrollment
France
Korea
Netherlands
Singapore

117
Figure 4, Continued, Visual Synthesis of Levels for the Semester-Long Programs
Program
Components
Level One:
Study Tour
Level Two:
Short-Term
Study
Level
Three:
Cross-
Cultural
Contact
Program
Level Four:
Cross-
Cultural
Encounter
Program
Level Five:
Cross-Cultural
Immersion
Program
Housing Collective

Collective
or home
stay
Collective,
home stay
visit, home
stay rental
Italy
At Sea
Home stay
rental or
integration
home stay

Individual
integration
home stay
France
Korea
Netherlands
Singapore
Provision
for cultural
interaction
experiential
learning
None

None None or
limited
Italy
At Sea
Optional
participation
in occasional
integration
activities
France
Netherlands
Singapore
Required
regular
participation
in cultural
integration
program,
extensive
direct cultural
program via
service
learning, work
internship
Korea
Guided
reflection on
cultural
experience
None
France
Italy
Korea
Netherlands
Singapore
Orientation
Program
Orientation
program

Orientation
program,
initial and
ongoing

Orientation
program,
mentoring, on-
going
orientation or
course in
cross-cultural
perspective,
reflective
writing and
research
At Sea

118

Finding for Mid-Term Programs
I will present the findings of my interviews for the semester-long programs in two
sections. The first section will be presented by the general common themes that emerged
in the students’ interviews. The second section will be related to the emerging themes
connected to theories of transformational learning; intercultural competencies and global
citizenship.
Section I: Common Emerged Themes
There were five common themes that emerged among the experiences of students
who studied abroad in the mid-term programs. The themes will be presented in order of
their magnitude. That is, to the degree and extent that impacted or affected the majority
of students.
Developed Self-Confidence and Independence: All students who participated in
the mid-term study abroad programs gain more independence and self-confidence on
what they can do and accomplish after their study abroad programs. They felt that now
they can function in any place that they want. Kacey who studied in Singapore told me
that she thought that she was very independent before she studied abroad but she was
mistaken. She was at first very excited about her study abroad experience but once her
mother left Singapore (her mother went with her for the first five days to help her settle in
Singapore) she felt alone. But after the initial impact, she made friends, adventured on
her own and gained confidence in the independence that the developed over there.
I definitely gained a lot more confidence in what I was able to do; conversely I
also realize that I was not as independent as I initially thought I was. I always had

119
this strong view of myself being able to do anything. I didn’t think twice
about going abroad. Everyone always asked me if I was scared and I just said
“No. I am really exited." I was exited but once I got over there and my mom had
left I was alone in my room. I didn’t know anybody. I did get scared and it was a
really interesting experience. But over time I made friends and I ventured out to
the country by myself. I really realized that I am capable of being on my own and
doing so much more than what I probably give myself credit for.

Markku who studied in the Semester at Sea program told me that, at every port
that he visited, he did not want just to be a tourist. He always ventured by himself to meet
with the locals. After his adventures and port visits he had a lot of time to do some self-
reflection about his experiences. Between ports, Markku told me, he was in the boat
always surrounded by water, for weeks. These are his comments about gaining
independence.
There is a great experience about the study abroad program and hope everybody
does it, because you learn about yourself and about other peoples' cultures. I
learned how to be independent; that I can survive by myself. It is hard. It is really,
really hard and some times it is lonely. But it is possible.

Monika who studied in the Netherlands is an accounting student who was
planning just to stay and work in her hometown after her graduation. Studying abroad
gave her a different perspective of life and now she is willing to take a chance in other
cities.
I think that study abroad gave me understanding that I can move somewhere else;
that I am OK, I can survive…. I learned about myself, that, I am willing to take
chances. I am willing to take experiences.

Helen, Brett and Evelyn in the programs in France, Italy and Korea experienced
the same increase in their sense of confidence in the things that they are now capable of
doing.

120
Everybody should study abroad: All six students without exception believe
that students should participate in a study abroad experience. They all believe that their
study abroad experience has made them more open-minded, more independent, and has
enhanced their relationships with others. They believe that study abroad can enhance
students’ career potential and open up a world of opportunities. Helen who studied in
France believes that studying abroad can have a very positive impact on the career of any
student with any major.
Study abroad is Awesome. I tell people, I don't even care what your degree is. If
you are going to be a musician, great, then go to India to learn to play the Sitar.
Just go to another country to experience something totally different you know
you'll bring it back with your music. Or if you are a photographer or even in
health care, can you imagine a nursing student going to study in France with the
National health care program?

Study abroad has had a profound impact in Kacey who studied in Singapore. She
does not know exactly what has changed in her, but she knows that there have been some
changes. She can see these changes in the way she interacts with family and friends and
in her new approach to life. The changes have been so positive that she also believes that
studying abroad is something that should be done by everybody.
I feel that it is an experience that everyone should and needs to have. Anytime I
get the chance to talk about it (study abroad), I just jump in and promote it. It is
crazy because it changed my life. I am not to the point where I can exactly
identify how it changed me, but I know that it has. It has had a really positive
impact on me. I interact with my friends differently and interact with my parents
differently. I study differently. My whole approach to life has been so altered by
my time in Singapore that any time that I get the chance, I urge people to go
whether is to Singapore or Mexico or Europe. I feel that it is something that
everyone should have.

Evelyn who studied in Korea believes that studying abroad is an experience that
will open up the minds of people who participate in these programs. She also believes

121
that even though people think that they are open-minded they may not be until they
go abroad. This experience, she concludes, will help people to be more aware of each
other. That is one of the reasons that she recommends this experience to everybody.
Everyone should study abroad. I think it should be a part of your college
education. They will get so much experience learning about themselves. Everyone
will be more aware of each other; a lot of people will be more culturally aware
and more open-minded because people aren't. There is only a select few. I
honestly thought I was really open-minded, but I really wasn't until I went abroad.
It really opened my eyes to the realities around me.

Impact on Career Plan: Study abroad impacted the career decisions of five out of
the six students in the mid-term programs. The impact has been more dramatic for two
out of the five students but all five have been affected by their study abroad experience.
The students with the most dramatic impact on their semester program Markku who
studied in the Semester at Sea program and Kacey in the Singapore program. Markku has
decided to change the focus of his career. He grew up in a financially privileged family in
Newport Beach, an affluent neighborhood in Orange County, California. He participated
in one of the most expensive study abroad programs available for students, Semester at
Sea. This program is run through the University of Virginia and costs around $18,000 to
$29,000/per semester depending on type of cabin. His only worry, he told me, was
having the latest video game and electronics and such. I interviewed Markku one year
after his experience abroad, a few weeks after his graduation in the summer of 2008. By
then, he told me, the focus of his life had changed because of his study abroad program.
Markku was accepted to participate in the Peace Corps. He was sent to serve in Africa
starting in the fall of 2008.

122
Before I studied abroad I only thought about money. I choose finance as a
major because of the money. I also wanted to study corporate law because of the
money. After my study abroad, I still want to study law, but human rights law.
My study abroad made me realize how spoiled I have been all these years. It also
made me realize that money is not everything in life. You can live happily
without too much money.

Kacey who studied in Singapore decided to switch her career focus from finance
to English. She went abroad in her first semester of her junior year. At that moment she
was certain that the program that she had chosen in finance was a good fit for her. Kacey
told me that she always has been good in math and that was one of the reasons that she
chose finance. But also she stated that her father, a business man, had also “a heavy
influence” in her decision to study finance. Her father told her that even if at the end she
did not work in this area, it was a good skill to have in her life so she would know how to
manage her money. But Kacey states that during her interactions with other students in
Singapore, who were in this field, she realized that she was not as passionate about
finance as they were. She noticed that she did not have much interest in finance.
I was taking other courses for my upper division general education credits and I
was enrolled in a communications course and I was doing a lot of reading. That
was when I realized that I was passionate about it. So I made myself a promise to
pursue that when I got back. Last fall (2007) I took more English courses and I
found that I enjoyed them much more than my business courses, so that is the path
that I am taking now.

Kacey is completing a minor in English now; a decision that “still freaks my
parents a little bit.” For her long-term goals, she is planning to get a doctoral degree in
English and teach in a community college or university “and maybe not necessarily in
America.”

123
The career plans for Helen who studied in France is to start a jewelry sea
glass business in France. Jewelry making has been her passion since she was 17 years
old. She was, by her own account, very successful in Hollywood for a long time.
I did a lot of television shows and drove a lot of trends for years. You can see that
people still manufacture our trends (her ex-husband’s and hers) and I just thought,
wow, maybe instead of Hollywood I’ll just go to France and do it in conjunction
with a runway show or something like that.

Helen decided to go back to school as an “older returning student” after her kids
have grown up to learn about “something that I accidentally did right but I wanted to
know why I did it right.” While she was in the French Riviera, where her host university
was located, she discovered that at certain times of the day and year, broken glass from
bottles came on shore. Some of the pieces of glass have been graded and are considered
by the North American Sea Glass Association “quite spectacular”, she states. So her
plans are to set up, in Marseille, a place where they can gather, sort and turn into jewelry
this sea glass and sell it to the tourists in the South of France. For environmental reasons
she is not planning to ship them back to the US. Her plans are that the whole enterprise
will be located in France. Helen is thinking to do something different here in the US
depending on what recyclable materials are available. She graduated in May of 2008 so
she is looking forward to implementing her plan right away.
Monika who studied in the Netherlands told me that her career plans have
changed as the result of her study abroad experiences. Not in the focus but in the location.
Before her study abroad she thought that she was going to end up working in one of the
"Big Four" accounting firms in San Diego. She also thought that she was going to live
next to her parents and best friends. But her study abroad experience completely changed

124
these plans. Now she feels more adventurous and wants to try new states and see
which one, if any, will be best for her. If this does not work, she concluded, she can
always come back to San Diego.
My career plans have absolutely changed by studying abroad. I say to myself "no,
I am going to try Arizona and if I don't like it there, I am going to try Denver. I
already have a list. Then I am going to try, maybe Washington. I will try the East
Coast. I am so willing to give places a year to two years and see if I can live there.
If not, then OK, lets try a new place. And for some reason if I try five, six
different places and if I don't like anything and I know San Diego is where I am
at, then at least I tried everything and then I will come back. I think that study
abroad gave me understanding that I can move somewhere else; that I am OK, I
can survive.

Evelyn who studied in Korea and Brett in the Italy program did not have shifts in
career plans. Evelyn stated that studying abroad made her more confident about her
future job because she always wanted to work internationally. Her study abroad
experience showed her the possibilities that this can happen, she told me. For Brett there
were not changes in his career plans. He told me that there were no overall big shifts in
his plans.
Commitment to a second language: Three out of six students in the semester
programs decided to study other languages. Helen who studied in France has been taking
French courses since she returned from France, a year ago. Kacey who studied in
Singapore plans to take conversational Japanese next spring since she is traveling to
Japan after she graduates in the spring of 2009. Markku who studied at the Semester at
Sea program is living in Africa and is learning the local language.

125
Section II: Common Themes in Cultural Competency, Transformational
Learning and Global Citizenship
In this section I will present the common themes that emerged from the
interviews. Specifically I will address the following question: In which ways do the
semester-long programs that CSU offer promote transformational learning, global
citizenship and fulfills its mission and vision to graduate globally competent students?
I will present the results based on the following criteria. As stated in Chapter 3, these
criteria were developed based on the theories of intercultural competency, transformative
learning and the working description of global citizenship used in this study. The criteria
I used to assess gains in intercultural competency are whether students have developed a
new worldview, or a change in basic perceptions and understanding of the world
(Deardorff, 2008). Transformative learning will be assessed on whether students have
achieved awareness of the social and cultural realities forming their lives and whether
they are taking action to change these realities (Freire, 1997, p. 27 as cited in Mezirow,
1991, p. xvii). Finally, global citizenship will be assessed by students’ social
responsibility and commitment towards social justice. That is by students’ awareness and
compassion and the realization of injustice and suffering in the world and by students’
ability to transform that awareness into action (Dower & Williams, 2002).
There were six common themes that emerged among the experiences of students who
studied abroad in the semester-long programs. The themes will be presented in order of
their magnitude. That is, to the degree and extent that impacted or affected the majority
of students

126
Evidence of self-reflection, self-awareness and compassion: All students who
I interviewed showed evidence that they were affected by the variety of their experiences.
I noticed evidence of self-reflection, self-awareness, compassion and their realization of
injustice and suffering in the world, although, in many different degrees. One of the most
affected students was Markku in the Semester at Sea program. He told me that his most
outstanding experience in his study abroad program was a home stay in Vietnam. It was
only a 24-hour stay but changed the focus of his life. He slept on a board with a mattress
that was the thickness of a towel in a room open to the elements only with a mosquito net
with animals and insects outside. That was the moment when he told me he realized the
way other people in the world live.
That is when it hit me that where people are born is like a big lottery; it is a big
lottery on whether you are born in a country like the US or Vietnam. After this
experience, when I hear people in the United States complaining about having a
hard day, or a hard life, I have a different reaction; they don’t realize that people
in other parts of the world don’t even have the most basic resources to cover their
basic necessities. It doesn’t have to be in that way. It is not fair that we (US) have
so much more than we need, to the excess of wasting it, while others don’t even
have the means to survive.

Markku has been accepted into the Peace Corps in Africa. He wants to help this
community in any way that he can. He also told me that he has changed his long-term
career plans. He now wants to be a human rights lawyer instead of corporate lawyer.
Another student who showed evidence of been affected by the variety of her experiences
was Monika who studied in the Netherlands. She studied abroad in 2006. But her study
abroad experience has affected the way she views and relates to the world even now.
History has been humanized for her because of the contact that she had with people at her

127
host countries. She shows signs of self-reflection, self-awareness, compassion and
their realization of injustice and suffering in the world.
When I was in Washington, DC this summer (2008), I went to the Holocaust
museum… The last room was for Darfur... That opened my eyes and I said
“Wow, horrible things still are going on today.”…We do not believe, or want to
believe that things like this still are happening in the world. My study abroad
made me think like that…before I went abroad, I knew about War World II, but in
history books... But actually going to those places and seeing the people and
learning about the people, makes you feel more connected to history and what
went on, and what is going on today and in the future.

Evidence of Developing a Global View: All six students who studied abroad have
developed a view of the world that is more inclusive and discriminating. They all feel that
their experiences have expanded their horizons and impacted the way they view the
world. Some of them realized how much average Americans are sheltered and lack
knowledge of world issues. Other became aware of how cultural differences are sources
of conflict in the world. Overall, these students started thinking differently. They began to
develop a more inclusive and aware global view of the world. For example, Evelyn who
studied in Korea believes that her study abroad made her perspective of life better:
Because of my study abroad, I learned that the world is so big but yet so small and
you can still connect with people no matter the language barrier. You know how
people tell you to do your best and live each day like is your last? I really, truly
live that way now. I think studying abroad made me expand my mind and my
heart also, to many cultures; to many people to just noticing that every great thing
in life and appreciating the simple things. In general studying abroad definitely
made my perspective towards life better; studying abroad made my way of life
better.

Another example of a student who has developed a global view is Markku who
participated in the Semester at Sea program. He told me that being exposed to so many
cultures made him appreciate the diversity that we have here in US. This was something

128
that he had not fully noticed before he studied abroad. Even though he was happy
about this realization, it also made him sad:
It is actually really sad because you are so in your own box, in your own bubble
and you don't realize the other people around you and the world around you. So I
think that not only going abroad helps you realize what is around the world that
you are in (abroad) but also the world that you are from and what is around it. Not
just seeing what is out there (abroad) but also seeing in your proximity that you
are from too.

Monika who studied in the Netherlands also developed a global view and became
aware about the similarities but also differences that unite and separate us humans. She
became more open to new cultures and an acceptance to these cultures:
I learned that people are different. Cultures are different. But at the end, people
are similar too. Everybody is human. Everybody has feelings. You can’t have
everybody cater to your feelings; sometimes you have to cater to others. I learned
to be open-minded also and love everybody for their uniqueness, but for their
similarities too. It is hard to come to an agreement sometimes with people from
different cultures, but it is possible. It definitely is. You should always get out of
your comfort zone, whenever possible because life is short; very short.

Monika told me that she has changed a lot ever since she went abroad. She is now
more interested in what is going on in the world. For example, she told me that she was
very interested when the UK got their new prime minister, which was not typical for her.
She also learned more about world geography.
Before I went abroad, I could care less, to be honest. I care more now. It really
interests me more. Before I studied abroad I had no idea who the prime minister
in the UK was. I am ashamed to say this but I was telling this to my California
State University friends, that before I studied abroad I didn't know Turkey was a
country! I thought it was just a food! I did not know. I had no idea! I did not know
and I am ashamed to say it.

Helen who studied in France told me how much he admired the French because of
all the social benefits that they have for their people. She told me that she really admires

129
them because they put people first and not profits. Helen also loved the slower pace
of life in France and how the French work to live not live to work. Then she concluded:
I learned that I think I can fit great in France in some ways better than I do back
here in the US because of my beliefs about national health care, caring for the
poor, etc. I always believed to be kind of awkward here in the US. I feel more like
home in France.

Kacey who studied in Singapore experienced also “first hand” what is like being
treated differently because of where she was from. She also became more aware of how
cultural differences are sources of conflict in the world. She told me that this was
something that she has heard about but never experienced before.
As a society there is a general lack of understanding of differences. Study abroad
definitely helps to facilitate that understanding. It also made me more aware that
there is so much conflict in the world. People are different. They come from
different areas. They have different backgrounds. And you cannot destroy that for
whatever reason. I feel like people have these social hierarchies and perspectives
and there is not a full acceptance of that.

When I asked Kacey if she used to have the same idea before she went to
Singapore, she told me that:
It was one of those things that people talk about, but it wasn’t until I saw it first
hand in a different country. I was treated differently, not necessarily in a positive
or a negative way. But also seeing how the different culture groups interact in
Singapore and seen how real it was. In a lot of ways there is a lot of freedom in
America to stand up for yourself but in some areas you don’t. It was interesting to
see.

Brett in the Italy program also changed the way he views other cultures. He
realized how other people around the world are aware of the things that happen in the
United States. But people in the United States do not necessarily know what is going on
in other countries, he stated.

130
I knew that when I went to Italy everything was going to be different. And it
was. I guess what I found interesting is how people view the US. Also it was
interesting to see how many young kids in Italy were influenced by US media and
how in tune they were with what we (US) are doing. And coming back, it seems
how out of touch we are with what is going on in other countries. It opened up my
eyes and expanded myself. It was a great opportunity.

Awareness of Cultural Differences in the World: Students from all six programs
develop some awareness of their own culture and how this culture differs from others.
This type of awareness was present in the comments that all six students made during the
course of the interviews. One of the best examples is becoming aware of the different
cultural values that cultures put into simple things such as eye contact or competitive
spirit of the Americans. Kacey who studied in Singapore told me that she has started
questioning more what she thought was normal. This is because what she thought was
normal in the United States is turned “upside down” in other countries.
I spent some time in Japan. In most Asian countries you very rarely make eye
contact with a person, which is strange to me because, especially in business
school, you are told constantly that making eye contact in interviews or when you
meet people is good to make a good impression. This is entirely opposite in most
of Asia. That is just a small example. But you start to think about what you are
used to and what you felt is normal here can be so different in other places. It was
a realization that something greater, that something so much more than what we
have, and that what we feel is right, isn't necessarily right for everybody.

Helen who went to France told me that she learned not only about how relaxed
the French are but also about the competitive spirit of Americans. This feature was
evident in the marketing classes that she took in France. Helen told me that in this class
French and Americans taught each other. The Americans learned how to be more relaxed
and the French learned to be a little more ambitious.
I learned a lot about the competitive American spirit. Americans are rugged
individualists and we are thought to be competitive; everything from football to

131
grades. They are not so much like that in France. It is more about everybody
doing well. I was really quite demanding. They called me "Ellen the terrible.” It
was a pet name by the end of the class, because they told me that they were not
like that. They didn't have to have the best project every week. At the end of the
class all of us got "As" because we did it the American way. Must French students
are happy to have a “B” or “C”, because they are not as competitive. They are not
as ambitious.

Awareness of how Americans are perceived abroad: All students who studied
abroad experienced confrontation with anti-American sentiments. Most of it was targeted
towards America’s foreign policies, the war in Iraq, and President Bush. Sometimes it
was just towards “the American way.” Some of these experiences were not always with
locals but also with other international students, international immigrants or people
visiting the students’ host country. Monika who studied in the Netherlands recalled
coming back to the United States and telling her friends that Europeans were not too
happy with America due to the war in Iraq. She even encountered a situation which made
her feel very uncomfortable.
I had a French roommate, she was sweet and she never says anything. But when
her boyfriend came to visit her and he found out that I was from the US he said
"do you like Bush?" He didn't ask me about myself, my name or anything. He
just asked me "do you agree with Bush?" I was embarrassed about the situation.
Nobody agrees with the US!

Brett who participated in the Italy program also had similar situation when he
traveled through Europe during his semester abroad. He told me that he found it very
interesting to see how so many people from different parts of the world had the same
negative perceptions about American foreign policy. Brett told me that he agrees with
some of this criticism.
The Europeans view is that most U.S. citizens are very ignorant on what is going
on in the world. It was interesting to see how people from completely different

132
parts of the world came to think the same about us; most people in the US
would be shocked to hear what other people around the world think about us. For
example, they complain about our many military bases in other countries. To me,
we have no right to have a military presence in other countries. It would be the
same as having Chinese in Kansas with a big military force. Most Americans
would likely oppose that. We just forced our will on other people politically and
economically.

Helen who studied in France also had a similar experience but this time with an
immigrant who was residing in France. She had this confrontation with a vendor at an
Arab market where she used to buy her fresh chicken, seafood, vegetables and fruits. She
told me that one day that she went to buy some cilantro from one of these vendors. But
when this vendor found out that she was an American, he spit on the ground and took the
cilantro away from her. This was the most sever reaction she had from these vendors.
Many of them wanted to talk about President Bush.
I find that a lot of people from the market wanted to discussed politics with me no
matter how little English they spoke or how bad my French was, they go like "Oh,
you are from the US, what about George Bush?"

Finally, Kacey who studied in Singapore also had an experience in one of her
classes. This experience had her thinking about the way Americans are perceived abroad
in a classroom setting. She found this experience “very interesting.” She told me that she
never thought before about how students interact with their teachers in these different
cultural settings. She just had arrived to Singapore and this was her first experience
abroad.
In my International Culture Communications class the teacher was trying to
engage with the class…I answered some things and finally a local student raised
his hand and he said “I want to learn in this class why the Americans are always
the ones that answer the questions right away and they try to dominate the
classroom and we don't get to have our opinion heard." I thought it was interesting
because, we were dominating the conversation. We were the ones that answered

133
most of the questions but, we didn't think about it because we have such
interactive classes here (US). It is what is expected of you. Whereas in Singapore
sometimes the students are expected to take a step back and listen to the professor
and they offered more settled opinions rather than raising their hands right away
and telling your life story.

Awareness of Cultural Diversity in the United States: Three students who studied
abroad in these mid-term programs became more aware of the cultural diversity that
exists in the United States. It is important to clarify that California State University
(CSU) is located in California, a state that has a lot of diversity. CSU itself is very diverse
as well. This awareness was developed because of three reasons. First, for the first time in
their life students experience what is like to be a foreigner in another country. Second,
they were not able to communicate in the language of their host country. Finally, these
students were in countries that have homogeneity in race. All these factors made students
realize the cultural diversity in which they have lived all of their lives. These factors also
made these three students empathize and are more compassionate towards foreigners who
live in the US. These are the comments from Evelyn who studied in Korea, Markku from
the Semester at Sea program and Kacey from the Singapore program respectively.
After my study abroad, I pay attention to foreigners more because America is full
of foreigners and usually we just pass by people that speak broken English. Now
I'm really interested in where they come from or how they got here. They are
Americans too but we really don't pay attention to them because we are just so
used to speaking to people who speak proper English. Also, because I was not
able to communicate in Korean, because I didn’t speak the language, now I
sympathize with people who cannot speak English in America because I know
how they feel here probably. I always have been compassionate towards people
like that but more so now that I was put in their shoes.

Experiencing so many new cultures has made me appreciate America in general
because our country is such a melting pot. Before my study abroad, I really did
not realize that we have so many different cultures here and so many different
people; we really have the whole world in our country. So being exposed to other

134
countries made me appreciate what we have here in our country which is so
diverse.

It is funny because I never really realized how many international students we do
have at California West Cost State University. I never thought I will see someone
from Singapore here. I met one already, and noticed how many international
students are in my classes. Sometimes I introduced myself because I know what it
is to be in that position. We had a group project last semester and all of my group
members were from different parts of Asia. I am definitely more aware of the
different cultures that are present at my home campus.

Awareness of discrimination and Ethnic Identity: Only one in the semester long
programs experienced discrimination while she was abroad. This was Monika who
studied in the Netherlands who is a Filipino-American. During her semester abroad she
faced some situations that made her self-reflect about her racial background,
discrimination and her ethic identity. One of her conflicting experiences took place in
Tilburg, Netherlands, in the local market where she was buying some fruit. Monika told
me that a Dutch man thought that she was Chinese and tried to sell her soy sauce. This
incident, she told me, offended her because the man thought that she was Asian and
treated her with disrespect. She told me that in this part of the world Chinese suffer from
discrimination. Since people thought that she was Chinese they discriminated against her.
That is until they heard her speaking English with her American accent then, she told me,
they treated her differently, better.
A lot of Chinese got discriminated against. Chinese from Hong Kong and
Indonesia, they got discriminated for the way they looked. Once I start speaking
English and they found out that I was from American a lot of their attitudes
changed. They gave me a lot more respect once they found out that I was from
America. I got that from a lot of other students and I am not sure why that is.

Monika told me that this experience made her feel bad for those of real Asian
descent because they could not stand for themselves. It also made her confused about her

135
Asian background because she always thought herself as an American. Her ethnic
identity, she told me, never had been an issues before she studied abroad. But now it is
something that has her confused.
Honestly, even now I could not decide which side I was more identified with. I
could side with both (European’s descent and Asians) because my parents went
thru the same things as the Chinese and Honk Kong exchange students. I don't
discriminate against people who speak English with a different accent, because
my parents are just like that. I don't know if it is just me or my American culture.
I have not decided. I don't know. Without going abroad I never would have
thought in this way. I would not have had self-doubts; being put into a place that
makes me feel in this way. I never felt like that in America before I studied
abroad. It has been really interesting.

Conclusions of Mid-Term Programs
There were several common themes that emerged among the experiences of
students who studied abroad in the mid-term programs. The themes are listed in order of
their magnitude. That is, to the degree and extent that impacted or affected the majority
of students. All students who participated in the mid-term study abroad programs gained
more independence and self-confidence on what they can do and accomplish. All
students believe that everybody should study abroad. They all believe that their study
abroad experience has made them more open-minded, more independent, and has
enhanced their relationships with others. Study abroad impacted the career decisions of
five out of the six students in the mid-term programs. The impact has been more dramatic
for two out of the five students but all five have been affected by their study abroad
experience. Finally, three of out of the six students decided to study a second language.
The other common themes that emerged are related to the theories intercultural
competency, transformational learning and global citizenship. All students demonstrated

136
evidence that they were affected by the variety of their experiences. They all showed
evidence of self-reflection, self-awareness, compassion, although, in many different
degrees. All six students developed a view of the world that is more inclusive and
discriminating. They all feel that their experiences have expanded their horizons and
impacted the way they view the world. Students from all six programs developed some
awareness of their own culture and how this culture differs from others. All students
experienced confrontation with anti-American sentiment. Three became more aware of
the cultural diversity that exists in the United States. Finally, one of these six students
experienced discrimination while she was abroad.
Long-Term Programs

For the long-term programs (one year or more), I interviewed six students with
the following characteristics. (1) Adia who participated in the Chile Program. She is a 23
year old senior, Mexican-American female, International Business major, who studied
abroad during the fall of 2006 and spring of 2007. (2) Joerg, who participated in the Chile
Program. He is a 26 year old senior, Mexican-American male, International Business
major, who studied abroad during the fall of 2006 and spring of 2007. (3) Nadir, who
participated in the France Program. He is a 23 year old senior, Somali-American male,
Finance major, who studied abroad during the spring and fall of 2007. (4) Emilee, who
participated in the France Program. She is a 29 year old junior, white female, Finance
major, who studied abroad during the fall of 2006 and spring of 2007. (5) Allen, who
participated in the Korean Program. He is a 22 year old junior, Filipino African-
American male, Information Systems major, who studied abroad during the fall of 2007

137
and spring of 2008. (6) Jacklin who participated in the Spain Program. She is a 24
year old senior, white female, Management major, who studied abroad during the fall of
2007 and spring of 2008.
Before I present the interview findings with these six students, I want to state the
characteristics they have in common and the differences between them: None of them
had studied abroad before. Four of them, Emilee, Nadir, Allen and Jacklin, in the
programs in France, Korea and Spain, were learning the language of their host country.
Adia and Joerg in the Chile and Mexico programs were native Spanish speakers. Both
were born in Mexico. Joerg moved to the United States at age 12 and the Adia at the age
of six. All of them lived in the same city in their host country during their two semesters
abroad, with the exception of the Emilee who studied in France, who lived in two
different cities, Marseille and Paris, one semester each; and all of them traveled
extensively while they were participating in their study abroad programs.
The differences are: They all had different housing arrangements: Adia in Chile
and Jacklin in Spain, lived with a host family during their first semester on their host
country. Their second semester they both lived with local students; Emilee, who studied
in France lived with French people during her first semester in France and with other
American students during her second semester abroad; Joerg, Nadir, and Allen who
studied in Chile, France and Korea, lived with other international students since the
beginning. They all had different levels of language preparation: Adia and Joerg who
studied in Chile and Mexico were native Spanish speakers; Nadir who studied in France
had taken only one French language course; Emilee had taken 26 units in French before

138
she went to France; Allen who studied in Korea had never studied Korean before;
Jacklin who studied in Spain had taken 22 units of Spanish before she arrived to Spain.
The six different programs, in which these students participated, represent
different levels in the Engle and Engle (2003) level of classifications. They are at Level
One: Study Tour, in one program component. None of these six programs provide
students any guided reflection on their cultural experience. Students received only a pre-
departure orientation that covers mostly logistical matters and very superficial cultural
issues. This orientation does not provide any reflection on cultural experience at any
point of students’ study abroad experiences.
Four programs are at Level Three: Cross-Cultural Contact Program, in one
program component. Emilee, Allan and Jacklin, who participated in the programs in
France, Korea and Spain, are at this level of classification in the entry target-language
competency since all four programs were at the elementary or intermediate levels their
first semester abroad. Nadir, who went to France, was at the elementary level. He took
only one course in French before departure. Emilee, who went to France, was at the
intermediate level. She completed 26 units of French before departure. Allen, who went
to Korea, was at the elementary level. He studied Korean on his own, for one and a half
months before his departure. Jacklin, who went to Spain, was at the intermediate level.
She completed 22 units of Spanish before departure. Language used in course work for
the programs in France was in English but Nadir and Emilee also took language courses
in French. During Emilee’s second semester in France, she was completing a minor in
French. Nadir was still taking courses in English but taking additional French courses.

139
Allen, who participated in the Korean program, took his first semester business
courses in English and language courses in Korean. His second semester he took only
intensive language courses in Korean. Three of these programs are at Level Four: Cross-
Cultural Encounter Program, in one program component. The programs in Chile, France
and Spain did not have any official, specific provision for cultural interaction.
All programs were at Level Five: Cross-Cultural Immersion, in different program
components. Adia and Joeg, in the program in Chile, had an advanced level of fluency in
the entry-target language (Spanish). They were both Spanish native speakers. Jacklin,
who attended the program in Spain was completing her Spanish minor during her first
semester and took all her courses in Spanish. During her second semester she took all her
courses in Spanish with local students. All six programs are one year or longer. Adia and
Joeg, in the Chile program, took classes in Spanish, the host language of instruction. All
six programs have direct enrollment with local students. All programs provided housing
with local students or other international students. Allan, Adia and Joeg, in the programs
in Korea and Chile completed community service, which placed them in direct contact
with the locals. Figure 5 provides a visual synthesis of where these six long-term
programs fall within the Engle and Engle’s (2003) proposed model for levels of
classification of study abroad programs. The name of countries where the programs are is
placed inside the box, in italics, where the programs are classified.

140
Figure 5: Visual Synthesis of Levels for Year-Long Programs
Program
Components
Level One:
Study Tour
Level Two:
Short-Term
Study
Level Three:
Cross-
Cultural
Contact
Program
Level Four:
Cross-
Cultural
Encounter
Program
Level Five:
Cross-
Cultural
Immersion
Program
Duration Several days
to a few
weeks

3 to 8
weeks,
summer
programs

Semester

Semester to
academic
year
Semester to
academic
year
Chile
France
Korea
Mexico
Spain
Entry
target-
language
competency
Elementary
to
intermediate

Elementary
to
intermediate

Elementary
to
intermediate
France
Korea
Spain

Pre-
advanced to
advanced
Advanced
Chile
Mexico
Language
Used in
course work
English

English and
target-
language

English and
target-
language
France
Korea

Predominate
ly target-
language

Target-
language in
all activities
Chile
Mexico
Spain
Academic
work
context
Home
institution
faculty

In-house or
institute for
foreign
students
Student
group or
with other
international
students
In house
student
group

Local norms
Chile
France
Korea
Mexico
Spain
Housing Collective

Collective
or home
stay
Collective,
home stay
visit, home
stay rental
Home stay
rental or
integration
home stay

Individual
integration
Chile
France
Korea
Mexico
Spain

141
Figure 5, Continued, Visual Synthesis of Levels for Year-Long Programs
Program
Components
Level One:
Study Tour
Level Two:
Short-Term
Study
Level Three:
Cross-
Cultural
Contact
Program
Level Four:
Cross-
Cultural
Encounter
Program
Level Five:
Cross-
Cultural
Immersion
Program
Provision
for cultural
interaction,
experiential
learning
None

None None or
limited
Optional
participation
in
occasional
integration
activities
Chile
France
Spain
Required
regular
participation
in cultural
integration
Korea
Mexico
Guided
reflection on
cultural
experience
None
Chile
France
Korea
Mexico
Spain
Orientation
Program
Orientation
program

Orientation
program,
initial and
ongoing

Orientation
program,
mentoring,
on-going
orientation
or course in
cross-
cultural
perspective

Findings for Long-Term Programs
I will present the findings of my interviews for the long-term programs in two
sections. The first section will be presented by the common themes that emerged in the
students interviewed. The second section will be related to the emerging themes
connected with the theories of transformational learning, intercultural competencies and
global citizenship.
Section I: Common Themes
There were six common themes that emerged among the experiences of students
who studied abroad for two semesters or more. The themes will be presented in their

142
order of magnitude. That is, to the degree and extent that impacted or affected the
majority of students.
The first and most significant theme that emerged among the students who studied
abroad for two or more semesters was the different barriers that they encountered to
achieve cross-cultural immersion, as per Engle and Engle (2003) classification. However,
three other themes listed above are equally significant since they are interrelated. These
are: commitment to learning a second language, overcoming barriers through cultural
immersion and the turning point of the second semester. There are several reasons why
these themes are equally significant and interrelated. First, the different barriers that
students encountered had the potential to preclude them from interacting with the locals
and integrating into the local culture. Yet, five out of these six students overcame these
barriers and achieved cross-cultural immersion. Second, this achievement was possible,
in great part, due to the commitment of four of these six students to learn a second
language. Finally, and most importantly, was the length of time of all six programs. That
is, the second semester abroad provided the turning point for cross-cultural immersion in
five out of these six students.
Barriers to cultural immersion: all students who studied abroad for two semesters
or more encountered different barriers for cross-cultural immersion, as per Engle and
Engle (2003) classification. Not all students had the same, or all, barriers. Nevertheless
all had barriers. The most significant barriers that these students encountered are listed
below in order of magnitude. That is, to the degree and extent that impacted or affected
the majority of them:

143
5. The lack of entry target-language competency. Three students encountered
this barrier. Emilee and Nadir in the program in France and Allen in Korea.
6. Unmet expectations about host culture. Adia and Joerg in the program in Chile
encountered this barrier.
7. Visiting students’ poor reputation with host university’s students. Adia and Joerg
in the program in Chile encountered this barrier.
8. Visiting students’ values clashing with the local norms. Joerg in the program in
Chile encountered this barrier.
9. Home university students’ drive. One student experienced this barrier, Allen in the
Korean program.
10. Program Structure. This barrier precluded students for having cross-cultural
immersion with the locals. This barrier impacted Jacklin in the program in Spain.
Cross-cultural immersion was not an easy task for students who studied abroad in
the long-term programs. One of the reasons was the lack of entry target-language
competency. This was the most significant barrier for three out of the six students. They
all arrived to their host country with different levels of target-language competency. Only
two of them, Adia and Joerg in Chile and Mexico, were already fluent in Spanish when
they arrived to these two countries. The other students had very different levels of
language competency when they arrived to their host country. Emilee, in the program in
France spoke the language at the intermediate level when she arrived to France. Nadir
and Allen in France and the one in the Korea program spoke the language at the very
basic and novice levels respectively. For this reason, language became a barrier for these

144
students, even though they participated in programs in which they were taking
courses with the local students.
Emilee who studied in France took 26 units of French before she set foot in
France. But despite her language preparation, she still had very hard time communicating
in French when she first arrived there. Emilee thought that 26 units of French would
allow her to immediately communicate with the locals. She was mistaken. She even had
doubts about her decision of studying in France.
Your first few weeks abroad are horrible. You think you are going to die. It is like
being transplanted into another planet almost. You think what the hell that I sign
on for? What in the hell made me think that I can do this? I am on the other side
of the planet; I don’t understand these people. I took all these language courses
and I thought I was going to be able to get off the plane and be ready to go. No.
Sometimes you look at the mirror and just think, oh my gosh, what in the world
possessed me to do this?

Another student who encountered the barrier of language for cross-cultural
immersion was Nadir in France. The structure of his program was to take business
courses in English along with French students. All programs at this university are in
English. For this reason, visiting international students take classes with French students.
However, cultural interaction is not a guarantee for them. The reason is that this program
does not have a provision for cultural interaction with the locals. They are placed in
classes together but they do not live together. International students are placed in
residences with other international students. For this reason, international students who
participate in this program can spend their entire time in France without making any
friendships with French students. That was the case for this student. Unlike Emilee who
took 26 units of French before she arrived to France, Nadir took only one French

145
language course before his departure. Even though his main goal was to learn
French, he mostly befriended other international students during his first semester in
France.
My main goal was to learn the language. When I was there for the first six
months, I accomplished everything else except to learn the language as I was
hoping to do. The residences that I lived in had international students and they
spoke mainly English or Spanish. Nobody really spoke French in these
residences. All my classes where in English; the university was located 30-40
minutes away from the city center, in a wooded area; so you didn't have much of
interaction with French people unless you went into the city, took a bus and
walked around the city and shops. I really didn't have that. The first six months I
had a close group of friends, all international students, and we just stuck together
and we did things together. I was always speaking English or Spanish so I was not
practicing my French at all.

Lack of target language competency was also a barrier for cross-cultural
immersion for the Allen. During his first semester in Korea, Allen took three courses in
English and one Korean language course. He told me that when he first arrived to Korea
he communicated mostly in English. He didn't know any Korean so it was hard not to
communicate in English. Just like Nadir in France, Allen befriended, during his first
semester in Korea, mostly other international students since he was not able to
communicate with Koreans.
During my first semester I used to hang-out a lot with Japanese people. It was
easy for me to get along with them and I liked their culture. I was learning a lot of
Korean from them. I made only one Korean friend during my first semester in
Korea. I was closer to this group of Japanese people and Korean-Americans who
went to Korea to learn Korean.

For Adia and Joerg in Chile and Mexico, language was not a barrier to immerse
into the culture. The two of them were fluent in Spanish. They both grew up in Mexico
part of their lives. Adia came to live to the United States when she was six. Joerg came to

146
live to the United States when he was 15. The barrier to cultural immersion came
from cultural differences and unmet expectations about Chilean culture. They both stated
that it was a big difference between the Chilean and Mexican culture. They were
surprised about this. They both stated that it was hard to get to know Chileans. They were
the ones who had to make the first move to get to know them. Joerg told me:
When I went to Chile, I thought that because Chileans were also Latin Americans
I was going to get along with them like water and sugar. But it was not the case.
Getting to know the Chileans was a process. You are the one who has to approach
them because they are not going to come to you. Unlike my experience in
Mexico, it was different. I went to Mexico and I am not sure if it was because I
was Mexican or my personality or I don't know, but they just open up to me. They
invited me to meetings, events and programs. In Chile, it was different.

Adia also told me that Chile was completely different from what she was
expecting. She did not like the differences that she encountered and she wanted to go
back home right away. Her mental picture of Chile was the opposite of what she
encountered when she arrived in Chile.
The Spanish is different, the food is different and it was not what I expected. I
actually wanted to come back to the US right after I arrived in Chile. I thought
that everything kind of made me not want to be there. When you get there and
you see that everything is so different and it is not what you have pictured in your
mind, you're like, OK, I want to go home. It was very hard for me at the
beginning.

Another barrier that Adia and Joerg encountered for cross-cultural immersion was
the bad reputation that international students had in Chile. They both had the same
experience in their marketing class the first semester that they arrived. The class was
about to form groups to work on a class project but this experience did not go very well
for either of them. They both told me, in the two separate interviews that I had with them,
that the Chilean students didn’t want to work with them because they were international

147
students. International students were slackers, the Chileans told them. They only
want to travel and not contribute to their group work. The female student told me that:
International students have a bad reputation with Chilean students. They think that
international students don't do their work. All they do is they come and they travel
and they just show up when final grade is given without doing any work.

Another barrier that Allen in Korea, encountered was the achievement drive of the
students at his host university. Allen attended a university in Seoul Korea with a very
good reputation. It is a very prestigious university. It is dubbed the “Harvard of Korea.”
Students at this university are very driven and involved so they hardly have any time for
anything else besides their studies and school activities. For this reason, making
friendships with students from this university was not an easy task.
They are very, very, passionate people. They put their heart into everything. It is
almost like they can compact more into their time than most people. They just do
so much. Every single student that I met in that university was taking a major
overload of classes, volunteering and teaching and doing other programs, while
still walking around and being more energetic that I ever could be, every single
day. That was also one of the reasons that it was very hard to make friends
because they were too busy, way too busy. They are involved into too many
things. I think that this was one of the reasons that it was very hard to get too
close to any of them.

Alcohol consumption became a barrier for cross-cultural immersion for Joerg in
Chile. This became a source of friction for him. This friction was related with what Joerg
perceived to be excessive alcohol drinking and how disrespectful Chilean men behave
towards women when they drank. He told me that being disrespectful towards women
was something that goes completely against his values.
Chileans need to have alcohol even for a dinner party. It is like an addiction. They
just drink a lot and behave differently and that was a source of friction for me.
They become disrespectful because of alcohol. When they are not drinking, it is
fine. But unfortunately they drink a lot. I don't want to generalize, but most of the

148
Chileans drink heavily. They were grabbing my lady friends. They are really
aggressive, even with girls.

Finally, one of the greatest barriers for the Jacklin in Spain was the structure of
the program in which she participated. It was a program that did not allow her too much
interaction with the locals. All things were done for her during her first semester
program. For this reason, she did not have the opportunity to use her Spanish as much.
Jacklin did live with a host family. But living with her host mom was not like living with
Spanish people, like she did during her second semester, she told me. Also, during her
first semester she was taking courses with students from her home institution and
interacted mostly with other American students.
The first semester I really didn’t know any of the people. During my first
semester abroad, I was with American students from two campuses, including my
own campus. I had things prepared for me when I arrived. The first four months
were great and I learned a lot. But being on my own (during her second semester)
was when I learned the most. I had to do all these things myself like finding a
place to live. I didn't have someone or a host family to help me.

In short, while some students encountered one barrier for cross-cultural
immersion, other students encountered multiple barriers. The Adia and Joerg in Chile
encountered several barriers. They both encountered the barriers of unmet
expectations about their host culture and the poor reputation that visiting students
have about them in her host campus. In addition to these two barriers, Joerg also
encountered clashing values, for a total of three barriers. Allen in the Korean program
encountered two barriers. The lack of entry target-language competency and the high
achieving drive of the students at his host campus. Emilee and Nadir in the program
in France encountered the lack of entry target-language competency barrier, but at

149
different levels. Finally, Jacklin in Spain encountered the program structure
barrier that precluded her from having complete cross-cultural immersion with the
locals during her first semester in Spain.
Commitment to lean a second language: One of the things that helped four out of
the six students in the long-term programs to overcome some of the barriers that they
encountered was their commitment to learn a second language. These four students were:
Emilee and Nadir in France; Allen in Korea; and Jacklin in Spain. As stated before, Adia
and Joerg in Chile and Mexico were already fluent in Spanish when they studied in these
two countries. The other four students decided to learn another language as adults.
Emilee in France decided to complete her major in French. She went to a
community college when she decided to go back to school at age 23. She was studying
part-time and working full-time. She took 26 units at the community college before she
set foot in France. During Emilee’s first semester abroad, she went to a university in the
south of France and took business courses in English, with French students, as well as an
intermediate level language course in French. In addition, she decided to live with French
citizens in the city center so she could practice her French. To complete courses in her
major she completed a second semester in France.
The main goal for Nadir who studied in France was also to learn French.
However, unlike Emilee who took 26 units of French before she arrived to France, Nadir
took only one French language course before his departure. He took an additional French
course in France during his first semester. Nadir thought in the beginning that he was

150
going to be in France only for one semester. But because of his desire to improve his
French, he extended his stay in France for one additional semester.
The first six months I was always speaking English or Spanish so I was not
practicing my French at all. I saw things in French and read it but I didn't progress
as quickly. I was disappointed in that. I gave serious consideration and I thought
that maybe I can stay a little bit longer. It was the perfect time because I had to
stay there in the summer. Three months of no school gave me a perfect
opportunity to enroll in a class in the city center. I really started to be proactive
with my French; five days a week, 4 hours a day. It was intensive. You go there
and you really practice it. You go home and there were not that many people in
the residence but the people who were in the facility spoke French. So I had the
opportunity to practice with them. My French really improved and I was very
happy about that.

Nadir came back to the United States for the spring and summer of 2008 to
complete the courses that he had left to take in his finance major. However, ever since he
left France he knew that he was going to go back for another semester. As of fall of 2008
he has rented an apartment in the city center and has French roommates. He is now taking
courses, at the same French university where he studied for a year already, to complete
his 2
nd
bachelor degree in international business. He will receive this second degree from
the French university. He is planning to graduate at the end of the fall of 2008 semester
with two degrees, one from the U.S. and the other from France, and an intermediate high
level of French.
Jacklin who studied in Spain went to this country to study there for one year. Her
plans were to complete her Spanish minor in semester one. In semester two she took
business and general education courses in Spanish with Spanish students. This was quite
a challenge, she told me. The program coordinators did not want to place her with her
peers to complete her Spanish minor. The coordinator thought that her Spanish was weak,

151
even though she had completed 22 units of Spanish before she went to Spain.
However, Emilee was very determined and convinced them that she was going to be fine
and that she was going to be OK in the classes. Indeed she was. Since the beginning all
her communications were in Spanish.
I was very nervous and my host mother only spoke Spanish. I don't even know if
she knew English. When I arrived to the school they spoke Spanish to us. All that
I did was in Spanish.

Allen who studied in Korea went there explicitly, he told me, to learn the
language. During his first semester he took a combination of business courses in English,
with Korean students at a Korean university, and Korean language courses. During his
second semester in Korea, he took only Korean language courses at the same Korean
university. Before Allen went to Korea he never had taken any Korean courses. He is not
taking any Korean courses now nor is he planning to take any additional courses in the
future. He just hopes, he told me, not to lose the level of fluency that he had achieved in
his year in Korea.
In short, Emilee, Allen, Jacklin and Nadir had a strong commitment to learn or
improve their language skills at their host country. This level of commitment to learn a
second language helped them to overcome the language barrier to achieve cross-cultural
immersion with their host country.
Overcoming barriers through cultural immersion: Five out of the six students in
the long-term programs overcame cultural barriers by engaging in activities that put them
in direct contact with the locals, in addition to their commitment to learn a second

152
language, as stated in the previous section. The only student who did not overcome
the barriers that he encountered was Joerg who studied in Chile.
As stated in a previous section, Adia in Chile encountered several barriers for
cross-cultural immersion. Even though she was fluent in her host country language, she
encountered the barriers of unmet expectations about her host culture and the poor
reputation that visiting students have at her host campus. What helped Adia to overcome
these barriers was to live with a Chilean family and to make friends with the locals. In
addition, she had a very strong interaction with the locals at her school and other social
settings.
I lived with a Chilean family my first semester. The second semester I lived with
an International student. I wanted the whole Chilean experience. I found very
good friends. I can say I had two families in Chile. They still call me and I send
them postcards and they send me postcards. I keep in contact with my lady friend
and her daughter. I also met another family. I met them when I went to the store.
They invited me to come over to their house. So I would go to their house every
weekend. That was my excitement of the whole week. And now I like their food. I
still keep in touch with a lot of friends, school friends and families and I love it. I
want to go back.

Emilee in the program in France encountered the lack of entry target-language
competency barrier. As stated before, she had taken 26 units of French before she arrived
to France. But despite these many units of French she had a very hard time in the
beginning to function in that language. To overcome this barrier, she decided since the
beginning, to completely immerse into her host country culture. Despite how painful this
was at the beginning Emilee was committed to learn the language. So she forced herself
to interact with the locals. During her first semester in France she attended a university
where she took business courses in English, with French students. Emilee also took an

153
intermediate level language course in French. In addition, she decided to live with
French roommates in the city center so she could practice her French with them and with
the locals. She did so, even though living in the city center implied long commutes since
her host university was located 30-40 minutes away from the city center. But living in the
city center allowed her the opportunity to have cross-cultural immersion with the locals.
I tried to speak French every day. Even with my roommates who spoke English, I
would not speak English with them. I was right in the middle of the city; three
blocks from the water, one and a half block from the US Consulate, one block
from the police station. The postal office was across the street, the train ticket
outlet was across the street from my house. This provided me with a lot of
interactions with the local people. I went to the local market to buy my groceries.
I went to the flower market. I went to the Arab market. I was probably the only
person in a three block radius who was not French or African-French.

Nadir who studied in France also experienced the lack of entry target-language
competency barrier but at deeper level. When he first arrived to France he only had taken
one French language course. During his first semester in France, he did not make any
intentional effort to immerse with the locals. His second and third semesters were
completely different. During his second semester, during the whole summer, he took
intensive French language courses. His third semester, the following fall, he purposefully
was committed to make French friends and practice his French language.
The first semester the French students were in the classes and international
students as well. I would sit with international students. I made friends with
French students but not good friendships. I just said hi, how are you doing? I
stuck with International students. My second semester I decided to interact more
with French students. I started making good French friends. I practiced my French
more. It worked out really well. I took another French class at the school for my
second semester at the intermediate level.

Even though Allen who studied in Korea did not speak any Korean when he first
arrived to this country, he found activities that put him in direct contact with the locals.

154
This was a way for him to overcome the lack of entry target-language competency
barrier. One of the activities that he did for the two semesters while he was in Korea was
volunteer work. He was paired with a local college student and with a junior high school
student from a welfare center. This allowed these three students to practice their English.
My two semesters in Korea, I was part of a program called Global Angels. It
would pair a foreign college student with a local college student and then pair
them with a junior high school kid from the welfare center. It was a way to give
those kids exposure to the world through us foreigners. A lot of times their
English was not that good so, we were paired with the locals to practice English.

There was a second activity that put Allen in direct contact with the locals. This
was something new to him. Something that he had never done before and something that
he is not doing as much now at home, drinking with the locals. However, this activity
allowed him to have cross-cultural immersion with the locals, he told me.
Korea has a very good night life. Sometimes if you walk into a bar, people start
yelling at you in English because they are drunk and they want to meet you. You
can meet people in that way. I didn't drink before I went to Korea; never, ever
had. Not even tasted it. But I went to Korea with an open mind and because in
Korea drinking looked like it was a very integral part of the culture, like in other
cultures, I started drinking there. Now, I do not drink here as much.

Jacklin in the program in Spain overcame the barrier of the program structure of
her first semester during her second semester in Spain. Even though during her first
semester in Spain she lived with a Spanish host family, she took all of her courses with
other American students. For this reason, she mostly interacted with American students
on a regular basis. For her second semester, though, things changed. She enrolled directly
at a Spanish university and took business courses in Spanish alone with Spanish students.
In addition, she rented an apartment with two Spanish roommates. Emilee also got a job
teaching English. She took the subway, went to school, went to work, developed

155
friendships in her neighborhood with her roommates and classmates and went on
with her daily routine. All these factors allowed her to achieve cross-cultural immersion
into her host culture.
I was teaching English to students. I had a Starbucks on my street and I became
friends with them. I became friends with people from the local stores... I lived in
this huge city but we have these tiny couple of streets in the neighborhood that
became familiar to me. I met a lady from the neighborhood who was from
Bangladesh and she was learning English and Spanish at the same time and we
became friends. I had a couple of friends from the university that I was attending.

Joerg was the only student who was not able to overcome the barriers that he
encountered. He was the student who encountered the most barriers. He had great
expectations about his host country which were not met. But the barrier that was the most
problematic for him was the clashing of some of his values with the local values, as he
perceived them. The problems that Joerg encountered were not with female Chileans but
with Chilean men. For this reason, he turned to international and Mexican students
instead of integrating into the local culture (he grew up in Mexico and live there for 15
years).
There were a few incidents that were bad experiences for me. Like few times I
went to dinners with some Chileans who borrowed money from me, but they
didn't pay me back. The Chileans girls that I had to do projects with, I got to know
them well and I still keep in touch with them. But males, Chileans, I had a lot of
friction with them because of the perspective that they have about women. I
learned that to be disrespectful with a woman was a no, no for me. I think that
was the main thing that made me separate from the Chileans, because I am very
respectful in that point.

Joerg told me that he basically had only bad experiences with male Chileans. He
also told me that all male Chileans that he was in contact with while he was in Chile were
the same. They were all very disrespectful towards women. But despite his bad

156
experiences with Chileans he did enjoyed his experience in Chile since he met other
international students.
I enjoyed my experience abroad. If I was going to go abroad again, I would do the
same thing. I loved the experience. I met a lot of people from different countries,
a lot of international students. I really got along with them, dinners and all that
stuff. It was really, really great. I know people that I am still in contact with.

As stated in the previous section, Joerg had a strenuous time with Chileans’
drinking. He told me that they became very disrespectful toward women when Chileans
drank and that was something completely against his principles. I asked him if, besides
the drinking, there was something else that bothered him about the Chileans and he
replied:
Outside the drinking, you can get along with them. But unfortunately most of
them, if not all, drink really heavily.

In short, despite the difficulties that these students encountered to immerse into
the local culture, linguistically and culturally, five of them made intentional efforts to
immerse into the culture and achieve cross-cultural immersion. Only one student was not
able to overcome the barriers that he encountered and was alienated from people of his
host country.
The turning point of the second semester: The second semester abroad became the
semester of the turning point for five out of the six students. For four of them it became
the semester for cultural integration. For one of them it became the semester for
alienation. For one of these six students, her second semester abroad did not provide the
same linguistic and cultural gains as her first semester abroad. Therefore, it did not
become the semester of her turning point. However, all six students did become more

157
culturally integrated with their host country’s culture during their second semester
abroad. All students stopped feeling like mere visitors in their host country. The four
students who became more culturally integrated in their host country during the second
semester were Adia in Chile, Nadir in France, Allen in Korea and Jacklin in Spain. For
all these four students their second semester abroad provided the opportunity to become
more fully integrated into the local culture.
Nadir in France decided to stay a second and third semester in France after he
realized that he did not improve linguistically as much as he wanted. During his second
semester in France, summer of 2007, he took intensive French language courses and he
started to practice his French with the locals. This was the semester when he developed
friendships with French students and staff at his host university. It was the semester that
he told me he started feeling comfortable with the language and the culture. So much so
that he decided to come back home for one semester and then go back to France for a
fourth semester during fall of 2008.
My first semester in France, I had French students as well as international
students in my classes. But I would sit with international students. I made friends
with French students but not good friendships. I stuck with International students.
The second semester I decided to spend more time with French students. I started
making good French friends and I practiced my French more. It worked out really
well. I also took another French class at the school for my second semester at the
intermediate level.

Jacklin in Spain gained the most linguistically and culturally during her second
semester abroad, due to the different structure of her second semester program. During
her first semester in Spain she completed her Spanish minor. Her minor program was a
home institution faculty led program. Her classmates in this program were other

158
American students. And she was living with a host Spanish family. During her
second semester Jacklin was by herself. She rented an apartment with two Spanish
roommates. And she took business courses in Spanish, with local students. Her second
semester, she told me, gave her a better opportunity to get to really know the local people
and its culture. It was the semester when she felt she was part of the culture. It was the
semester when she stopped doing the “touristy” thing and developed a routine which
made her feel more like being at home than a visitor.
My second semester in Spain was very different. The first semester I really didn’t
know any of the people. I had things prepared for me when I arrived. But the
second semester was good because I had to do everything myself…I had to find a
place to live. I had to speak Spanish and I had to go to all these different places.
Having to do things on my own was really good. I think during this time I
experienced my biggest growth…My second semester was more of the growing
experience part. I had to go to the school and choose my classes. I had classes
with Spanish students. I had to figure out the bus to go to a different campus and
work with people at that campus and getting a job… you become part of the
culture, because I was living there, and that became my home. I felt that the
second semester was different. I didn't go out as much. I didn't do all the touristy
things any more.

Allen in Korea did not know the language when he first arrived to this country.
For this reason, he told me, he befriended mostly Japanese students during his first
semester. He made only one Korean friend. But during his second semester in Korea he
ended up making two very close Korean friends. At that point he told me his Korean was
better and he was able to communicate with one of his good Korean friends, mostly in
Korean. Allen told me that because he was in Korea for a year, he felt that he really was
able to immerse in that culture. During his second semester abroad he no longer felt like a
tourist in Korea; he felt he was living in this country, like the local people did.

159
The only student for which the second semester became a turning point for
the worse was for Joerg in Chile. His second semester in this country brought feelings of
alienation and self-segregation. Joerg told me that his first semester in Chile was great.
During his first semester there he went out with the Chileans and they sang, played
guitar, and the Chileans cooked for him and other international students. This student’s
expectations about Chileans were very high. He thought they were the best in Latin
America. But his second semester in Chile changed his point of view, for the worst, about
Chileans. It was the time when he started separating from them.
During my first semester in Chile I thought that the Chileans were very
welcoming. At that point I thought, OK, I love Chile. But after I knew them for a
while, I started seeing certain behaviors more often in the parties. I started
realizing and thinking, you know, I don't like to be in this situation. I don't like to
experience this. I am going to segregate more.

And that he did. He started backing up little by little, gradually, until he stopped
going to the Chilean’s gatherings. At the end of his study abroad experience, Joerg told
me, he was mostly interacting with international students.
Emilee in France told me that she did not gain as much culturally and
linguistically as her first semester abroad due to the nature of her second semester abroad
program. Emilee participated in two different types of programs during her two semesters
abroad. Her first semester in France, she studied in Marseille, and took courses in English
with French students. She lived with French roommates in the city center. Her second
semester in France, she participated in a faculty led program in Paris. The faculty who
taught in this program was from her home campus. Her roommates were other American
students. Her second semester was also in a different city in France. Emilee told me that

160
she had more contact with French people during her first semester than during her
second semester in France. She told me about her second semester abroad:
It was like a little capsule. I didn't like that aspect as much; seeing the same
people everyday for three months because you are not forced as much to speak
French. When you are out there, on your own, living by yourself, like I did in
Marseille, during my first semester, with people you don't know, you have to
work it out. You have to communicate. I liked living in Paris…But I did not like
that I was so able to speak English. My language skills improved exponentially
when I was in Marseille because I didn't have a choice. I had to communicate.
Because you do not have anybody else to talk to and if you cannot communicate
you will work it out.

During this second semester Emilee told me her French did not improved as much
as during her first semester. The reason was that during her second semester she was with
other American students all the time so she was not isolated if she did not speak French.
Also because she only traveled with other American students she was not able either to
make French friends as she did during her first semester.
My French did not improved as much during my second semester because I was
not isolated if I didn't speak French. It was also harder to make French friends
during my second semester in Paris because we were always traveling in groups
of threes and fours of English speakers.

In short, the second semester abroad provided the opportunity for all six students
to be deeply immersed into the local culture. The outcome of this immersion was not
always the one that was expected. For five students this more in-depth immersion had
positive results. But for one student it did not.
Impact on career plans: Studying abroad impacted, in different degrees, the
career plans of five of the six students who studied abroad in the long-term programs.
Five of these students have not changed the focus of their career plans. However, the
places and scope have. Only one of these students had decided to go in a different type of

161
profession. This change was inspired by one of her most outstanding experiences
abroad. Adia in Mexico and Chile has decided to go into international environmental law.
She told me that she never thought about that before her study abroad experience. The
reason that she decided on this new profession was a visit to the Cataratas de Iguazu; the
waterfalls that are on the border of Argentina and Brazil. Emilee told me that this was her
most outstanding experience in her two years abroad. She told me that she has never
seeing anything so beautiful in her life. Now she wants to study environmental law and
she added:
I would like to focus in how to better use raw materials. I would like to focus on
how to create better products and better services in order not to harm Las
Cataratas de Iguazu, in order not to harm the environment, not to harm the places
where you live.

Being abroad and seeing so much beauty, seeing what other countries have, made
Emilee want to conserve it. She told me that she didn't think like that before she studied
abroad. Now she thinks in terms of how to better use natural resources. Now she thinks
about how she can do business and still be able to preserve nature and help the
communities in which these businesses are located. Her view of business now is more
inclusive and environmental.
You think you want to do business but you don't think about how in making that
product or giving that service you are going to be destroying something else.... So
yes, I want to do business. But I want to do better business. I want to go into the
companies and show them how to create better products; how they can better use
raw materials and how they can better use the natural resources that we have.
Going abroad made me think about the harm that businesses are causing.

Nadir who studied in France also realized that his job search did not have to be
limited to the United States. Before he studied abroad he thought that he may move to

162
other cities within the United States. However, now, after his study abroad
experience, he realized that the type of career that he has chosen, finance, can take place
in any part of the world. Hence he is now looking into these broader options.
Before I thought I wanted to work in the US, maybe New York, San Francisco,
Chicago. But now, after my study abroad, I have broadened my horizons. Why
can not I work in London? Why can not I work in Paris? Why can not I work in
Dubai? Those are huge financial markets. I can work there if I want to. There is
no person here holding me back. The only thing that I have to do is put effort in
contacting companies; give them my CV. I can do that. That will be no problem.

Study abroad had also an impact on Emilee who studied in France. Before she
studied abroad she thought that she may work in a company that would require for her to
travel once in a while. Before she studied abroad, she never thought about working for a
company that would require for her to move to another country and live there for long
periods of time. Now she seeks this type of opportunity.
I always thought that I was going to work for a company that potentially would
send me overseas periodically but pretty much regardless of location jus to see a
different country. But now, I want to live there. I really want to be stationed or
placed in a job where I am abroad for three to five years as part of my career plan.
Maybe I will start working for an investment firm or foreign capital firm in Africa
and learn how to invest in capital projects…Like building schools, hospitals, or
building plants that produce things that would improve the local economy.

Allen who studied in Korea is studying information systems and he told me that
he always has been good with computers. He is interested in programming and he stated
that Korean and Japanese web sites are different. They fulfill different needs. That is why
he is not sure how he can combine his interest in programming with his newly found
desire to live abroad. Allen told me that he is actually disappointed that his study abroad
did not help him to have more specific career goals. In fact, his study abroad expanded
his career possibilities. This in turn is making it more difficult to be focused in just one

163
area. One of the things that became clear after his study abroad experience, though,
is that he now wants to live and work in another country.
My study abroad didn’t change my career plans. I was a little disappointed
actually because I didn't have any specific career plans before I left and I came
and I still do not have specific career plans now. In fact study abroad probably
made it worse because I realized that there are actually a lot of things that I can
do. But I do want to work and live in another country.

The focus of the career goals for Jacklin in Spain did not change as a result of her
study abroad experience. However, the location, scope and the purpose did. This student
is passionate about event planning and she still wants to do that. However, she now wants
to organize these events internationally and use her new Spanish skills. She now also
envisions working for not-for-profit organizations that are interested in social justice and
the environment.
I always wanted to do event planning and concerts. I still want to do that... It just
makes me kind of think of how many options are there, specially using Spanish
already. I really would love to work in another country. I am not sure if in Spain
or in Europe or in South America. That is something that I like to do a least for a
couple of years…Being in Spain just showed me more things. Do concerts for
social justice, or for the environment. I thought about a lot of stuff like having
people, or not-for-profit organizations come and having free concerts…But I can
organize events and through music I can get their voices heard, whatever these
voices are maybe.

Joerg in Chile told me that he did not experience any impact in the scope or place
of his future career goals. He always wanted to work in international business. That is the
reason that he chose international business as his major. He still wants to work
internationally in any area that would allow him to work in other parts of the world.
In conclusion, five out of these six students’ career goals were affected by their
study abroad experiences. Even though the career plans of four out of the six students did

164
not changed dramatically, the scope and location did. All these students feel that
they want to do the professions that they had envisioned they would do at home, abroad.
For one of these students, the purpose of her career plans changed. She now envisions
that part of career focus should be geared toward social justice or the environment.
Finally, one out of the six students’ career focus was dramatically altered as the result of
her experience with nature and decided on a different profession to take care of the
environment. In short, the career plans of five out of the six students in the long-term
programs were affected as a result of their study abroad experiences.
Increased sense of confidence: All students who studied abroad for a year or more
had a greater sense of confidence in the things that they can do after their study abroad
experiences. All of them were confronted with the unfamiliar, with language and cultural
barriers that they overcame. These experiences, they all felt, made them stronger; more
mature and confident. Adia had a very hard time to adapt to the Chilean culture when she
first arrived in Chile. She went to Chile with a picture about the Chilean culture that did
not match what she encountered. She was disappointed with the food, with the culture
and the people. After her year in Chile, though, she did not want to come back home.
She feels that her experiences in Chile have made her more independent, mature and a
much stronger person.
At the beginning when I was in Chile I would cry. I wanted to go back home.
Why? I did not like the food. Why? I did not like the people. In Chile things are
different. I thought, I will get to Chile and I can figure it out. But once you get
there and you see that everything is so different and it is not what you have
pictured in your mind, you're like, OK, I want to go home. So it was very hard for
me in the beginning. But at the end of the year, I didn't want to come back home. I
wanted to stay over there because I had experienced so many things that made me
grow. It is like I had grown into a mature and strong person; more independent

165
than what I was already. It made me mature and grow. Now that I am back
my way of thinking is up here (gesture with hands on top of head), and my sister
and brother are down here (gesture with hands down).

Her sister is older than her and studied abroad only for one semester. I asked Adia
if she thought that studying abroad for two years had change her, she replied that yes, two
years have change her mind. Then I asked her what she meant when he stated that her
way of thinking was "up here” and that they were "down here", she told me that it was
related with the way she faces problems now. Adia believes that most people in America
complain for very small “problems.” They magnify the significance of these problems.
While she was abroad she endured so many uncertainties that she learned to adapt. She
learned to survive with much less than what she has here in the United States. That has
given her a different perspective of what a “real’ problem is. And that has made her more
confident in the problems that she can handle now that she is back.
It is in terms of being stronger and being able to tolerate more things… Like here
in the United States we think, oh my goodness, oh, we act as if we are going to
die or something and it is not that big of a problem. You just learn to tolerate…
Being abroad makes you grow and you understand and you learn and you apply
those techniques… Because you realize that it is not a big of a problem. Like
roommate problems, not knowing were you are going, transportation problems,
and school problems. In Chile, even though we lacked so many things that we
have here in the US, you still can learn. We take for granted so many things that
we have here…I have been abroad and now I can honestly say that they can put
me anywhere in the world. I can go anywhere, China, Australia, Japan, Europe; I
will be able to survive.

Study abroad had a great effect on Emilee who studied in France. She believes
that study abroad has made her stronger, smarter and a better person. She told me that
what she learned that she is stronger than what she thought she was. She now has more
flexibility.

166
That I am a lot stronger than I thought I was. I knew I was strong but being
over there and feeling that you cannot communicate for the first couple of weeks
because you are just getting situated and being away from your family. It is like
being transplanted into another planet almost. I am a lot stronger than I thought I
was. It made me a better person, a stronger person, a smarter person. I feel like I
can talk with some authority about what it is like to live in another culture. I think
that I am more flexible. It made me more resilient.

Nadir who studied in France also learned similar things about himself as a result
of his study abroad program. He learned how to be more proactive and get the things that
he wants. He thinks that if he was able to survive abroad even though he was not familiar
with the language and the culture, he can do anything that he wants in his own country
since he does not have these barriers.
I learned that if you want something you have to go ahead and just do it. You
cannot be waiting for somebody to tell you how to do it. I am not a little kid any
more. I am 23 years old. I am getting older. I learned to be more proactive.
During my first six months in France I really didn't understand the French
language much nor have a really good understanding of the culture. So I had to
figure out things by myself. I realized that you have to be more proactive. Now I
think, if I lived in France for one year and I really didn't understand the language
that well and I was thrown in that culture and I survived, coming back here, where
I speak the language fluently and I know the culture, I can do anything that I
want. There are no limits to what I can do; not only here but in different parts of
the world.

Jacklin, who was completing her Spanish minor in Spain, was dealing with some
personal problems that made her afraid of being abroad. But being abroad helped her to
gain confidence. When I asked her what it was that she learned about herself when she
was abroad she told me that it was being alone without her mother and her brother. They
are very close due to a tragedy in the family. She learned how to deal with this tragedy by
herself, in another country.
My father passed away when I was in high school in my senior year. My mom
told me “Your father would be proud of you. He would be proud that he did a

167
good job as a father if he could see you as a student living on your own in
another country.” I was scared to miss my dad when I was there by my own. He
took his own life. I was trying to figure out how I would talk to people about this,
because I have a tattoo about that. This is one of the hugest things I learned there.
I just learned how to deal with that, being alone without having my mom and my
brother, because we are very close. I learned about how strong I can be. Even
when I missed my dad I still can get through in a different country. I think this is
one of my biggest ways to know how much I changed.

To conclude, all students who studied abroad had to deal with different problems
of cultural adjustments that they conquered and endured. This success made them
stronger, more confident in dealing with other issues that they confront at home now.
They have developed techniques that they feel they can use now to approach difficult
issues that they now face.
Section II: Common Themes in Cultural Competency, Transformational Learning
and Global Citizenship
In this section I will present the common themes that emerged from the
interviews. Specifically I will address the following question: In which ways do the
semester-long programs that CSU offer promote transformational learning, global
citizenship and fulfills its mission and vision to graduate globally competent students?
I will present the results based on the following criteria. As stated in Chapter 3,
these criteria were developed based on the theories of intercultural competency,
transformative learning and the working description of global citizenship uses in this
study. The criteria I used to assess gains in intercultural competency are whether students
have developed a new worldview, or a change in basic perceptions and understanding of
the world (Deardorff, 2008). Transformative learning will be assessed on whether
students have achieved awareness of the social and cultural realities forming their lives

168
and whether they are taking action to change these realities (Freire, 1997, p. 27 as
cited in Mezirow, 1991, p. xvii). Finally, global citizenship will be assessed by students’
social responsibility and commitment towards social justice. That is, by students’
awareness and compassion and the realization of injustice and suffering in the world and
by students’ ability to transform that awareness into action (Dower & Williams, 2002).
There were six common themes that emerged among the experiences of students who
studied abroad in the semester-long programs. The themes will be presented in order of
their magnitude. That is, to the degree and extent that impacted or affected the majority
of students.
Critical Awareness: All students who study abroad in the long-term programs
developed or increased an awareness of their culture and how their culture differs from
others. This realization came sometimes with mixed feelings about how these students
feel about their own culture. All students had a hard time in the beginning to understand,
to adapt and to accept these cultural differences. However, awareness only brought
acceptance of the different cultural norms and values to only five out of the six students.
For one of them, awareness of the differences did not translate into acceptance and
understanding of “the other” culture.
Adia had a very difficult time to adapt and understand the cultural differences that
she encountered in Chile. In fact, she wanted to come back home right after she arrived
there. In the end, however, she did embrace these cultural differences and she didn’t want
to come back to the United States when she finished her program.
Chile was way different. The Spanish is different. The food is different. I realized
that is the whole point of the program. That is the whole point of you going

169
abroad. Not everybody thinks the way you think. Not everybody eats the
same things you eat. Not everybody lives the same way you live. It was amazing!
I just loved the experience because you learn. Your mind opens up to new
cultures and you start thinking differently, and you start observing new things. I
don't know, you are exposed to so many different things and that's the whole point
of the program, for you to learn and understand how other people live.

Adia now has mixed feelings towards the United States after her study abroad
experience. On one hand, she realized how many opportunities the U.S. offers to people
like her, especially in the area of education. But she also became aware of the negative
impact that some U.S. foreign policies have had on other countries, like in her host
country, Chile. For example, while she was there, she learned about the support that the
U.S. provided to Pinochet. Adia was not aware of this fact. She also told me that she
found out that people abroad hate Americans. Since she is Mexican-American she was
not sure if she wanted to claim that she was Mexican or an American.
The United States is good in terms of offering and giving us opportunities as
students... In other countries you don't get the free education or you struggle to get
the opportunity… In other countries we learn how the United States has gone into
that country and how we actually had an impact on that country. I did not know
that the United States had anything to do with Pinochet in Chile... You find
people that hate Americans. So here I am a Mexican-American. Should I say that
I am an American or should I say that I am Mexican? You want to defend your
country. In a way it has given you the opportunities and you have had a good life.
But you kind of not defend it and go against your country because they have done
so much damage to other countries and to other people.

Nadir in France found out how unpopular the Bush administration was abroad. He
also realized that most people wanted to talk to him about American foreign policy. They
also wanted to know whether he supported Bush. During his stay in France he also
witnessed the transition in the Presidency from Chirac to Sarkozy. He also found out how

170
popular these two presidents were, or not, according to their support of American
foreign policy.
When people abroad find out that you are from the US they always wanted to talk
about politics. The first question was “do you support George Bush?” It was not
just one person. So I was thinking, is this a trend? I really got the prospective that
Americans and American government are not well liked across the world at this
junction in time... During my first six months the French president was Jacques
Chirac. He was not a very friendly president towards the Americans and the
French really, really like him. They were really happy that he opposed the Iraq
war and that he was not like the British and Daniel Blair.

For Emilee in France the awareness of the cultural difference and the way the
United States is perceived abroad was not a big revelation since she always has been very
political. However, what it was a revelation is how pervasive this view is around the
world.
I always knew that the rest of the world thought we were like cowboys that we
just thought that it was OK to just go and boss everybody around. But I didn't
realize to what degree that is perceived vehemently in other parts of the world.
When you get outside of the United States you look at your country in a totally
different light because the whole world feels like we just do whatever we want to
get what we want. I did not realize that it was so bad until I got out... I never
realized how they would look at the events in Guantanamo. The torture methods
that are being used by our government; all these things are being looked at by the
world differently.

Allen had some difficulty understanding and adjusting, at the beginning, to the
cultural differences that he encountered during his two semesters in Korea. For example,
he felt uncomfortable with people staring at him all the time. He stood out since he is a
six feet tall African-American. He also became aware of the stereotypes that the
American media portrays about African-Americans. But despite this, Allen never
experienced racism in Korea for being African-American but just for being a foreigner,
an American.

171
People were staring at me all the time when I first got there. Maybe two
months into it, I finally became adjusted because I stop noticing the stares. They
have some stereotypes of Americans over there: they think that black Americans
are all violent; they think they can all dance; we all love music, hip hop and rap.
This stereotype was magnified many times more in Korea because their exposure
to black Americans is only through the media. It is the same as here in the U.S.
but magnified more times. I did experience some racism in Korea but not
specifically towards being African-American. It was just more for being a
foreigner; more for being American than black.

It took Jacklin several months in Spain to start understanding and accepting how
her culture differs from her host country culture. For example, in the beginning she felt
frustrated about how people stared at her also. It took her a while for her to realize that
this was just cultural.
At first I had frustration with certain little things. Like on the metro they stare at
you and they are not ashamed of staring at you and they are not smiling. So you
get, what are you staring at? And you get frustrated first. What are these people
staring at? And then you just realize that is part of the culture. I think that is why I
am glad that I stayed in that city that long. Because I became used to things that in
the beginning I was not able to understand and frustrated me before because you
do not understand why they do certain things. After a while you understand and
get to see their points of view. Like their view on Americans. At what point you
switch from being frustrated or annoyed by the differences to realizing, this is just
cultural differences and that is the way they are.

Joerg had a great deal of friction with the Chilean culture. He had great
difficulties adjusting. He thought that it was going to be easy for him to adapt to the
Chilean culture because of his Mexican background. He was mistaken, he told me. The
main source of friction was the way Chileans behave when they drink. He was not able to
overcome this issue and did not achieve acceptance and understanding of his host
country.
There is a lot of friction between cultures. The Chilean’s way of thinking is
different. French got along with Chileans very well because French drink a lot and
Chileans also drink a lot. French some times cross the line when they are drunk.

172
They start hitting you. Chileans are the same way. They are really
aggressive, even with girls. I really wanted to learn the culture, but it was hard.

To conclude, all six students became aware of the culture of where they came
from and how their culture differs from others. For five of them it was hard to process the
fact of how unpopular Americans are abroad due to the U.S. foreign policy. For five of
these students, awareness of cultural differences brought acceptance and understanding.
For one of these students it did not.
Political levels of participation: Studying abroad did not change the level of
political participation in five out of the six students in the long-term programs. However,
it did make five of them more aware of international issues. The only exception was
Allen in Korea. After their study abroad experience five out of the six students increased
their level of awareness of what is going on in the world. These five students increased
their understanding of the impact of globalization and the interconnections in the world.
The only student who has changed her level of political participation was Adia in the
program in Chile. Before she studied abroad, she was apathetic about politics. She used
to ignore people who asked her to register to vote. However, her study abroad has
changed that. Now she is eager to vote and learn about political issues. For her now, not
to vote is not an option. She must vote. Adia also has decided to study environmental
law. This was the result of her study abroad program.
Now that I am back I really, really want to vote. Before I was, oh whatever. I
would listen, or see it on TV, or see the people around campus, “You want to
register to vote" and I just ignored them. Now I am more eager to learn and know
about politics, and know about who is running for president, who is running for
governor. I am more interested in learning and listening about what they have to
say. So, now I have the urgency to vote. I have to. Now I know that I have to vote.

173
It is not something that I can not just put aside and just ignore it. I have to
vote, read more about it. I also want to go now into law school, into
environmental law.

Even though Nadir in France did not change his level of political participation,
after his study abroad program, he is now more aware and interested in world affairs. He
now thinks more in terms of interconnections in the world. Before his study abroad, he
told me, he mostly cared only about issues that concern the U.S.
I don't think that my study abroad really altered very much my levels of
participation in politics. I am just more inquisitive about different foreign policies
that the United States has and not only in the Middle East but also in Europe,
Asia, African and Latin America. I am more attentive to reading international
news. Like when I saw something about Venezuela. I was more interested in
reading about it as opposed to before, when I thought, well that has no relation to
me, when in fact it has a lot to do with my every day life. Venezuela is a major
exporter of oil to the U.S. and I am a consumer of oil. I drive my car. I am more
attentive to that. I am trying to find the correlations of how it is that things like
that affect me. Before my study abroad experience, I was mainly interested in
United States politics; of what was going on domestically, of what was going on
in this nation and that was it. I never gave too much thought to foreign policy at
all. I am more interested in that now.

Emilee who studied in France has always being very politically involved because
of her upbringing. Her mother is a political scientist who has always been very active in
politics. For this reason, politics was a dinner table conversation in her house. However,
she states that it was completely different to know about politics than to “live” them.
Emilee had that opportunity during her study abroad in France. She experienced
demonstrations against the foreign policies of the U.S. right outside her apartment. She
experienced, first hand, how politically involved French people are.
My mom explained the Middle East conflict to me when I was six or seven years
old. She told me about the Berlin wall fall, Rwanda, Beirut. But it is different
when you live it. It is different when you are in France and there are protesters
outside your door about your government. When there are posters that said “War

174
Criminal” and have the picture of your President (Bush) outside your front
door. I was in Marseille, France and there was a protest about the U.S.
government literately outside of my front door. I walked out of the front door and
it was right there. They were marching on my street. That is different, because
you do not see that here. In France, there is a lot more activism. People get mad
and they take it to the streets. I was there during the French elections, when
Sarkozy won. A lot of the French were not happy and there was rioting. They
were burning police cars. I lived in the Bastille, which is where the French
Revolution started. Any time that there are any kind of leftist revolutionary
complaints protesting going on, they start at the Bastille. You can see cars burning
and the policemen with tanks and tear gas from my apartment.

I interviewed Jacklin who studied in Spain just a few weeks after she came back
from her study abroad experience. Therefore, the questions that I asked her of whether
her study abroad experience had changed her levels of participation in local, national or
international politics was hard to answer. However, she did tell me that her study abroad
has made her more interested in politics. Jacklin is now more interested in learning what
is going on in the world. Before she studied abroad, she never watched the news. Now
she does. Also now, she told me, she reads articles about different countries in the world
that she never would have read before she studied abroad. Because of her new interest in
world news, now she is aware of the problems that the world faces and she wants to get
involved.
When I am at home I only watch news, international news. I learned a lot about
the economies in other countries and I learned a lot about France. It is just so easy
here in America to focus on our politics only. Because that is what we only really
get. I was in a dentist’s office back here at home, and I was reading articles that
before I went abroad I would not be interesting in reading. I was reading about
Africa. It made me more aware and I want to keep that for sure. When I wake up
in the morning I watch BBC news, whatever is more international. Studying
abroad made me realized that people all over the world need help. Thinking about
all the things that I want to do is pretty good. I never enjoyed watching news
before. I never spent time learning about the issues in the world. I have the desire
to keep up with that. I want to be a good citizen. It made me realized how much

175
we don't know. Like my friends, they don't know what is going on in other
countries.

Study abroad did not change the level of political participation in Joerg. He told
me that now he is more aware of what is happening in other countries, specifically Chile,
his host country and a “little bit” more interested in finding out what is going on in the
world.
Allen in the program in Korea told me that his study abroad has not altered his
level of participation. He told me that he never has being interested and he is not
interested now. Although, he does think that he should. He never read or watched the
news before he went abroad and he still is not interested in this. Nevertheless, he can
envision being more involved in politics in the future but he is not ready for that yet.
I was not interested or involved in politics before I went to Korea, and I am not
involved or interested now. I just don't care at the current moment. I know I
should. I can see myself being more involved or more interested at the very least
being an informed voter as the years go by. But currently I am still not there yet.

To conclude, studying abroad did not change the levels of political participation
in five out of the six long-term program students. However, study abroad did made five
of them more aware of world affairs. These five students are now more aware, at
different degrees, of the interconnections of the world. Adia in the Chile program wants
to get involved in environmental law and now she is interested in voting. Nadir who
studied in France is now more aware and understands how the world is interrelated.
Before his study abroad he only cared about national issues. Emilee who studied in
France was aware of world affairs but never had the opportunity to experience, first hand,
political activism as she did in France. Jacklin in the program in Spain is now more aware

176
of world issues and wants to keep informed and involved in world affairs. Joerg in
the program in Chile is also more aware of what is happening in other countries. Finally,
Allen in the Korean program is not more aware but knows he should be and envisions
that his interest and involvement will increase over the years.
Conclusions for Long-Term Programs
There were several common themes that emerged among the experiences of
students who studied abroad for two semesters or more. The first and most significant
theme was the different barriers that they encountered to achieve cross-cultural
immersion. However, three other themes, commitment to learning a second language,
overcoming barriers through cultural immersion and the turning point of the second
semester, are equally significant since they are interrelated. The barriers that these
students encountered had the potential to preclude them from interacting and integrating
into the local culture. Yet, five out of these six students overcame these barriers and
achieved cross-cultural immersion. This achievement was possible, in great part, due to
the commitment of four of these six students to learn a second language. Most important
was the length of time of all six programs. That is, the second semester abroad provided
the turning point for cross-cultural immersion in five out of these six students. The other
two significant themes that emerged among the long-term program students was the
impact that study abroad had on the career plans of five of these six students. Even
though five out of these students have not changed the focus of their career plans, the
places and scope have. Only one of these students had decided to go in a different type of
profession. The final theme that emerged among these students was that all six students

177
developed a greater sense of confidence in the things that they can do after their
study abroad experiences. All of them had to deal with different issues of cultural
adjustments that they conquered. This success made them all stronger, more confident in
dealing with other issues that they confront now at home. They all have developed
techniques that they feel they can use now to approach difficult issues. The final two
common themes that emerged are related to the theories of cultural competency,
transformational learning and global citizenship. The themes are cultural awareness and
political participation. All six students became aware of their culture and how their
culture differs from others. For five of these students, awareness of cultural differences
brought acceptance and understanding. For one of these students it did not. Studying
abroad did not change the levels of political participation in five out of the six long-term
program students. However, study abroad did made five of them more aware of world
affairs

178
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The specific purpose of this study was to explore the following research question:
In which ways do the short, semester and year-long or more study abroad
programs that California State University (CSU) offers promote transformational
learning, global citizenship and fulfill its mission and vision to graduate globally
competent students?
Both the mission and vision of CSU and Mezirow’s (1991) transformative
learning theory or perspective transformation shaped the conceptual framework of this
study. This chapter presents a summary of the findings of this study, a discussion of their
implications and recommendations for future research.
Research Procedures
The main unit of analysis of this design was the study abroad programs that CSU
offers within all of its components. This was a qualitative design based on different
student groups disaggregated by program length (short, mid and long-term) and degree of
cultural immersion in the host country. The sampling strategy was a combination of both
maximum variation sampling, meaning a wide range of cases to get variation on
dimensions of interest, and typical case sampling, meaning a typical, normal average. I
collected qualitative data in the form of 18 semi-structured interviews, six from each,
short, mid and long-term programs. Interviews lasted between 35-75 minutes. I recorded
all interviews digitally and collected field notes.

179
Key Elements and Concepts in the Interpretation of this study
This study used a key element and three concepts that are worth revisiting to
clarify the criteria used to interpret findings. The key element is Engle and Engle (2003)
levels of classification. The concepts are intercultural competency, transformative
learning and global citizenship.
Engle and Engle (2003) classification organizes study abroad opportunities into
seven program components: program duration, entry language competence of
participants, extent of target language use in on-site coursework, context of academic
work, type of housing arrangements, provisions for guided cultural/experiential learning
and structured opportunities for students to reflect on their cultural experiences. They
further break them into five program levels: Level One: Study Tour, Level Two: Short-
Term Study, Level Three: Cross-Cultural Contact Program, Level Four: Cross-Cultural
Encounter Program, Level Five: Cross-Cultural Immersion Program (Engle & Engle,
2003, p. 8).
In this study I defined “intercultural competence” as “the ability to communicate
effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural
knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Deardorff, 2008). The criteria I used to assess gains in
intercultural competency are whether students have developed a new worldview, or a
change in basic perceptions and understanding of the world (Deardorff, 2008).
Transformative Learning is a multi-stage process precipitated by any major
challenge or disorienting dilemmas to an established perspective. These challenges, or
disorienting dilemmas, can be either the result of cumulative events or one shocking

180
event. They also can come from the effort to make sense of a new culture with a way
of life that contradicts our own previously accepted assumptions (italics added). These
challenges are painful because they threaten people’s sense of self and often question
deeply held personal values (Mezirow, 1991, p. 168). Specifically, transformative
learning is:
The process of becoming critically aware of how and why our presuppositions
have come to constrain the way we perceive, understand and feel about our world;
of reformulating these assumptions to permit a more inclusive, discriminating,
permeable and integrative perspective; and of making decisions or otherwise
acting on these new understandings (Mezirow 1991, p. 14).

For this study, I regarded transformative learning as a process of achieving a
profound awareness of the social and cultural realities forming our lives and the ability to
change that reality by taking action (Freire, 1997, p. 27 as cited in Mezirow, 1991, p.
xvii).
There are many uses of the term global citizen, including ethical and citizenship
perspectives (Dower & Williams, 2002). The definition use in this study is most closely
aligned with its ethical component: social responsibility and commitment towards social
justice. Therefore, students’ awareness and compassion and the realization of injustice
and suffering in the world were the criterion to assess global citizenship. It is also about
the students’ ability to transform that awareness into action.
Although these three concepts, intercultural competency, transformative learning
and global citizenship, involve a basic transformation of worldviews, they may differ in
their applications within the context of this study. Intercultural competency may not
necessarily change into global citizenship. Intercultural competency skills may only work

181
effectively in the global marketplace. Also, transformative learning does not
necessarily translate into global citizenship. It may lead to questioning assumptions and
beliefs about personal issues, such as women’s traditional roles in society, relationships
with teachers, spouses, etc. In this study, global citizenship was associated with elements
of social justice and social responsibility. However, without the processes of
transformative learning and intercultural competency, we cannot achieve a sense of
global citizenship. These three elements are necessarily interrelated.
Summary of Findings, Interpretations and Conclusions
The following are the summary of key findings that emerged from the data
collected and analyzed in this study, their interpretation and conclusions of these
findings:
Findings and Conclusions about Common Themes
There were several common themes that emerged among the students who took
part in this study regardless of the program length and degree of cultural immersion. All
18 students experienced some personal and professional growth in the form of an
increased flexibility, adaptability, and openness to new ideas and practices. They
developed a sense of confidence in their ability to be independent, to not be afraid of
trying new things and to adapt to new challenges. They felt more comfortable traveling
to other countries. They are more patient towards foreigners who live in the US and they
are more confident to have a conversation with them too. These findings are in keeping
with the research literature about study abroad outcomes. They range from acquiring
knowledge and developing skills such as intellectual and personal growth to changing

182
attitudes such as cultural sensitivity and intercultural awareness (e.g., Bayne, 2003;
Briere, 1986; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Lambert, 1993; Orahood, Kruze & Pearson,
2004; Shannon, 1995; Rubin & Sutton, 2004; Talburt & Stewart, 1999; Tolliver, 2000;
Langley & Breese, 2005).
Research also documents study abroad impacts students' future career plans.
Orahood, Kruze and Pearson (2004) found that 88 percent of study abroad participants
reported either an interest or strong interest in working overseas. Only 51 percent of non-
study abroad participants reported an interest or strong interest in working overseas. This
study supports these findings. Sixteen out of 18 students became interested in working
overseas because of their study abroad experiences.
However, a key criticism about the internationalization efforts of many
institutions of higher education is not about the type of students’ personal, professional
and cultural growth. The criticism is more about the lack of intentionality in carefully
matching the words of mission statements to the type of education that students receive
while they are abroad (Jenkins & Skelly, 2004). The criticism is then not about the type
of gains that students experience but rather whether these gains are aligned with the
vision and mission of institutions. Here is where the controversy lies. The mission
statements that include the words “global” or “international” when addressing how to
educate students to “become sensitive participants in the larger world” are too vague.
They can be open to all kinds of interpretation (Jenkins & Skelly, 2004, p. 2).
Too often, well-intended mission statements do not lead institutions to clarify the
philosophical intent on which structures that send students abroad are developed
and delivered. In other words, for too many institutions of higher education there
seems to be a disconnect between carefully and intentionally matching the words

183
of mission statements to the kind of education that students receive (Jenkins
& Skelly, 2004, p. 2).

For this reason, the main motivation of this research was not to assess the general
types of impact that study abroad program have on students according to the program
length and cultural immersion. It was to assess if California State University’s (CSU) has
aligned its mission and visions with the study abroad programs it offers. I also intended to
assess if these programs these programs promote transformative learning and global
citizenship.
Based on the literature reviewed and the findings of this study, the following
findings and conclusions can be made:
Findings and Conclusions about Intercultural Competency
This study found that the longer students were abroad the more they gained in
cultural competency, defined here as the capacity to communicate properly and
effectively in intercultural situations based on their intercultural knowledge, skills, and
attitudes (Deardorff, 2008). Reasons that can explain this phenomenon are the barriers
that precluded students in the short-term programs from cultural immersion in their host
country. Short-term programs take place between academic terms, over winter and spring
break, or during the summer months. The short duration of the program was the most
significant barrier for cultural immersion for all students. The lack of provision for
cultural interactions with the locals was the second most significant barrier for cultural
immersion for three students. Taking courses with home institution students limited
cultural interaction with locals in three of the students, since they spent most of their time

184
with other American students. Finally, the lack of an entry target-language
competency precluded three of them from cultural immersion.
The limited cultural interchange with the locals by the short-term program
students limited their gain in cultural competency. This study found the types of
reflections students had about their experiences abroad differ according to program
length. In general, students who participated in the short-term programs only reflected on
their experiences as a list of travel and experiences without too much reflection on these
experiences. More like a collection of incremental events that did not add to changes in
attitudes. Their travel descriptions were more like “travel” only. In general, students who
studied abroad for one semester or more reflected on their experiences in a way that
added to a more comprehensive, deeper understanding of the world (based on
ACE/FIPSE’s project rubrics, n.d).
This finding is consistent with the literature reviewed which raises the question of
whether students who have contact for only a short duration with their host country have
enough time to change attitudes. Intercultural communication expert Milton J. Bennett
(1993) believes that people require a minimum of two years in the host country to pick up
the type of behavior necessary to achieve a new worldview, or basic perceptions and
understanding of the world (Deardorff, 2008). The results of this study support these
notions. Students who study the longest, in general, showed signs of developing a new
worldview. For example, students in the semester-long programs became more aware and
feel now moved by historic events such as the Holocaust or current events such as the
war and massacres in Darfur, Sudan. These students feel connected to these events

185
because they have “been in those places” or have made acquaintances with people
from these countries. They all realized how much average Americans are sheltered and
lack knowledge of world issues. They became aware of how cultural differences are
sources of conflict in the world. These students experienced confrontation with anti-
American sentiment. Overall, these students developed a more aware view of the world.
Because they traveled so much while they were abroad, they were exposed to so many
cultures. This exposure to other cultures made them appreciate the diversity not only
from these other cultures but the diversity that we have here in US. In short, they are now
more interested in what is going on in the world.
Students who spent a year abroad all increased their levels of flexibility,
adaptability and openness to new ideas and practices. All of them were confronted with
the unfamiliar, with language and cultural barriers that they overcame. They endured
roommate problems, transportation problems, communication problems, lack of
comparable resources at their host institutions, different teaching styles, etc. These
experiences, they all felt, made them stronger, more mature, more resilient, more
confident and independent; especially since they had to endure these challenges for a
year. They all told me that their second semester was the turning point in which they
achieved complete cultural immersion. That was the semester, they told me, when they
started getting the “feel” of the culture and when they started to feel like they were not
mere visitors in their host country but that they were actually living there. They
developed daily routines which included constant and deep interaction with the locals.
Some students told me that they learned to survive with much less than what they have

186
here in the United States such Adia and Joeg in Chile. These two students told me
that their school did not have the same amenities as their school in the United States but
they still were able to learn. The other four students, Emilee, Nadir, Allan and Jacklin in
the France, Korea and Spain programs believe that if they were able to survive abroad for
a year even though they were not familiar with the language and the culture of their host
country, they can do anything that they want in their own country since they do not have
the linguistic and cultural barriers. Because of what all of them endured they believe that
if they were placed anywhere in the world they will be able to survive. In short, the
longer students were abroad the greater the gain in cultural competency, that is in having
developed a new worldview, or a change in basic perceptions and understanding of the
world.
Based on the above findings, the following conclusions can be made. Study
abroad programs that are more aligned with the mission and vision of CSU to graduate
culturally competent students have the greatest numbers of program components at Level
Five: Cross-Cultural Immersion Programs according to Engle and Engle (2003) levels of
classification. Programs at this level had the greatest impact developing students’
intercultural competency or “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in
intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes”
(Deardorff, 2008). This finding applies both to short and mid-term programs that promote
cultural immersion in the host culture. As discussed above, in both short-term and
semester-long programs, there was a substantive difference in students’ gain in cultural
competency by the amount of challenge and immersion that students had in their host

187
country. This conclusion supports the literature on cultural competency being not
only a function of quantity but also quality of time abroad. In general, the longer and
more culturally immersed students were while abroad, the greater their gains in cultural
competency. Even though language played a role in the ability of students to immerse in
the culture, the lack of target language competency did not preclude students from
gaining some degree of cultural competency.
These conclusions support the literature which states that one may be fluent in a
host country’s language but not be interculturally competent (Deardorff, 2008). In fact,
intercultural competency experts do not agree on the role that language plays in
developing intercultural competency (Deardorff). Regarding length of time, the literature
states that for students to change in worldview from ethnocentrism, or avoiding cultural
differences, to ethnorelativism, or seeking cultural differences, they must participate in
programs of long duration with a great degree of cultural immersion (Medina–López–
Portillo, 2004; Bennett 1993).
Findings and Conclusions about Transformative Learning
The literature corroborates this study’s finding on the gains in both cultural
competency and transformative learning that four students experienced in the semester-
long programs despite their lack of entry target language competency. These students
were Helen, Evelyn, Monika and Kacey in the France, Korea, the Netherlands and
Singapore programs. I relied on the learning theories described by Terenzini (1999) and
the classification levels proposed by Engle and Engle (2003) to interpret the results of
this study. Theories of learning, as described by Terenzini, state there are several

188
conditions that must be present for learning to take place. Even though this theory
was not developed to study abroad programs in mind, I applied it in this study. Students
need to face the right amount of challenge. They have to get involved actively in the
learning experience; this is the active participation of the learner with “the Different”, the
encounter. Even though the encounter is an essential condition for learning, it is not
enough. For learning to take place, it is necessary to engage in reflection of the encounter
with “the Different” to stimulate “deeper learning” and consolidate what has been
learned. Also, learning does not happen only at certain days or at certain times. The
stimuli are constant at academic and non academic settings hence learning can constantly
take place. Learning is best when it is “situated.” This is when it takes place in a real
context and when it has real meaning, and the learner wants to solve the challenge at
hand. Finally, the degree of support the learner receives in a challenging situation is also
essential to promote successful learning (Terenzini, 1999, p. 35).The structures of these
four programs place them at Level Five: Cross-Cultural Immersion Program, in three out
of the seven program components, according to Engle and Engle level of classification
and as a result shaped these students’ cultural and transformative learning.
These were semester long programs. These students took courses with locals as
well as other international students. Local faculty taught them. In addition, students in
these programs faced many challenges, such as different educational systems, cultural
and language barriers, etc. They had to confront and solve them to function properly in
that setting. For the first time in their lives these students were in situations in which they
were not able to communicate like they do at home. Students in these programs had to

189
make their travel arrangements. There was not a program provider who was helping
them with tours or made travel reservations or decisions for them. Besides the cultural
and linguistic challenges, these students also encountered anti-American sentiments that
forced them to view their country through other lenses.
Finally, these students were in countries of great cultural distance from the United
States, meaning countries in which the degree of distance between cultural dimensions is
great. Cultural dimensions such as individualist vs. collectivist, long-term orientation vs.
short-term orientation, societies in which social gender roles are distinctively defined vs.
the ones in which these roles overlap (Hofstede, 1991). There is a paucity of research in
this arena, especially on which type of impact the host culture attributes (i.e. economic
status, individualistic vs. collectivist, etc.) have in students’ cognitive and affective
development (Sutton, Miller & Rubin, 2008). However, Sutton, et al., speculate that the
greater the cultural distance between home and host cultures the more dramatic the
student affective changes, negatively and positively. In the case of the four students in the
semester-long programs in France, Korea, the Netherlands and Singapore the direction
was positive.
There were two other semester-long program students did not have the same
cultural competency and transformative learning gains as the four students mentioned
above. One experienced less cultural competency and transformative learning gains. This
was Brett in the Italy program. This program was at Level Three: Cross-Cultural Contact
Program, in five out of seven program components, according to Engle and Engle (2003)
levels of classification. Because of the low level of classification, this student did not

190
have the same cultural challenges or opportunities to interact with the people from
his host country as the four students mentioned before. He took courses and lived with
other American students. American professors taught him. Most of his contact was with
this population, except for the times that he traveled within Europe. The other student,
Markku in the Semester at Sea program, experienced the greatest cultural competency
and transformative learning gains. I will cover these gains in the next section.
Based on the above findings, the following conclusions can be made. Study
abroad programs in this study that promoted transformative learning challenged students
the most. Language competency did not play a role in the transformative learning of
students. The lack of language competency in fact made students’ experiences even more
challenging. Programs that created challenges or disorienting dilemmas in students and
forced them to evaluate and question their long held beliefs, opinions, attitudes, and
emotional reactions were the most effective in promoting a transformative perspective in
students. These conclusions support the literature reviewed in this study which states that
“not all learning is transformative” (Mezirow, 1993, p. 223). For students to experience
transformative learning they must face challenges which engage them in productive
critical reflection. Reflection entails analyzing, reconsidering and questioning
experiences within a broad context of issues (e.g., issues connected to culture, politics or
social justice) about these challenges.
In general, the programs that treated students more like clients that seek their
comfort and satisfaction and that did not allow them to “grow beyond the psychological
parameters of the original culture” (Kim, 1988, in Engle & Engle, 2003 p. 6) did not

191
provide the opportunities for students to experience transformative learning. Kim
(1988 cited in Engle & Engle, 2003) states that sojourners “grow beyond the
psychological parameters of the original culture in spite of, or rather because of, the
adversarial nature of the cross-cultural adaptation process” (p. 144).
Findings and Conclusions about Unexpected Results and Global Citizenship
There were three findings that I did not expect in this study. One of them is the
cultural alienation or antagonism towards individuals of his host country that Joeg
experienced in his program in Chile. Another finding I did not foresee is the
transformative learning that a student experienced in his semester-long program, despite
the low classification level of his program. Finally, the types of programs promoting
transformative learning and global citizenship in four students were not all in long-term
programs with significant opportunities for cultural immersion, or close, deep and rich
interaction with people with the host country culture. I will discuss these unexpected
results in this section.
One unexpected result is about the cultural alienation, or antagonism towards
individuals of his host country, Joeg experienced in his program in Chile. This happened
despite that six out of the seven program components in this program were in the cross-
cultural immersion category. The program in Chile is a total immersion program. This
student took classes with Chileans and other international students. Chilean professors
taught Joeg. They conducted all programming in Spanish. Moreover, this was a one-year
program. Despite all these advantages, this program did not have the expected impact on
Joeg. One of the reasons may be related with what this student perceived to be excessive

192
alcohol drinking and how disrespectful Chilean men behave towards women when
they drank. Joeg told me that being disrespectful towards women was something that
goes completely against his values. He also told me that all male Chileans that he was in
contact with while he was in Chile were the same. They were all very disrespectful
towards women. I asked him if, besides the drinking, there was something else that
bothered him about the Chileans and he replied:
Outside the drinking, you can get along with them. But unfortunately most of
them, if not all, drink really heavily.

Joeg went from admiring the Chileans because of their economic prosperity to
wanting nothing to do with them.
I found one possible explanation about this discovery in the literature on students’
pre-sojourn attitudes and expectations. Empirical research have found that student’s
attitudes and expectations before their study abroad experience is highly associated with
post-sojourn attitude (Herman, 1970; Kitsantas, 2004; and Smith, 1955, cited in Stimpfl
& Engberg, 1997). Another study also found that when the host country contravenes
students’ expectations, this can detrimentally affect students’ learning both cognitively
and affectively (Martin, et al., 1995, cite in Sutton, Miller & Rubin, 2008). Joeg had
high expectations about Chile, as stated in Chapter 4. He thought that because of his
Mexican background he was going to get along with Chileans due to presumed shared
norms and values. He was wrong. His personal values, regarding the respect women
should get from men, collided with those of Chileans. Also, Joeg thought that Chileans
were going to be superior, not only economically but culturally, to any other culture in
Latin America. He thought in this way due to the economic prosperity that Chile enjoys

193
among Latin American nations. His experience with what he perceived as Chileans’
excess drinking and disrespect for women did not match this student’s expectations.
The other unexpected result, on the other side of the spectrum, is the experience
by Markku in the Semester at Sea program. Even though five of seven components of
this program were at Level Three: Cross-Cultural Contact Program only, Markku
displayed the highest signs of transformative learning, meaning a profound awareness of
the social and cultural realities forming our lives, and global citizenship, meaning an
increased sense of social responsibility and commitment towards social justice. Semester
at Sea is an “island” program. That is, Markku studied for a semester on a ship with other
American students. American professors taught him. They used English for all
programming. The visits to all the countries were very brief, less than one week. But
despite these constraints the Semester at Sea program impacted Markku’s life. He went
from planning to work in finance and corporate law, because of the money in these areas,
to wanting to become a human rights lawyer to help the poor and disenfranchised. He
also decided to serve in the Peace Corps in Africa where he will work for two years.
There are several possible explanations why this program had such a dramatic
impact on this student supported by the literature. One of them is the role that guided
reflection has on students’ experiences. The Semester at Sea was the only program
among the six mid-term programs that provided guided reflection on cultural experiences
via a compulsory Global Studies course. This is a comprehensive interdisciplinary course
that complements and illuminates the voyage itinerary country by country. Again, this
was the only component in which this program was classified higher than any of the other

194
five mid-term programs. This program component is placed at Level Five: Cross-
Cultural Immersion Program according to Engle and Engle (2003) levels of
classification.
Mezirow’s (1991) treatise on transformative learning suggests another
explanation why this program has such a dramatic impact on this student.
Transformative learning is a process that starts as a result of any major challenge or
disorienting dilemmas to an established perspective. These challenges, or disorienting
dilemmas, can be either the result of cumulative events or one shocking event. In
Markku’s case it was his “home stay” in Vietnam. As stated in Chapter 4, the most
outstanding experience for him was a 24 hour “home stay” in an extremely poor place in
Vietnam. This was not part of the activities suggested by the program. It was an
experience that Markku chose to take part in. In his home stay, he told me, he slept on a
board in a room open to the elements with only a mosquito net. This moment, this
experience, he told me, brought to him a series of realizations. This experience made him
realize that since people do not decide in which country they are born, being born in a
poor or rich country is more like a big lottery. That was the moment, he added, when he
realized how good we have it here in the US while people in other parts of the world do
not have the means to cover even their most basic needs. That was the moment, Markku
concluded, when he thought how unfair it is that we in the US have so much more than
we need, to the excess of wasting it, while others do not have the means to survive. This
defining moment equates with what Mezirow (1991) defines as transformative learning.
A key element in this process of transformative learning is conscientization. That is the

195
process by which adults “achieve a deepening awareness of both the sociocultural
reality which shapes their lives and …their capacity to transform that reality through
action upon it” (Freire, 1997, p. 27 as cited in Mezirow, 1991, p. xvii). This event
transformed Markku’s life: it changed his career focus, elicited his compassion, aroused
his sense of injustice, and sharpened his understanding of world problems. In short, he
developed a strong sense of social responsibility and a greater commitment towards
social and economic justice. As stated before, not all transformative learning leads to
global citizenship, but in this student’s case it did.
The final and third unexpected result is about the types of programs that promoted
global citizenship. They were not all long-term programs with significant opportunities
for cultural immersion. Students who experienced the most dramatic transformation in
these areas were Jody and Erica in the short-term programs in Costa Rica and South
Africa. It is worth repeating again, as stated in Chapter 2, that the initial short-term
programs in Costa Rica and South Africa motivated Jody and Erica to both complete an
additional semester-long program and another short-term program, and to add a minor in
Spanish. The other two students were Markku in the semester-long, Semester at Sea
program, analyzed above, and Adia in the year-long program in Chile. Students in these
four programs where the ones who showed the greatest evidence of self-reflection, self-
awareness, compassion and the realization of injustice and suffering in the world which
translated into action.
Two of these students joined the Peace Corps and one took part in a Fulbright
program. Two went into law, environmental and human rights, another one in a

196
profession related to community service (not sure exactly how) and another in
human resources for a not-for-profit organization. Wanting to enter in these professions,
these students told me, came about as the result of their study abroad experiences
One explanation about these findings lays in the host culture attributes. Students’
attitudinal outcomes may emerge and vary by students’ country of experience abroad.
The research literature reveals little documentation of this area of study. Sutton et al.
(2007) speculate that it is more likely that students that study in a developing country will
develop a stronger sense of social responsibility, meaning an ethical belief that an
individual has a proactive stance in their societal roles. And they will also develop a
greater commitment towards social and economic justice, meaning, those who seek a
world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the
benefits of society. This study concurs with Sutton et al. speculations. All four students
had their study abroad experiences in developing countries. In fact, Jody, Erica, Markku
and Adia were the only ones in this study who had their study abroad experiences in these
types of countries, with the exception of a Joeg in the program in Chile. All other
students took part in programs in developed countries in Asia and Europe.
But the host culture attributes alone may not fully explain these students’ newly
developed sense of global citizenship. What may add up to the explanation of these
findings, and integrally related with the host culture attributes, is the theory of
transformative learning. Transformative learning theory states that in order for learning
to be transformative, the learner has to be confronted with a major challenge or
disorienting dilemmas which threaten this person’s sense of self and questions deeply

197
held personal values (Mezirow, 1991). The realities of these developing countries
clashed with these students presuppositions about the world. They all experienced, for the
first time in their lives, other economic realities never witnessed before. These different
economic realities and ways of living forced these students to become critically aware of
they way the perceive, understand and feel about the world and made decisions based on
these new understandings. This is what Mezirow describes as transformative learning.
The common comments of all these four students during the interviews were that their
programs made them realize the inequalities and injustices in the world and their desire to
contribute to the solutions of human suffering. As stated at the beginning of this Chapter,
transformative learning does not necessarily translate into global citizenship. It may lead
to questioning assumptions and beliefs about personal issues, such as women’s traditional
roles in society, relationships with teachers, spouses, etc. But in the case of Jody, Erica,
Markku and Adia, their transformative learning did translate into global citizenship, as
described in this study. The host cultural attributes, in this case, the economic realities of
a developing country may be the reason. These findings support Sutton et al. (2007)
speculation that host culture attributes may have an impact on students’ attitudinal
outcomes. In short, host culture attribute along with transformative learning theory may
provide a possible explanation of these students new sense of global citizenship.
Based on the above findings, the following conclusions can be made. There were
two components in this study that seem to be associated with the promotion of global
citizenship, this is, with increasing social responsibility and commitment towards social
and economic justice. The first component is associated with host culture attributes. It

198
seems that students’ attitudinal outcomes may emerge according to students’ country
of experience abroad. But as stated before, this is not a well documented area of study but
Sutton et al. (2007) speculate that students who study in Europe may develop a strong
commitment to civil engagement and students who study in a country where poverty is
pervasive, such as in India would likely develop more sophisticated social responsibility
and economic justice. But it seems that global citizenship can not be promoted without
the process of conscientization, this is the process by which adults attain deep awareness
of the sociocultural reality which shapes their lives and with the capacity to transform
that reality through action (Freire, 1997, p. 27 as cited in Mezirow, 1991, p. xvii).
To conclude, not all study abroad programs that CSU offers advance it mission
and vision to educate intercultural competent students nor prepares them for the
challenges of the 21st century as global citizens. For example, out the 1, 600 students
who studied abroad in academic year 2006/07, only 245 students, or about 15 percent of
them, advance CSU’s vision to graduate intercultural competent students. The reasons are
that only 43 percent of students who study abroad in academic year 2006/07, or 688
students, did so for one semester or more. And out of these, only 36 percent, or 245
students participated in total immersion programs (19 percent of these students took
courses with the locals and were taught by local professors, 8 percent completed
internships and 9 percent conducted research). All other students participated in “island”
programs where students are housed with other American students and American
professors teach them, sometimes from their home campus. And as stated in this study

199
findings, the longer and more culturally immersed students were, while abroad, the
greater their gains in intercultural competency.
Implications and recommendations
For Future Research

The following are recommendations for further study based on questions and
research areas that have been raised by this study:
There is a need to engage in research that can evaluate the effect that countries of
great cultural distance from the United States have in cognitive and affective
development in students and ultimately in global citizenship. There is also a need to
verify if the economic and cultural characteristics of the abroad experience impact
students’ levels of civic engagement, social responsibility and increased commitment
towards economic and social justice. Finally, there is a need to know which intentional
design elements in study abroad programs have the greatest impact in promoting
transformative learning and global citizenship in students.
For Practice
Education abroad programs must intentionally address intercultural competence
before students go abroad. But intercultural competency or awareness of others ought not
to be an end in itself. It should rather be viewed as the first step in developing a new way
in which students will evaluate political and social problems.
There is a need to develop new educational models to educate students to become
informed citizens who can find solutions not only to issues that are affecting their
community and nation but also the world. Study abroad, as a way of making global

200
citizens, requires a more intentional approach. It requires a conscious effort to align
the missions and visions of the institution with the educational structures of the programs.
Design, not chance, should guide the promotion of intercultural competencies,
transformative learning and global citizenship.
The most effective programs to foster global citizenship, as found in this study, are
the programs that go beyond academic tourism. Administrators’ duties ought not to be to
see students as clients who seek comfort and customer satisfaction but rather to promote
challenges that will push students towards greater emotional and intellectual growth. But
students also need the right preparation and support. These were two of the most
important elements in program design that were absent from most programs evaluated
here.
A useful tool to guide both students and administrators in developing and choosing
the right program is a level of program classification, as was the one used in this study. A
level of classification can break down program components that would be easy to
manipulate for students’ advantages. This classification would also give students a better
idea of the challenges they would expect and should seek for a particular result in their
study abroad experience. This level of classification should be used in student
orientations and university publications to convey the types of programs that will advance
the mission and vision of any given institution.
To conclude, higher education must shift its focus from the quantity of students who
go abroad to the quality of the outcomes in the students who participate in these
programs.

201

References

ACE/FIPSE Rubrics (2007). Guide to Assessing International Learning. [On Line]
Available at:
http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ProgramsServices/cii/res/assess/rub
rics1.htm

Adams, J. M. & Carfagna, A., (2006). Coming of Age in a Globalized World: The Next
Generation. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, Incorporated.

Adler, P. (1975). The transitional experience: an alternative view on cultural shock.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15, 13-23.

Altbach, P.G. & Knight, J. (2006). The Internationalization of Higher Education:
Motivations and Realities. The NEA 2006 Almanac of Higher Education.

Anderson, F. Lee (1982). Why should American Education be Globlized? It’s a
Nonsensical Question. Theory into Practice, 21(3), 155-161.

Barbour, J. (2006). The Moral Ambiguity of Study Abroad. Chronicle of Higher
Education, (53)7, B24.

Bayne, S. (2003). Book review. Frontiers: the Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,
9, 199-201.

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural
sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (2nd ed.,
pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Berry, H. (2002). The Global Voices: Is U.S. Higher Education Listening? Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 8, 231-234.

Bikson, T. K., & Law, S. A. (1994). Global Preparedness and Human Resources:
College and Corporate Perspectives. RAND’s, Institute on Education and Training.

Brandt, C. & Manley, T. (2002). The Practice of the Fieldbook: Facilitating and
Evaluating Field-based Learning. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study
Abroad, 8, 113-142.

Brewer, E. (2004, October). From Student Mobility to Internationalization at Home.
Paper presented at the conference on “New Directions in International Education:
Building Context, Connections and Knowledge,” Beloit College, Beloit, WI.

202
Briere, J (1986). Cultural Understanding through Cross-Cultural Analysis. The
French Review, 60(2), 203-208

College Learning for the New Global Century (2007). National Leadership Council for
the Liberal Education & America’s Promise. Association of American Colleges and
Universities: Washington, D.C.

Deardorff, D. K. (2004). The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence
as Student Outcome of Internationalization at Institutions of Higher Education in the
United Sates. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina State University,
North Carolina.

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.

Deardorff, D. K. (2008). Intercultural Competence, a Definition, Model and Implications
for Education Abroad. In V. Savicki (Ed), Developing Intercultural Competence and
Transformation (pp. 32-52). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Dower, N. (2002). Global Citizenship: Yes or no? In N. Dower & J. Williams (Ed.),
Global Citizenship (pp. 30-40). New York, NY: Routledge.

Dower, N. & Williams, J. (2002). Introduction. In N. Dower & J. Williams (Ed.), Global
Citizenship (pp. 1-8). New York, NY: Routledge.

Dwyer, M. (2004). More Is Better: The Impact of Study Abroad Program Duration
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 151-163.

Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2003). Study abroad levels: Toward a classification of program
types. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 9, 1-20.

Farrell, E. (2007). Study Abroad Blossoms into Big Business. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. September 7, 49-50.

Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing
Company.

Go Abroad web site. [On-Line] Available at: http://www.goabroad.com/

Hess, D.J. (1997). Studying Abroad/Learning Abroad. Intercultural Press: Yarmouth,
MN.

203
Hofstede, Geert (1991) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. Berkshire:
McGraw-Hill.

Hunter, W. D. (2004) Got Global Competency? International Educator, 13(2), 6-12.

Hunter, W. D., Godbey, G. C. (2006). What Does it Mean to be Globally Competent?
Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267-285.

Ingraham, E. & Peterson, D. (2004). Assessing the Impact of Study abroad on Student
Learning at Michigan State University. Frontiers: the Interdisciplinary Journal of
Study Abroad, 10, 83-100.

Jenkins, K. & Skelly J. (2004). Education Abroad is not Enough. International Educator,
NAFSA: Association of International Educators, Winter 2004.

Klemp, G.O., Jr. (1979). Identifying, Measuring and Integrating Competence. In P.S.
Pottinger & J. Goldsmith (Eds.), Defining and measuring competence (pp. 41-52).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Landis, D. & Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2004). Synthesizing Theory Building and Practice in
Intercultural Training. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett & M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Handbook
of Intercultural Training (pp. 453-465). London: Sage Publication, Inc.

Langleya, C. S., & Breese, J. R. (2005). Interacting sojourners: A study of students
studying abroad. The Social Science Journal, 42(2), 313-321.

Lambert, R. (1993). International education and International Competence in the United
States. European Journal of Education, 28(3), 310-325.

Leggat, P.A. & Stewart L. (1988). Culture Shock and Travelers. Journal of travel
medicine, 5(2), 84-8.

Medina–López–Portillo, A. (2004). Intercultural Learning Assessment: The Link
between Program Duration and the Development of Intercultural Sensitivity.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 179-199.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Moffatt, R. (2007, November). Preparing Global Citizens through International Service
Learning. Presented at the International Symposium on Poverty Alleviation,
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. [On-Line] Available at:
http://www.wangfoundation.net/Moffatt%20Text%20(English).pdf

204
NAFSA: Association of International Educators (2000). Toward an international
education policy for the United States. Chicago, IL. (Issue Brief). [On-Line]
Available at: http://www.nafsa.org/int-ed/22200.html.

NASULGC, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. [On-
Line] Available at
http://www.nasulgc.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=284&srcid=221

Neppel, J. M. (2005). Study Abroad as Passport to Student Learning: Does the Duration
of Study Abroad Matter? Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Maryland,
Maryland.

Oberg , K. (1960). Culture sock: Adjustment o new cultural environments. Practical
Anthropology, 6, 177-182.

O’Neill, O. (2002). Foreword. In N. Dower & J. Williams (Ed.), Global Citizenship (pp,
xi-xii). New York, NY: Routledge.

Orahood, T., Kruze, L., & Pearson D. E., (2004). The Impact of Study Abroad on
Business Students’ Career Goals. Frontiers: the Interdisciplinary Journal of Study
Abroad, 10, 117-130.

O'Sullivan, E. (2003). Bringing a perspective of transformative learning to globalized
consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(4), 326-330.

Open Doors: Report on International Exchange (2006). Institute of International
Education. [On-Line] Available at: http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/

Open Doors: Report on International Exchange (2007). Institute of International
Education. [On-Line] Available at: http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/

Parker, W. C., Ninomiya, A. & Cogan, J. (1999). Educating World Citizens: Toward
Multinational Curriculum Development. American Educational Research Journal,
36 (2), 117-145.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pedersen, P. (1995). The Five Stages of Culture Shock. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Pesakovic, G. (2007, February). Cross-Cultural Competencies: The Role of International
Project in the U.S. Business Schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Chicago, IL.

205
Rajika Bhandar, D. O., & Witherell, S. (2007). Current Trends in U.S. Study Abroad
&The Impact of Strategic Diversity Initiatives. Institute of International Education
(1). [On-Line] Available at: http://www.iienetwork.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-
10000/1710/folder/62450/IIE+Study+Abroad+White+Paper+I.pdf

Roochnick, D. (2001). First Look Homeward. The Chronicle of Higher Education p. 9.

Rubin D. L. & Sutton R. C. (2004.) The GLOSSARI Project: Initial Findings from a
System-Wide Research Initiative on Study Abroad Learning Outcomes. Frontiers:
the Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, (10), 65-82

Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act of 2007. [On-Line] Available at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_reports&docid=f:hr138.110.pdf

Shannon, E. (1995). Reflections on the Meaning of Study Abroad. Frontiers: the
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad. (I), 96-103.

Siaya, L., & Hayward, F.M. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses:
Final report. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Slimbach, R (N.D). WORLD WISE/The Mindful Traveler, unpublished.

Smith Rotabi, K., Gammonley D., & Gamble, D. N., (2006). Ethical Guidelines for Study
Abroad: Can we Transform Ugly Americans into Engaged Global Citizens? British
Journal of Social Work, 36, 451-465.

Spencer, S. E. & Hoffa, F. (2002). Duration of the Study Abroad Sojourn. Institute of
International Education [On-Line] Available at:
http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=25198

Stephenson, S. (1999). Study Abroad As a Transformational Experience and Its Effect
upon Study Abroad Students and Host Nationals in Santiago, Chile. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, (5), 1-38.

Stimpfl, J. R. & Engberg, D. (1997). What to Know Before You Go: Creating a basis of
comparison for research on study abroad programs. International Education Forum,
17(1), 7-12.

Sutton, R. C., & Rubin, D. L. (2004). The GLOSSARI project: Initial findings from a
system-wide research initiative on study abroad learning outcomes. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 65-82.

206
Sutton, R.C., Miller, A.N.,& Rubin, D.L. (2007). Research Design in Assessing
Learning Outcomes of Education Abroad Programs. In M.C. Bolen, (Ed.), A Guide
to Outcomes Assessment in Education Abroad (pp. 23-51). Carlisle, PA: The Forum
on Education Abroad.

Talburt, S. & Stewart, M. (1999). What’s the Subject of Study Abroad?: Race, Gender,
an “Living Culture.” The Modern Language Journal, 83, ii, 133-175.

Taylor, E. W. (1994). Intercultural competency: Transformative Learning Process. Adult
Education Quarterly, 44(3), 154-174.

Terenzini, P. T. (1999). Research and Practice in Undergraduate Education: And Never
the Twain Shall Meet? Higher Education, 38 (1), 33-48.

The Lincoln Commission Report (2005). Global Competence and National Needs. [On-
Line] Available at: http://www.aifs.com/lincoln_commission_report.htm

Tolliver, D. (2000). Study Abroad in Africa: Learning about Race, Racism, and the
Racial Legacy of America. African Issues. 28(1/2), 112-116.

Vande Berg, M. V. (2004). Assessment of Students Learning Abroad. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, xii-xxii.

Ward, C. (2004). Psychological Theories of Culture Contact and Their Implications for
Intercultural Training and Interventions. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett & M. J. Bennett
(Ed.), Handbook of Intercultural Training (pp. 185-205). London: Sage Publication,
Inc.

Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. London:
Routledge.

Williams, J. (2002). Section Introduction. In N. Dower & J. Williams (Ed.), Global
Citizenship (pp. 11-14). New York, NY: Routledge.

Younes, M. N. & Assay, S. N. (2003). The World as a Classroom: The Impact of
International Study Experiences on College Students. College Teaching, 51(4), 141-
147.

207
Appendix A:
Invitation Letter

Teresa Donahue, 5500 Campanile Dr., BA- 448, CA, 92182

Dear Former Study Abroad Participant:

Due to your past participation in one of the study abroad programs that California State
University (CSU) offers, I would like to petition your participation in a research study of
study abroad and the making of global citizens. Specifically, I would like to learn more
about your experiences in these programs. The research of my doctoral dissertation is to
attempt to assess the alignment between CSU’s mission and vision with the type of
experiences students have with the study abroad programs that CSU offers.

The results from this project will enable me to complete my doctoral dissertation
study at the University of Southern California (USC), and depending on the results, this
study may be helpful to other administrators to better align the institutional mission and
vision with the educational operational structures that are assigned to carry these goals.

Your participation in this study is very important. To participate, I would ask that
you participate in a short interview of a maximum of one hour. This will take place at
SDSU and will be arranged at the date and time of your convenience any time during the
next few weeks. Please let me know if you are willing to participate in this study within
one week.

Individual answers will be kept confidential and participation in the study is
entirely voluntary. This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at
both USC and CSU.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time if you have questions regarding
this study. I can be reached via E-mail at tdonahue@mail.sdsu.edu or by phone at 619-
594-3902

I appreciate your help and willingness to participate in this doctoral study. I
believe that the results of this study will be helpful to other administrators in their efforts
to align institutional mission and vision with educational operational structures that
support these goals. Again, thank you and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Teresa Donahue
Doctoral Candidate in Higher Education Administration
University of Southern California

208
Appendix B:
Information Sheet

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Study Abroad and the Making of Global Citizens
Interview Protocol for Students

Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this
research project.

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Teresa Donahue, MBA and
Reynaldo Baca, Ph.D., from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. The results of this study will contribute to Teresa Donahue’s
doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study due to
your past participation in one of the study abroad programs that California State
University (CSU) offers. A total of 40-50 subjects will be selected from the past study
abroad program participants. Your participation is voluntary. Please take as much time as
you need to read the information sheet. You may also decide to discuss it with your
family or friends. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

I am asking you to take part in a research study due to your past participation in one of
the study abroad programs that California State University (CSU) offers and we would
like to learn more about your experiences in this area. Specifically, the research of my
doctoral dissertation is an attempt to assess the connections between CSU’s mission and
vision of internationalization and the study abroad programs that CSU offers to support
this vision.

Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this research
project.

PROCEDURES

You will be asked to answer 18 questions during a recorded interview which will last no
longer than one hour. This will be the one and only interview that will take place. The
interview questions that I will ask you will be related with the experiences that you have
during your past participation in the study abroad programs that CSU offers.

209
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may be inconvenienced from
taking time out of your day to answer the interview questions that I will have ready for
you. If there are any questions that make you feel uncomfortable you can skip them and
not answer them.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY

You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study, and
depending on the results, this study may be helpful to other administrators to better align
the institutional mission and vision with the educational operational structures that are
assigned to carry these goals.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The investigators of this research do not have any financial interest in the product being
studied.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law. The information collected about you will be coded using a fake name
(pseudonym) or initials and numbers, for example abc-123, etc. The information which
has your identifiable information will be kept separately from the rest of your data.

I alone will have access to these tapes which will be eventually destroyed after they are
transcribed. The transcribed data will be kept for three years after it is transcribed and
will be kept at the investigators’ personal, password protected computer. If my
dissertation committee requests to review this data, the information submitted to them
with personal information, will be coded and stored to prevent access by unauthorized
personnel.

The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. You will have the right to review/edit your audio-tape. I will be the only
person who will have access to your audio-tape, which will be used for this dissertation
purpose only. You may continue in this study should you decline to be audio-taped.

210
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs, videos, or
audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will be
protected or disguised. You will have the right to review/edit your audio-tape. I will be
the only person who will have access to your audio-tape, which will be used for this
dissertation purpose only and which will be destroy three years after it is recorded.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION

Your alternative is to not participate.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team
to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff can
not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:
Teresa Donahue at (619) 594-3902, 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, CA, 92108.

211
Appendix C:
Interview Protocol

Interview protocol for students

Consent

Have you read the Information Sheet? Do you have any questions? If yes, PI will answer
or explain. If no, interview will begin.

Introduction

You have been selected to speak with me today because you have participated in one of
San Diego State University’s study abroad programs and I would like to learn more about
your experiences in this program. The research of my doctoral dissertation is to attempt
to assess the alignment between SDSU’s motivation, ideals, and operational structures of
study abroad with the type of experiences students have with the study abroad programs
that SDSU offers.

Background information:

1. Where did you go abroad?
2. How long was your program?
3. What motivated you to study abroad?
4. When did you study abroad?
5. What was it that made you choose this program and this country?
6. What type of preparation did you have before you studied abroad?
a. If students did prepare, then: what motivated you to get prepared?
b. If did not prepare, then: in which ways, if any, did this lack of preparation
limit your immersion in the culture of your host country?
7. In which language (if not an English speaking country) did you communicate at
school and social settings at you host country?
8. Did you take courses in English? Other language?
9. How has your view of other cultures changed?
10. What is your view about the United States now?
11. What did you learn about yourself?
12. What were the most outstanding experiences that you had during study abroad?

212
13. What is it that you learned about your host country?
14. In which types of activities did you participate that put you in direct contact with
the local people at your host country (i.e. community service, research project,
etc.)?
15. Tell me about a time that you encountered a cultural conflict while abroad?
a. How did you resolve it?
b. What was the outcome?
c. What lessons did you learn from this experience?
16. How has your study abroad program altered your levels of participation in local,
national or international politics?
17. In which ways has your study abroad program altered your future career goals?
18. What else have you learned from your study abroad program?

I have asked all the questions that I wanted to ask. Is there anything else that you would
like to add about your study abroad experience, the process that you went through at
SDSU or your current experience as a former participant?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The primary purpose of this study was to assess the ways in which the short, semester and year-long study abroad programs that CSU offers promotes transformational learning, global citizenship and fulfills its mission and vision to graduate globally competent students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Short-term study tours and global competence development

PDF

Assessment and accreditation of undergraduate study abroad programs

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

On the quest for global competencies

PDF

Updating mission and vision in an increasingly interconnected world: the role of the district

PDF

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

PDF

The conceptualization and development of a global community college: a case study examining the perspective and roles of Pasadena City College leadership and management

PDF

Internationalizing education: a study of the impact of implementing an international program on an urban elementary school

PDF

Examining the choice of business majors to participate in a short-term study abroad program using the gap analysis model

PDF

Toward an understanding of the achievement of African American students at a nationally regarded California public high school through the theoretical lenses of acting white, stereotype threat, a...

PDF

Undergraduates in the developing world: study abroad program management in sub-Saharan Africa

PDF

The search for transformative agents: the counter-institutional positioning of faculty and staff at an elite university

PDF

Transformative learning in the public sphere: the educational dimensions of a broad-based community organizing movement

PDF

Lived experiences of African American expatriate teachers abroad and back: a teacher's experience that brings effect to the community

PDF

Learning from our global competitors: a comparative analysis of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education pipelines in the United States, Mainland China and Taiwan

PDF

An institution's global engagement and its connection with the surrounding community: a case study

PDF

Fostering competent professionals: instructional systems specialists at the instructional systems technology program

PDF

Leadership of ports and terminals in the global south and Oceania and the use of technological innovation during the crisis

PDF

Service-learning and character development: an analysis of Up with People resulting in a model of global citizens for servant leadership

Asset Metadata

Creator Donahue, Teresa (author)

Core Title The making of global citizens through education abroad programs: aligning missions and visions with education abroad programs

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/01/2009

Defense Date 03/03/2009

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

Tag education abroad,global citizenship,intercultural competency,international education,international programs,OAI-PMH Harvest,study abroad,transformative learning

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Baca, Reynaldo R. (committee chair), Cole, Darnell (committee member), Fischer, Linda A. (committee member)

Creator Email tdonahue@mail.sdsu.edu,tdonahue@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2161

Unique identifier UC1297499

Identifier etd-Donahue-2568 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-230765 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2161 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Donahue-2568.pdf

Dmrecord 230765

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Donahue, Teresa

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu