Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Impact of study abroad on student openness to diversity: an evaluation study
(USC Thesis Other)
Impact of study abroad on student openness to diversity: an evaluation study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 1
Impact of Study Abroad on Student Openness to Diversity: An Evaluation Study
by
Bryan Cole
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2018
Copyright 2018 Bryan Cole
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 2
Table of Contents
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ............................................................................... 4
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................... 5
Importance of Addressing the Problem ................................................................................ 5
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................... 6
Organizational Performance Goal ........................................................................................ 8
Stakeholder Group of Focus ................................................................................................ 8
Review of the Literature ...................................................................................................... 9
History and Trends in Study Abroad ................................................................................ 9
Importance of Data and Current Research for Study Abroad Outcomes ......................... 11
Study Abroad’s Potential Impact on Openness to Diversity ........................................... 12
Outcomes of Openness to Diversity ............................................................................... 13
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences ....................................................... 14
Knowledge .................................................................................................................... 15
Motivation ..................................................................................................................... 17
Organization .................................................................................................................. 20
Interactive Conceptual Framework .................................................................................... 24
Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................................. 25
Survey and Instrumentation ........................................................................................... 26
Interviews ..................................................................................................................... 28
Document Analysis ....................................................................................................... 30
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 31
Findings ............................................................................................................................ 31
Knowledge .................................................................................................................... 33
Motivation ..................................................................................................................... 42
Organization .................................................................................................................. 49
Solutions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 54
Knowledge .................................................................................................................... 55
Motivation ..................................................................................................................... 57
Organization .................................................................................................................. 60
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 61
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................. 62
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 3
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 63
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria ........................................ 64
Appendix B: Protocols ...................................................................................................... 68
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness .................................................................... 72
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability ................................................................................ 74
Appendix E: Ethics ........................................................................................................... 76
Appendix F: Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 81
Appendix G: Evaluation Models ....................................................................................... 92
References ........................................................................................................................ 94
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 4
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Study abroad is a growing trend in higher education (Bollag, 2005; Rexeisen, 2012;
Twombly, Salisbury, Tumanut, & Klute, 2012). Heightened emphasis on globalization and
organizations viewing openness to diversity as a critical asset as well as a competitive advantage
highlight the field’s importance and potential impact (Alt, 2015; Bowman, 2014; Collins &
Davidson, 2002; DeJaeghere & Zhang, 2008; Hulstrand, 2006; Stroud, 2010; Twombly et al.,
2012). Just as the number of students studying abroad has grown, so too has the body of research
behind its effects and outcomes. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) related openness to diversity to
going to college, whereas other researchers found that learning does occur in study abroad.
Findings included gains in language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity (Davidson, 2010;
Engle & Engle, 2004; Kinginger, 2008), personal growth and self-efficacy (Cubillos & Ilvento,
2013; Hunley, 2009). Research has also shown a variety of barriers affecting student experience,
ambiguous results on learning outcomes, and limited evidence of change in student openness to
diversity (Stone & Petrick, 2013; Stroud, 2010). The diverse worlds of race, culture, language,
and values require students to effectively embrace and function within and across them, both
personally and professionally (Clarke, Flaherty, Wright, & McMillen, 2009; DeJaeghere &
Zhang, 2008; Flynn, 2005; Gerson & Neilson, 2014; Nguyen, 2012; Riley-Eddins & Alberta,
1999). Study abroad, coupled with other factors, could help moderate and increase openness to
diversity among students, aiding education’s endeavor to produce functional graduates and
global citizens (Cabrera, Crissman, Bernal, Terenzini, & Pascarella, 2002; Clarke et al., 2009;
Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2004; Martin, Katz-Buonincontro, & Livert, 2015). For the purpose
of this study, openness to diversity is defined as the ability to both recognize (acknowledge) and
appreciate (value) differences in ideas, values, and beliefs (Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn,
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 5
& Terenzini, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Terenzini, & Nora,
2001).
Organizational Context and Mission
Go Study Abroad (GSA), a pseudonym for the focus program of this study, provides
academic courses, internships, homestays, and experiential outings for students. As an
internationally accredited study abroad program, GSA operates and provides short-term and
semester-long learning opportunities for students to engage challenges and learn to respond
appropriately in an international and intercultural context.
GSA staff range from student life to logistics and homestay coordinators, accountants to
faculty. Demographically, the makeup of the team includes both men and women, foreign and
domestic hires. The majority of GSA alumni are white, from four-year, private institutions. All
students of GSA take a language course, as well as complete service-learning hours, related to
the student’s major. On average, GSA students range from ages 18 to 22, from an array of
backgrounds, cultures, and fields of study. Across all programs, GSA engages with an average of
150 students per calendar year from multiple institutions.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
In many cases, study abroad is becoming the norm in curriculum development and core
elements with over one third of all college students spending a semester abroad globally (Bollag,
2005; Farrell, 2007; IIE, 2015; NAFSA, 2014; Twombly et al., 2012). One might assume that the
exponential increase in study abroad students, having more than doubled between 1996/97 and
2006/07 from 100,000 to almost a quarter of a million (Stroud, 2010), reflects an equivocal
amount of research and data to support the effects and outcomes of going abroad. It does not.
However, research on openness to diversity puts the disposition as an integral outcome of the
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 6
undergraduate experience, but lacks sufficient credible evidence for the outcome (Bowman,
2014; Selmer, Lauring, & Jonasson, 2013).
Study abroad’s effectiveness is both questioned and misunderstood because of
unresearched factors and ambiguous results, eroding institutional support, especially when
funding and institutional aid are involved (Bernstein, 2006; Collins & Davidson, 2002;
Davidson, 2010). Accreditation goals of increasing exposure to diversity hold institutions
accountable for expanding global reach, curricula, standards, assessment, and evidence for
student outcomes (Davidson, 2010; McLeod & Wainwright, 2009; Moreno-Lopez, Saenz-de-
Tejada, & Smith, 2008; Norris, 2006; Savicki & Brewer, 2015; Willerton & Beznosov, 2015),
particularly as these factors relate to student openness to diversity. Although many students are
going abroad and exposure to other cultures may facilitate and foster appreciation of differences
(Clarke et al., 2009; Gerson & Neilson, 2014; Martin et al., 2015), some academic and co-
curricular experiences like Greek, athletic, and ethnic club involvement showed no or limited
effect on openness (Longerbeam, 2010; Serrano, Tragant, & Llanes, 2012).
With the increase in demand for more accountability in education, study abroad programs
must provide quality assessments, demonstrate outcomes, and show lasting impact on students to
maintain academic merit (Anderson, Lawton, Rexeisen, & Hubbard, 2006; Fischer, 2008;
Petzold & Peter, 2014). Specifically, with openness to diversity becoming an essential outcome
of higher education (Cabrera et al., 2002; Pascarella et al., 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991;
Whitt et al., 2001), it is imperative that schools prepare students to deal effectively with people
different than themselves (Anderson et al., 2006; Collins & Davidson, 2002). High levels of
openness to diversity correlate to and positively impact organizational trust, effectiveness, and
communication (Groggins & Ryan, 2013; Hobman et al., 2004; Pascarella et al., 1996; Wanguri,
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 7
1996; Whitt et al., 2001), as well as academic success, increased motivation, and in-depth
learning (Alt, 2015; Bowman, 2014; Milem, in press; Nguyen, 2012). Assessment and research
in the field of study abroad outcomes could grant academic merit and credibility, further
strengthening the field’s relationship to academia (Anderson et al., 2006; Bernstein, 2006;
Collins & Davidson, 2002; Fischer, 2008; Hoffa, 2007; Petzold & Peter, 2013).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which GSA achieved its goal of
100% of student participants demonstrating an increase in openness to diversity during time
abroad. The analysis focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements related to
achieving the organizational goal. This goal spurred from the lack of data and evidence for study
abroad outcomes across the recently popular field, specifically study abroad’s impact on student
openness to diversity. Creating and compiling data have become the vehicles of choice for
ensuring accountability, results, and program success (Clark & Estes, 2008; Earl & Fullan, 2003;
McEwan & McEwan, 2003); GSA is following this best practice. As such, the research questions
that guided this study are the following:
1. To what extent is the organization meeting its goal of 100% of student participants
demonstrating an increase in openness to diversity during time abroad?
2. What is the stakeholder knowledge related to the organizational goal?
3. What is the stakeholder motivation related to the organizational goal?
4. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
5. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 8
Organizational Performance Goal
GSA’s goal is that each semester, beginning August 2017, 100% of student participants
will demonstrate an increase in openness to diversity during time abroad. Post articulation of the
program’s first-ever learning outcomes coupled with institutional critiques of GSA’s lack of
research and assessment on student outcomes, gains in openness to diversity became increasingly
important to research.
Failure to accomplish this goal could lead to both the program falling behind in
institutional expectations and a potential loss of accreditation, adversely impacting the
organization’s ability to exist. Successful implementation of this goal could lead to the creation
and execution of regular assessment efforts, increase GSA’s best practices, up student
participation, improve decision-making, provide credible research and merit to one of the many
desirable effects of study abroad, and create measures for student success during and post time
abroad. This study aimed to begin measuring openness to diversity as an outcome of study
abroad and to combat the lack of available research and data in the field, the study’s problem of
practice.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders contributed to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal of 100% of student participants demonstrating an increase in openness to
diversity during time abroad, it was important to collect data from students. Change in this
stakeholder group is the goal of educational endeavors and defines success for the organization.
GSA functions as a third-party provider, wherein multiple stakeholders and groups are
impacted. The first, and most apparent stakeholder, was the group of focus for this study: the
students packing the bags, boarding the plane, receiving credit, and investing financially to study
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 9
abroad, although parents are traditionally involved in the latter. Students study abroad for an
array of reasons, including intercultural competency gains, language learning, adventure and
travel, and lasting relationships with other students and locals. Although GSA’s faculty, staff,
and institutional partners in the U.S. are important stakeholders, students were chosen to study
due to their influence on program success as the end consumer, the limited research and data on
student outcomes in the field, and the importance institutions grant student experiences and
changes upon return to campus.
Review of the Literature
This literature review will examine the history and impact of study abroad, as well as
articulate the credible research available in the field. The review continues to include the
importance of openness to diversity and the opportunity afforded for change by the upward trend
of students going abroad. Following the general research literature, the review turns to the Clark
and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework and, specifically, skills needed by
students in the areas of knowledge, motivation influences, organizational settings, and cultural
models necessary to achieve the performance goal.
History and Trends in Study Abroad
Study abroad has historical roots. Emo Friesland, a Dutch scholar from Oxford in 1190
became the first person to study abroad (Sedghi, 2016). In 1923, the first group of American
students set out to study abroad for their junior year from the University of Delaware (Study
abroad, 2016). Smith College (2016) launched its Junior Year Abroad (JYA) program in 1925.
Post the Smith College launch, many more students began studying abroad, all with the purpose
to increase cross-cultural understanding (Sedghi, 2016). It worked (IIE, 2015; Stroud, 2010). The
rest of the century observed substantial interest in international relations and the learning benefits
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 10
from study abroad gained support from both the government and academia (Anderson et al.,
2006; Collins & Davidson, 2002). The exponential increase in recent years of students studying,
working, interning, volunteering, and engaging in service abroad warrants attention, for the
impact on both education and economics (Bollag, 2005; Twombly et al., 2012). The field’s
maturing assurance in methodology and baseline effectiveness (Rexeisen, 2012) stem from an
increase in value of experiential learning and positive gains in holistic education. Collegiate
study abroad has been found to be “one of the most important experiences students can have
during their undergraduate years” (Stone & Petrick, 2013, p. 731). Coupled with the growing
emphasis on globalization and internationalization in government, business, and higher
education, the trend to go abroad will continue (Stroud, 2010; Twombly et al., 2012).
Although data on demographics teem from the Institute of International Education (IIE)
established in 1919 (IIE, 2015), 1950 marked the first annual statistical analysis of the
international student population in the U.S. and abroad, entitled Open Doors. The 2015 Open
Doors report showed that 5% more American students studied abroad from their U.S. colleges
and universities in 2013/14 than in the prior year. This is the highest growth in study abroad in
five years, since the 9% increase in 2007/08 (IIE, 2015). A second important data provider for
study abroad is the Council on International Education Exchange (CIEE), that has been
facilitating travel for students since the 1970s (CIEE, 2016). Research efforts of the CIEE’s 1977
four-series evaluation prompted the need for assessment, highlighted the lack of evidence for
effects, and began a new chapter in the field to improve the quality of academic programs
overseas. Accreditation questions and concerns posed by the Federation of Regional Accrediting
Commissions of Higher Education led to this evaluation series (Abrams & Heller, 1978). Still,
limited research exists by either of these data collectors or other researchers in the field, in
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 11
showing study abroad’s learning outcomes (Davidson, 2010; Laubscher, 1994; Petzold & Peter,
2013; Stephenson, 1999; Wortman, 2002), particularly research that explores the outcomes of
learning that happens outside the classroom (Bachner & Zeutschel, 2009; Hunley, 2009; Langley
& Breese, 2005).
Importance of Data and Current Research for Study Abroad Outcomes
Today, with one in ten U.S. undergraduates studying abroad before graduating (IIE,
2015), the potential for impact on students’ behaviors and dispositions is noteworthy. Evaluation
methods lag in comparison to the booming number of students going abroad, where the increase
in students going abroad directly impacts demand for demonstrated and lasting student outcomes
(Bidwell, 2014; Fischer, 2008; Regan, Howard, & Lemée, 2009; Serrano et al., 2012). Cubillos
and Ilvento (2013), and Hunley (2009), researched outcomes like intent to go abroad and the
impact on student self-efficacy. Stroud (2010) researched psychological distress and emotional
resilience of students abroad, showing evidenced changes to participants’ cultural perceptions
(Laubscher, 1994; Savicki & Brewer, 2015; Stephenson, 1999). Language gains top the list for
ample research (Carlson & Widaman, 1988; Davidson, 2010; Davidson & Lehmann, 2001–2005;
Drews & Meyer, 1996; Engle & Engle, 2004; Hadis, 2005; Jones & Bond, 2000; Jurgens &
McAuliffe, 2004; Kinginger, 2008; Llanes, 2011; Rivers, 1998), with writing and literacy
changes following close behind (Cumming, 2006; Dufon & Churchill, 2006; Segalowitz, Freed,
Collentine, Lafford, Lazar, & Díaz Campos, 2004). Research has also demonstrated that not all
students who go abroad see gains in learning (Engle & Engle, 2004; Kinginger, 2008), whereas
other studies have focused on the determinants of studies abroad (e.g. the educational level of
parents) (Brooks & Waters, 2011; Lorz & Krawietz, 2011; Netz, 2013). Cubillos and Ilvento
(2013), Llanes (2011), following Davidson’s (2010) study, presented mixed findings on the
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 12
linguistic benefits associated with study abroad students.
Copious research is available on how to develop, run, and maintain study abroad
programs (Ecke, 2013), and how to re-enter one’s home country (Henze, 2007; Kruse &
Brubaker, 2007). Data even exists in accounting for the financial benefits of study abroad with
approximately $20 billion contributed by international students to the U.S. economy in 2012
(IIE, 2015; NAFSA, 2014). Although these findings and data are intriguing, much remains to be
investigated about the impact of study abroad (Ismail, Morgan, & Hayes, 2006; Sasaki, 2007)
and unfortunately, efforts toward more participation in study abroad have met institutional
resistance (Bernstein, 2006; Collins & Davidson, 2002; Davidson, 2010; NAFSA, 2014).
Anderson et al. (2006), Bernstein (2006), and Fischer (2008) found that some institutions are
imposing restrictions like limited financial aid, institutional involvement in the selection process,
and full tuition charges in addition to program fees due to limited evidence of outcomes.
Researchers and administrators alike find themselves unable to understand contributing factors to
student success, failure, and achievement of disparate personal and academic goals of education
abroad (Engle & Engle, 2004; Hadis, 2005; Jurgens & McAuliffe, 2004). Both current data and
new research on outcomes could help institutions relinquish control of academic standards and
learning in relation to international providers (Hoffa, 2007). Student openness to diversity, and
dispositions like it, are difficult to measure (Ecke, 2014; Hadis, 2005), but nonetheless Bowman
(2014) suggests it is the outcome that undergirds student success, retention, and is “essential for
flourishing as a global citizen” (p. 278).
Study Abroad’s Potential Impact on Openness to Diversity
To be “open,” students must learn how to move away from their own self-interest and
toward one that reflects the value in difference. Longerbeam (2010) describes openness as a
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 13
precondition for excellence, where both acknowledging and appreciating differences define the
term. Interactions with people from different cultures and backgrounds aid in moving students
toward openness, challenge preconceptions, and increase appreciation of difference (Bowman,
2014; Gerson & Neilson, 2014). College, coupled with study abroad, provides unique
opportunities to encounter and engage various forms of difference, including racial, ethnic,
socioeconomic, religious, political, and sexual orientation, among others (Bowman, 2014;
Cabrera et al. 2002; Hoffa, 2007; Pascarella et al., 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Stone &
Petrick, 2013; Whitt et al., 2001). The ability to live and work with others who are different is a
daily reality and challenge, and exposure to other cultures, both in literature and practice, grants
students opportunity to examine and establish their own awareness and openness (Bernier, 1995;
Endicott, Bock, & Narvaez, 2003; Green & Celkan, 2012; Landis & Bhagat, 1996).
Outcomes of Openness to Diversity
Alt (2015) and Bowman (2014) described openness to diversity as an essential outcome
for higher education. The researches further described the disposition as a determinant of
academic success, a tool to increase motivation and deepen learning. Academically, openness
impacts student success (Bowman, 2014) and students’ ability to interact with and value
diversity in others enriches academia in creative and open discussion (Clauss-Ehlers, 2006;
Riley-Eddins & Alberta, 1999; Schilpzand, Herold, & Shalley, 2011; Triandis, Hall, & Ewen,
1965), innovation (Hassan, Bashir, Abrar, Baig, & Zubair, 2015), the exploration and sharing of
ideas (Foronda, Baptiste, Reinholdt, & Ousman, 2015; Urdang, 2010; Van Knippenberg, Van
Ginkel, & Homan, 2013) and a sense of belonging (Cabrera et al, 2002; Lichtenberg, 1999;
Whitt et al., 2001). The normative nature of education expects universities to “engender”
students to all types of diversity (Green & Celkan, 2012, p. 2675), promote exposure to other
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 14
cultures, and provide space to practice both the recognition and appreciation of diversity
(Scarino, Liddicoat, & O’Neill, 2015).
Professionally, openness coupled with cultural competency could mitigate negative
stereotyping and lessen prejudice in the workplace (DeJaeghere & Zhang, 2008; Flynn, 2005;
Groggins & Ryan, 2013). The moderating role of openness provides for better performance,
teamwork, trust, effectiveness (Cabrera et al., 2002; Glew, 2009; Hooghe, 2007; Mitchell &
Boyle, 2015; Mitchell, Nicholas, & Boyle, 2009), communication, and work group involvement
(Groggins & Ryan, 2014; Haslam, Ryan, Kulich, Trojanowski, & Atkins, 2010; Hobman et al.,
2004; Hofhuis, Van der Rijt, & Vlug, 2016; Triana & Garcia, 2009; Wanguri, 1996). Openness
gives candidates a competitive edge in the job market, demonstrating to employers an ability to
function in a multicultural world and appreciate human difference (Bowman, 2014;
Bandyopadhyay & Bandyopadhyay, 2016), resulting in better employability, hireability, and
likelihood to receive promotions (DeJaeghere & Zhang, 2008; Di Pietro, 2014; Flynn, 2005;
Schmidt, Lewark, & Strange, 2008). Study abroad and college’s positive associations in the job
market warrant quantitative evidence for student changes in this area (Di Pietro, 2014), even
though campus cultures naturally provide for interactions and understanding of people from
diverse backgrounds (Bandyopadhyay & Bandyopadhyay, 2016; Friedman, 2005; Salisbury,
Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2010).
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences
As described earlier, Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework was
utilized throughout the study to ensure organizational performance goals were met and to combat
performance gaps. Knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences define the “big
three” causes of performance gaps; this study aimed to research the interaction between the three
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 15
in relation to study abroad’s impact on student openness to diversity (Clarke & Estes, 2008, p.
43).
Knowledge
Mayer (2011) defines learning as a change in knowledge attributable to experience.
People’s knowledge and skills are critical factors in determining both individual and team
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Rueda (2011) continues by explaining that knowledge and
skills impact experience and that knowledge includes not only the facts, procedures, concepts,
strategies, and beliefs about a specific topic or content area, but how, when, and where to
incorporate these constructs. It is not enough to simply know about a topic; transfer and
application of knowledge and skills are required to successfully complete tasks and assignments
(Grossman & Salas, 2011; Mayer, 2011).
Categorization of knowledge clarifies what educators expect and intend for students to
learn. Bloom’s taxonomy moves from simple knowledge to complex, concrete to abstract where
factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge define the different types necessary
to transition through the learning process (Krathwohl, 2002). Knowledge and skills acquisition
influence students’ openness to diversity. While many types of knowledge contribute to the
understanding, application, and integration of GSA’s goal of 100% of student participants
demonstrating an increase in openness to diversity during time abroad, this study focused on
students’ metacognitive knowledge of knowing how their beliefs about diversity are changing or
have changed and of understanding their own implicit bias.
Students need to know how their beliefs about diversity are changing or have
changed. College students can change their beliefs, values, and dispositions by welcoming
challenges, not only in themselves but in the communities that surround them (Baxter Magolda,
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 16
2004; Gramon, 2004; Pascarella et al., 1996). Openness grows from these changes in beliefs.
Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle (1994) argued that changes are possible in ideologies and
beliefs that form the basis of discrimination and oppression. If attitudes about diversity are
created and nurtured, students can actually make changes to these attitudes (Cokley, Tran, Hall-
Clark, Chapman, Bessa, Finley, & Martinez, 2010; Sanner, Baldwin, Cannella, Charles, &
Parker, 2010), moving metacognitive knowledge to actionable behavior.
Helping students develop openness requires effort, assessment, planning, and self-
reflection (Pascarella et al., 1996; Whitt et al., 2001). Although exposure to different
perspectives is essential to increasing awareness and attitudes toward diversity, it is students’
perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about diversity that ground openness (Harper & Yeung, 2013;
Mayhew, Grunwald, & Dey, 2005). Recognition of such beliefs and reflection on them are
distinct, but complimentary skills. Self-monitoring of one’s own comprehension and learning
(Schommer-Aikins & Easter, 2015), and self-reflection on beliefs about diversity directly relate
to students becoming life-long learners and increasing motivation to change their dispositions
(Cabrera et al., 2002; Mayhew, Walniak, & Pascarella, 2008; Whitt et al., 2001).
Students need to understand their own implicit bias. Bias exists and impacts students.
Openness to diversity decreases prejudice and minimizes bias toward dissimilar others (Gerson
& Neilson, 2014). In 1987, the State Higher Education Executive Officers reported that while a
lack of cross-cultural contacts can be detrimental to student learning and openness, prejudice and
ignorance can be even more damaging. Research supports that the existence of prejudice
determines the level of group integration, commitment, and communication (Lauring & Selmer,
2012; Milliken & Martins, 1996). Indicators include dissimilarity bias (i.e. viewing and acting as
though one culture is better than another) (Haslam et al., 2010), and distantiation: one’s readiness
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 17
to repudiate, isolate, and if necessary, destroy forces and people who seem “dangerously
different” negatively impacts group identity and openness (Gerson & Neilson, 2014, p. 5).
Allport (1954) supports this claim, determining one of the causes of prejudice as social ignorance
and lack of awareness. Another study found that although overt biases like sexism and racism are
known and seen, implicit and subtle bias can also impact openness (Brown & Hewstone, 2005).
The knowledge of the inequitable outcomes resulting from bias require individuals to reprogram
biases to better align with explicit convictions, appreciating difference being one of many
(Staats, 2015).
Motivation
If motivation is defined by the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and
sustained, then knowledge and skills provide the foundation. Motivation provides the building
blocks (Rueda, 2011). Motivation assumes a dynamic interplay between knowledge, skills,
transfer, and application of learning (Bandura, 1986; Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Culture
aids in the definition of motivation influences, particularly in this study of students abroad.
Motivation, after all, is a product of the interactions between people and their culture (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Knowledge gain and transfer are crucial to generate motivation (Osterloh & Frey,
2000). Personal commitment and motivation to change (Berneir, 1995; Rueda, 2011) paired with
depth of experience and interaction (Endicott et al., 2003; Scarino et al., 2015) is what causes
change in students’ beliefs and eventually, in actions. For the purpose of this study, the
motivation influences were students’ value of openness to diversity and their confidence to
interact with dissimilar others.
Expectancy value theory purports that behavior is affected by the values of possible
outcomes weighted by the probability of those outcomes (Colman, 2015). Values are a powerful
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 18
tool people use to express views, opinions, beliefs, and actions. Different people have different
values (Clark & Estes, 2008). Regardless of the types of value, the theory proposes not only
value’s impact on outcomes, but on achievement, performance, and group identity (Eccles, 2009;
Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Cambria, 2015). The authors continue by explaining that
the amount of value placed by an individual on a behavior, belief, or construct directly relates to
the amount of motivation with which that individual behaves, believes, or thinks. Applying the
theory, students who value openness to diversity will actively behave, believe, and think in
accordance with openness.
Students must value openness to diversity and the importance of interacting with
others different than themselves. Valuing and appreciating diversity creates a common interest
and a society where there are no privileged notions or practices (Riley-Eddins & Alberta, 1999).
Riley-Eddins and Alberta (1999) found that students who value diversity and dissimilar others
achieve education’s overarching goals and purposes. They also argued that education involves
the beliefs and attitudes that there are diverse paths to learning and viewed differences in people
as good things. Interacting with people of diverse backgrounds proves to be intrinsically good
and valuable wherein difference enriches data, insights, and actions present in the classroom and
organizations (Clauss-Ehlers, 2006). Apathy, (i.e. limited to no value attached to diversity),
stagnates the benefits of diversity (Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & DeDreu, 2007). The
value people attach to another person or environment, how often people can appreciate or
depreciate the same person or environment, determines whether positive learning occurs (Bliss-
Moreau, Barrett, & Wright, 2008). Individuals with a high value of openness to diversity
demonstrate parallel levels of self-determination, social intelligence (Devine, Plant, Amodio,
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 19
Harmon-Jones, & Vance, 2002), and rank high on self-regulation measures (Bowman, 2014;
Salinas & Garr, 2009).
Self-efficacy theory suggests that students will work harder to learn when they believe
they are capable of doing well on a particular task (Clark & Estes, 2008). Unless people believe
that their actions can produce the outcomes desired, there is little incentive to complete a task or
accomplish a goal. Success raises self-efficacy, failure lowers it (Pajares, 2009). Levels of
confidence influence choices, courses of action, and how much effort one will expend on an
activity (Usher & Pajares, 2009), or in the case of this study, the amount of effort one will
expend to change a disposition, thought patterns, and emotional reactions.
Students must feel efficacious in their ability to interact with dissimilar others. The
increasing diversity of college students warrant development of students’ confidence in their
ability to interact across cultures (Liang & Prince, 2008). Sheu and Lent (2007) linked
confidence in one’s ability to deploy skills and knowledge of interacting with people from
different cultures and races to openness. The more positive experiences, the greater the self-
efficacy (Bowman, 2014; Gerson & Neilson, 2014; Levine & Cureton, 1998), resulting in
openness gains (Cabrera et al., 2002; Pascarella et al., 1996; Whitt et al., 2001). Behjat (2012)
found that self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and situations involving diverse opinions, ideas,
and values have a direct impact on motivation. People are motivated to interact with dissimilar
others when they perceive that they have the confidence to do so (Bandura, 2001; Flynn, 2005).
Combs (2002) further proposed that neglecting confidence levels negatively impacts successful
transfer of knowledge into these experiences. While awareness is a first step, changing one’s
openness requires the perception that one is capable of regulating one’s own actions and thoughts
about diversity. A degree of personal determination and confidence is necessary for effective
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 20
learning to occur (Combs, 2002; Rehg, Gundlack, & Grigorian, 2012). Competent interactions
not only increase confidence, but also increase the knowledge of how to, and the value in
continued interaction (Foronda et al., 2015; Fuller, 2012; Mayhew et al., 2008; UNESCO, 2004).
Organization
Organizations embody a system of interacting processes that require knowledge,
motivation, and organizational policies and practice. Organizational stakeholders with adequate
knowledge and motivation will fall short in closing performance gaps if policies, protocols, and
processes represent obstacles to success (Clark & Estes, 2008). Creating and changing
organizational culture is a dynamic process, jointly crafted by the individuals living and working
within it (Rueda, 2011). But, culture has two notions: models (invisible) and settings (visible).
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) introduce cultural models as shared mental schema,
assumptions, beliefs, and values that are expressed through cultural practices, or settings.
Organizational models and settings can be either a hindrance or a help in improving performance
and meeting goals.
Organizations should value diversity in thought and behavior. Diversity, in all its
forms—race, ethnicity, gender, disabilities, sexual orientation, language, culture—enriches
organizations. Tillman and Scheurich (2013) argue that learning environments that value cultural
and ethnic diversity, as well as understand how these environments impact and inform student
achievement, increase student learning and engagement. Organizations that value diversity do so
strategically, developing the potential of a diverse group of employees by implementing
creativity, innovation, and problem-solving tools (Konrad, Prasad & Pringle, 2006). One study
found that Openness to diversity increased when individuals believed that the organization
provided support for their own differences, backgrounds, cultures, and identities (Avery,
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 21
Volpone, Stewart, Luksyte, Hernandez, McKay, & Hebl, 2013) and another found that students
valued differences in others more when study abroad programs valued diversity (Bowman, 2014;
Cabrera et al., 2002; Mayhew et al., 2005; Mayhew et al., 2008). Respectively, professionals
high in openness tend to pursue employment with organizations that value diversity.
Organizational values relating to diversity play an important role in employees’ levels of
openness to diversity (Härtel, 2004; Härtel & Fujimoto, 2000), in the same way that student
values reflect faculty values (Alt, 2015; Collins & Davidson, 2002; Edison, Pascarella,
Terenzini, & Nora, 2001; Ryder, Reason, Mitchell, Gillon, & Hemer, 2015). Affirmation of
differences in thought and behavior provide salience for collective identity and ethos (Avery et
al., 2013; Bond, 1998, Lauring & Selmer, 2013), strengthened by the inclusion of alternative
views and behaviors (Bond, 1998).
Research has highlighted the importance of organizational conditions that leverage the
benefits of diversity. Employee satisfaction and competency increased among organizations that
valued diversity (Podsiadlowski, Grosche, Kogler, Springer & van der Zee, 2013). Therefore,
valuing diversity is one of the characteristics that makes an organization effective in diversity
management (Rabl & Triana, 2014). In sum, addressing performance gaps in organizations
requires a view of all three processes and their interactions: knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Organizational programming should encourage and facilitate openness to diversity.
Encouraging openness to diversity is not a new or emerging concept; society and culture have
confronted resistance to immigrants, diverse ideologies, and simply “different ways of being” for
much of history (Thomas, 2008, p. 1). The cultural setting of organizational facilitation of
openness undercuts bias and creates a culture and climate where people feel safe, valued, and
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 22
special (Choi & Rainey, 2014; Fuller, 2012). Rutherford (2011) suggests that change efforts fall
short without the underlying structure to support them, particularly in facilitating openness: how
people relate to one another and deep-rooted, sometimes unconscious attitudes and beliefs.
Resistance persists when organizations challenge preexisting social defenses and cultural norms,
and understand that individuals have different stakes in the change process (Danisman, 2010;
Rutherford, 2011). Such potential cannot be realized if dissimilar others, whether diverse
racially, sexually, or culturally are excluded from hiring (Kochan, Bezrukova, Ely, Jackson,
Joshi, Jehn, Leonard, Levine, & Thomas, 2003; Murgia & Poggio, 2013).
Research shows that study abroad contexts that value openness provide interpersonal
interactions across difference and encourage discussions on issues of diversity (Bowman, 2014).
Openness through activities and structures have been shown to move learners into a space of
dialogue and promote communities of inquiry (Alt, 2015). Study abroad contexts that encourage
openness produce positive beliefs about diversity (Cabrera & Nora, 1994), a commitment to
valuing difference and providing interactions with dissimilar others (Mayhew et al., 2005;
Mayhew et al., 2008), as well as addressing forms of resistance like interpersonal exclusion,
avoidance, and social distancing (Johansson, Astrom, Kauffeldt, Helldin, & Carlstrom, 2014;
Thomas, 2008). The importance of encouragement and facilitation of openness cannot be
overstated (Bowman, 2014; Mayhew et al., 2005; Sanner et al., 2010) and begins long before
students arrive on campus or participate in programming (Pascarella et al., 1996; Whitt et al.,
2001). Programs though that attempt to increase tolerance and facilitate openness to diversity
through educational coursework (Clauss-Ehlers, 2006; Longerbeam, 2010), events (Strachan &
Owens, 2011), and communication methods and patterns (Sotirovic & McLeod, 2001) are both
popular and successful in higher education (Gerson & Neilson, 2014). Table 1 below provides
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 23
the organizational mission, goal, and information specific to the KMO model.
Table 1
KMO Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
Go Study Abroad (GSA) exists to provide a study abroad experience where students
will engage the challenges of a developing nation and learn to respond appropriately.
Organizational Goal
By August 2017, 100% of student participants will demonstrate an increase in
openness to diversity during time abroad.
Knowledge Influences & Research
Question (RQ)
Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Students need to know how their
beliefs are changing or have changed
(RQ 1 and 2).
Metacognitive Survey (Subscale 1 & 2:
Q1-12, Q13, Q17),
Interviews, and
Document Analysis
Students need to understand their
own implicit bias (prejudices and
stereotypes) (RQ 2).
Metacognitive Interviews and Document
Analysis
Motivation Influences Motivational Influence
Assessment
Students must value openness to
diversity and the importance of
interacting with others different than
themselves (RQ 3).
Survey (Q1-3),
Interviews, and
Document Analysis
Students must feel efficacious in
their ability to interact with
dissimilar others (RQ 3).
Survey (Q14), Interviews,
and Document Analysis
Organization Influences Organization Type Organization Influence
Assessment
Organizations should value diversity
in thought and behavior (RQ 4).
Cultural Model Interviews and Document
Analysis
Organizational programming and
staff should encourage and facilitate
openness to diversity (RQ 4).
Cultural Setting Survey (Q15, Q16, Q18),
Interviews, and
Document Analysis
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 24
Interactive Conceptual Framework
Carefully collected results can be misleading without a basis for interpretation. A
conceptual framework, or the system of concepts, assumptions, beliefs, and theories that support
and inform the data is key to a study’s design (Glesne, 2011; Miles & Huberman, 1994).
According to Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO model, knowledge, motivation, and organizational
culture influence and impact the problem of practice and organizational goal. This often occurs
as a result of the mixing of all three influences (Rueda, 2011), as outlined below in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Student Openness to Diversity (OTD) Conceptual Framework
The concentric circles illustrate the interconnectedness of all three influences in relation
to student openness to diversity. Rarely do changes occur exclusively in one area. All GSA
students function and study within the structure and organizational context of GSA, the “o.”
Organizations that are resistant to change limit openness. Inversely, those that facilitate and
encourage it increase openness (Danisman, 2010; Johansson et al., 2014; Murgia & Poggio,
2012; Rutherford, 2011; Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010). Additionally, organizations
that value diversity in thought and behavior produce members, employees, and students that
value the same (Avery et al., 2013; Chemers, Oskamp, & Costanzo, 1995; Rabl & Triana, 2014;
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 25
Tillman & Scheurich, 1944; Tropp & Bianchi, 2006). The “o” provides the structure, policies,
and foundation for students to gain in the other influences (time abroad).
Students need to have knowledge (“k”) of a few things in order to demonstrate an
increase in openness to diversity: how their beliefs are changing or have changed about diversity
(Cokley et al., 2010; Mayhew et al., 2007; Pascarella et al., 1996; Sanner et al., 2010; Whitt et
al., 2001) and understanding their own implicit biases (Bowman, 2014; Cabrera et al., 2002;
Gerson & Neilson, 2014; Levine & Cureton, 1998; Whitt et al., 2001). Although an absence of
prejudice and bias is the goal, the first step is to realize their presence (Lauring & Selmer, 2012;
Longerbeam, 2010). The “m” of the framework, motivation, includes students’ confidence to
interact with dissimilar others. It is one thing to know how to interact with others, but another to
actually do it. Students’ value placed on openness directly relates to the importance placed on
interacting with people different than themselves (Bliss-Moreau et al., 2008; Bowman, 2014;
Devine et al., 2002; Homan et al., 2007; Riley-Eddins & Alberta, 1999; Salinas & Garr, 2009).
The higher the value, the more interaction that occurs. More positive interactions result in greater
confidence (Bandura, 1997; Bandura, 2000). As Clark and Estes (2008) suggest, all influences
interact with each other, and grant room for factors influencing openness prior to time abroad
(e.g. age, ethnicity, family background, past experiences). The framework persists and the
performance gap lessens when students move between and within the influences.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Mixed methods research integrated quantitative and qualitative research to best
understand a research problem by capitalizing on the methods’ complementary strengths and
differences (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Plano Clark, 2017). As a mixed methods study,
surveys and interviews were useful tools in answering the research questions in this study. In
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 26
addition, this study also incorporated self-selected document analysis. Thoughtful mixing of
methods and procedures was an excellent way to conduct high-quality research, yielding rich
data (Johnson & Christensen, 2014; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Surveys, conducted
effectively, granted the researcher information about thoughts, feelings, attitudes, beliefs, values,
and even perceptions (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Quantitative research used statistical
methods to show relationships between variables, making inferences and aiming to determine the
relationship between a treatment and outcome, whether positive or negative (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). Using qualitative methods, in addition to quantitative survey results, allowed
the researcher to ask who, what, why and how questions in relation to the research questions
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Plano Clark, 2017).
Survey and Instrumentation
Surveys were given to all students studying abroad with GSA roughly halfway in (six
weeks post arrival) to their time abroad of the Fall 2017 semester, as the marker of the beginning
of the data collection process. This was Time 1. Since email addresses were given by students
and compiled by GSA during the admissions and acceptance process into the program, the
survey was administered online through Qualtrics to ensure maximum participation. Two email
reminders accompanied the test throughout the two-week collection period. Twenty-eight of 30
surveys distributed were completed.
The quantitative method, in answering the research questions, suggested a relationship
dependent on the variable of time abroad. Time 2 was administered to each participant in the
same format as Time 1, four weeks post departure, in an aim to show the developmental process
of changes to openness to diversity. A code given to each Time 1 participant was used for Time
2 to ensure a paired sample. Some responses did not change (e.g. precollege experiences,
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 27
demographic data, etc.) between survey times and thus, not asked in Time 2. Two email
reminders accompanied the test throughout the two-week collection period. Twenty-nine of 30
surveys distributed were completed. Survey respondents resulted in the study having 27 paired
sample responses (N=27). At Time 2, all participants willing to continue in data analysis via
interviews had the opportunity to select an option for further participation. Twenty-two students
were willing to continue to participate in the study. See Appendix A for the sampling criteria.
Table 2 shows the demographic characteristics of survey respondents.
Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents (N=27)
n
Sex
Male
Female
Total
Class year
Freshman/Sophomore
Junior/Senior
Total
Ethnicity
White
Latinx
Asian/Pacific Islander
Total
Study Abroad Experience
Yes
No
Total
8
19
27
3
24
27
19
4
4
27
4
23
27
Openness to Diversity and Challenge – Student (ODC – Student). The survey
included Pascarella et al.’s (1996) Openness to Diversity and Challenge 7-item instrument, with
an original Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83 for the precollege measure and 0.84 for the end-of-first-year
follow-up and 0.80 for this study, using five-point Likert scale items aimed to measure students’
knowledge of how their beliefs about diversity are changing or have changed, including a few
questions about students’ value of openness. This first subscale was given to students during
Time 1 and 2.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 28
Openness to Diversity and Challenge – Faculty (ODC – Faculty). The second
subscale in the survey incorporated Ryder et al.’s (2015) Openness to Diversity and Challenge:
Critical Role of Faculty 5-item instrument with an original Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81 and 0.71 for
this study, using five-point Likert scale items aimed to measure students’ knowledge of how
their beliefs about diversity are changing or have changed including the role of faculty, as well as
the organization influences. This scale was given to students during Time 1 and 2. Both ODC
subscales also assessed student openness to cultural, racial, and value diversity, answering the
first research question.
Supplemental Questions. A supplemental 6-item instrument, created by the researcher,
measured multiple influences with both five-point Likert scale and ranking items. The
supplemental questions were additional questions that measured both the motivational and
organization influences in the study, specifically related to GSA. This scale was given to students
during Time 1 and 2. See Appendix B for the Survey Questions, both the pre-existing
instruments and the supplemental items.
Interviews
Interviewing yields rich data for qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A
purposeful sample of ten Fall 2017 survey respondents were selected for interviews, providing
data for the qualitative portion of the study, from the survey respondents who selected the option
for further participation. The goal was to purposefully select a rich variety and diversity in the
sample. Since the sample aimed to study a breadth of student experiences and thoughts (Johnson
& Christensen, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the researcher selected participants, ages 18 to
24, from multiple institutions (a minimum of five different institutions), both male and female,
representing multiple ethnicities and backgrounds. An informal, open-ended interview was used
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 29
since the purpose of interviewing is to enter into the participant’s perspective, particularly in
relation to openness to diversity and the influences surrounding the disposition (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002).
All ten students agreed to interview requests: four male students, six female students, five
white students, three Latinx students, and two Asian/Pacific Islander students, from nine
different institutions. One student with study abroad experience was interviewed. Each interview
was scheduled for the duration of one hour, over the internet, in a quiet location, utilizing a
media tool, since the interviewer and student were separated by distance. No interviews
surpassed that time frame. Due to the nature of the interviews, the research questions measuring
a disposition with multiple factors for change, redundancy was not the goal, but rather a
reasonable coverage of the phenomenon being studied (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews
were scheduled after the semester’s completion, one month post the survey’s completion to grant
as much opportunity possible to gain and reflect on learning and changes in beliefs, as well as
provide the researcher time to analyze the survey data prior. Two follow-up emails were sent to
participants who communicated needing additional time to reflect on the interview questions
about bias. Once the interview and transcription were completed, thank you gift cards were
distributed to each participant via email and coding of the interview occurred. See Appendix B
for the Interview Protocol. Table 3 shows the demographic characteristics of interview
participants.
Table 3
Demographic Characteristics of Interview Participants
n
Sex
Male
Female
Total
4
6
10
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 30
Class year
Freshman/Sophomore
Junior/Senior
Total
Ethnicity
White
Latinx
Asian/Pacific Islander
Total
Study Abroad Experience
Yes
No
Total
1
9
10
5
3
2
10
1
9
10
Document Analysis
Mining for data in documents and artifacts was an important and reliable data collection
strategy for qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Unlike public sources of data, these
journals were considered personal documents, property of each GSA student. Bogdan and Biklen
(2011) refer to personal documents as any “first-person narrative that describes an individual’s
actions, experiences, and beliefs” (p. 133). Although an entire study could be based on personal
documents, this study used them in addition to interviews, to support the qualitative findings.
Due to the metacognitive nature of the knowledge influences in this study of openness to
diversity, document analysis aided the survey and interviews in describing human experiences,
inner meanings, and data concerning students’ attitudes, beliefs, and views of the world and of
themselves throughout the process of change. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest this method.
At the end of each interview, the researcher requested that the participant self-select
journal entries throughout their time abroad that showed a significant change in beliefs, thoughts,
and behaviors related to openness to diversity. Document analysis was not disclosed throughout
their time abroad to prevent any writing bias or sway as students record thoughts, experiences
and reactions. Students could choose to select and send journal entries that show a change in
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 31
beliefs, thoughts, and openness. Three out of ten interview participants sent twenty journal
entries.
Data Analysis
Data collection began with surveys in October 2017 and ended with surveys in January
2018, interviews and document analysis in February 2018. Time 1 describes the surveys
completed by GSA students in October 2017 and Time 2 describes the surveys completed by the
same population of GSA students in January 2018. Quantitative data analysis used paired
samples t-tests for dependent groups to compare means after Time 2 for the OCD – Student and
OCD – Faculty subscales, as well as individual items related to specific influences. Descriptive
statistics and reliability analyses aided in analysis. Frequencies were run for all other survey
items, including the ranking question. For interviews, the researcher used in vivo and a priori
coding post detailed transcription of ten hours of interviews. In vivo coding described initial
analysis and a priori coding for individual KMO influences described analysis to answer the
research questions. The same a priori codes were used in the document analysis of journal
entries.
Findings
The following findings address the first research question: To what extent is the
organization meeting its goal of 100% of student participants demonstrating an increase in
openness to diversity during time abroad? The study found that the students without study abroad
experience demonstrated significant change in openness to diversity during their time abroad
with GSA. Students with prior study abroad experience did not demonstrate significant change.
The dependent variable in this study was students’ openness to diversity. Survey respondents
resulted in the study having 27 paired sample responses (N=27). The independent variable for
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 32
this study was time abroad, seeing if participants’ Time 1 versus Time 2 means resulted in a
change to openness to diversity, as measured by the first two subscales. Analysis of means
showed that students increased in openness to diversity across subscales regardless of gender,
class year, or ethnicity between the two survey times. Table 4 shows the results of a paired
samples t-test for dependent groups of all GSA survey respondents. There was not a significant
difference in the mean scores of students between Time 1 (M=4.30, SD=0.49) and Time 2
(M=4.48, SD=0.43); t(26)=2.51, p = 0.19 for the ODC – Student subscale. There was not a
significant difference in the mean scores of students between Time 1 (M=4.05, SD=0.62) and
Time 2 (M=4.12, SD=0.53); t(26)=1.20, p = 0.24 for the ODC – Faculty subscale.
Table 4
Time 1/Time 2
t-test Results Comparing All Students Openness to Diversity Change
Subscale/Item
N Mean SD t df p
ODC - Student
27
4.30/4.48
0.49/0.43
-2.51
26
0.19
ODC - Faculty
27 4.05/4.12
0.62/0.53 -1.20 26 0.24
*95% Confidence Interval
Analysis of means showed that students who had prior study abroad experience showed
decreases in mean scores; a potentially limiting factor since the sample only consisted of four
students. Still, this factor guided analysis. Table 5 shows the results of a paired samples t-test for
dependent groups, conducted to compare student openness to diversity change between Time 1
and Time 2 of GSA students without study abroad experience (n=23). There was a significant
difference in the mean scores of students between Time 1 (M=4.23, SD=0.5) and Time 2 (M=
4.50, SD=0.44) for the ODC – Student subscale; t(22)=-2.88, p = 0.01. There was not a
significant difference in the mean scores of students between Time 1 (M=3.97, SD=0.58) and
Time 2 (M=4.20, SD=0.56) for the ODC – Faculty subscale; t(22)=-2.08, p = 0.05. These results
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 33
from the first subscale suggest that significant change occurred among students in relation to
openness to diversity between survey times, for students without study abroad experience.
Students who had not previously studied abroad were more likely to show significant changes in
openness to diversity than students who had. The results from the ODC – Faculty subscale
indicate that although positive change occurred among students without study abroad experience
between survey times, the change was not significant.
Table 5
Time 1/Time 2
t-test Results Comparing Students without Study Abroad Experience Openness to Diversity Change
Subscale/Item
n Mean Standard
Deviation
t df p
ODC – Student
23
4.27/4.50
0.50/0.44
-2.88
22
0.01*
ODC – Faculty
23 3.97/4.20
0.58/0.56 -2.08 22 0.05
*95% Confidence Interval
Knowledge
The following K findings address the second research question: What is the stakeholder
knowledge related to the organizational goal? The study found that students knew how their
beliefs about diversity are changing or have changed and that their understanding their implicit
biases was varied.
Changes in beliefs about diversity. The first knowledge influence in this study was that
students need to know how their beliefs about diversity are changing or have changed. All
students knew how their beliefs about diversity changed. Students’ self-reported positive change
between Time 1 and 2 across both subscales, as measured by mean scores. All 27 students agreed
and strongly agreed that they see the world differently now than before they studied abroad
(Q17), at both survey times. Quantitative analysis showed no significant change between the two
response times for Q17; student response means stayed the same between Time 1 and 2. Table 6
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 34
shows the results of a paired samples t-test for dependent groups, conducted to compare all GSA
student responses to Q13 from the Supplemental Questions, between Time 1 and 2, showing
significant change. Students felt that they were more open to new experiences post their time
abroad than before they came on study abroad.
Table 6
Time 1/Time 2
t-test Results Comparing All Student Responses to Q13
Subscale/Item
N Mean
Standard
Deviation
t df p
Q13: I feel more open to new
experiences than before I came
on study abroad.
27
3.96/4.63
0.80/0.56
-4.72
26
0.00*
*95% Confidence Interval
All of the students interviewed were able to clearly articulate changes in their beliefs
about diversity, particularly being immersed in a new culture, with people who spoke a different
language. Students talked about how their length of time abroad impacted both their knowledge
and understanding of culture and people, where time “helped me process through others’
differences and my own” (Jonathan) and “positively impacted my ignorance, whether racially or
cross-culturally” (Nicole). Sara, Crystal, and Lauryn talked about the fact that being around
others who were different than themselves allowed them to learn new things about themselves
and others, in how they operate and think differently. Cristian articulated the dangers of tunnel
vision, thinking about things from one perspective. Nicole described her change in mindset, that
she “had a certain view of the world without knowing it. It was so small in comparison to my
new global perspective.” Both Anna and Jessie communicated that they were surprised by the
diversity of both the students and the people of the [host country], but that their beliefs about
them changed throughout the semester as they learned more about them. Hearing their stories
helped both students understand that there are more than one “right way” to do things.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 35
Superficial changes in beliefs about diversity grew more profound as the semester
progressed. Two students, Cristian and Ryan, came to appreciate their own identities as students
of color or of same-sex orientation. Crystal, prior to study abroad, “saw people ‘quote unquote’
as all the same.” She did not see color or differences, but now believes that view and inability to
see differences in people devalues them and “hinders depth because color provides background
for relationship.” Jessie talked about her shifts in belief about her needing to speak up, and
learning that speaking is not always her place or right. She understood that she could not fully
understand another person’s situation because she had not lived it herself, resulting in a desire to
listen and observe first. Three journal entries were sent post interviews, and a few excerpts relate
as well to students’ ability to know how their beliefs about diversity are changing or have
changed. Anna wrote and described the hierarchical caste system in the study abroad country that
taught her how to see people for who they were, and not for who society says they are. She
articulated change and growth in her compassion toward others. Crystal described a specific day,
where she was confronted by her choice not to give money to an elderly woman begging on the
street:
I have begun to see people through different eyes. Today was a day that changed my
perspective on the world and the people around me. It was as simple as figuring out what
poverty means, but it left me with a broken heart for being trapped in this American
spoiled bubble, I cried with disbelief of how I have been deceived. I feel yucky and
selfish. Poverty is more than money, wealth, health, but mental, emotional, and spiritual
wellbeing. I am thankful for pivotal days like this.
Crystal demonstrated a change in her beliefs about people “stuck” in poverty, shifting to a more
holistic perspective of poverty, and her response of gratitude and grief for learning about the
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 36
situations of other people. “People in poverty would tell me their stories about fighting against it,
and I realized their way of life was just so different than mine.” Lauryn wrote that her way of
thinking was “so, so different from where it was when she left home, all in good ways, but it is
still taking some adjusting.” She noticed something about herself, in that sometimes she is put
off by smart people, desiring to distance herself from people with knowledge. She finished her
journal entry for that day by praying and desiring that she would not feel threatened, challenged,
or intimidated by others who know more than her. Her humble realization that she did not “know
all there is to know” was a significant one, enough to journal about.
Cristian described his changes in beliefs about diversity as a confrontation, a challenge to
pre-existing beliefs:
One of the changes in my thinking happened in my confrontation of my beliefs about
certain things, learning about them in some cases, and how toxic some of them can be in
how I see and interact other people, particularly how I used to. I learned during my time
abroad that we can redeem our […] attractions and not have to suppress our sexualities,
my own included.
Cristian articulated that some beliefs were learned and others confronted, particularly in regard to
sexuality, but implied that the end goal of these experiences is hopeful, a redemptive view of
sexual diversity, in others and in himself. Personal stories about changes in beliefs about
diversity sparked a conversation with Ryan, where he described his process abroad as “learning
to fit in and be comfortable in his own skin, and skin color.” He pointed to his study abroad
experience as the catalyst for this acceptance of his identity as a student of color. Sara
demonstrated movement throughout the interview in describing her own family background
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 37
judgmentally at first, to affirming the values she grew up with and embracing her identity as a
minority.
Some students needed additional time to reflect about their changes in beliefs about
diversity. Two students, Cristian and Sara, communicated that additional reflection was needed
about their changes in their beliefs about diversity, and that their beliefs may not have changed
all that significantly. Cristian struggled to form and articulate what his beliefs were before
studying abroad and continues to. He did not feel that his opinions strayed strongly about people
outside his nationality post versus prior. Sara knew that her beliefs defined how she saw the
world and the people around her, but had never thought about them. Instead, she assumed that
her perspective and beliefs were innate and nurtured, difficult to pinpoint, and asked for
additional time to process through the changes to them.
A follow-up email granted some additional time for both Cristian and Sara to articulate
changes to their beliefs about diversity. Cristian responded honestly that he had not reflected on
this topic since the interview one month prior. Sara did. She talked about her entry into the
program with the assumptions that those in the [host country] were uneducated and that she
would bring expertise, skills, and knowledge to the people she would interact with. In relation to
the view and treatment of women, she entered in with a negative view about the [host country]
men. Sara, Nicole, and Jessie all articulated a similar bias, but only Sara was able to describe
movement and change toward a positive view of [host country] men post successful and valued
interactions throughout the semester, specifically in positive interactions with her homestay
father. “My homestay dad changed my view of men assuming power and influence over other
people because culture says that it is ok. His gentleness did that.”
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 38
Understanding implicit biases. The second knowledge influence in this study, students
needing to understand their own implicit bias (prejudices and stereotypes) was varied. In both
interviews and document analysis, students talked about the differences in the classroom and
internship setting, speaking about these differences in a negative way. “There was not a lot of
structure in a lot of ways, so it was really tough. I would say I was initially turned off by it,”
Lauryn described, in talking about her language courses, a lack of professionalism and
preparation of her local Spanish professors. Sara described her interactions with her internship
supervisor as a pronounced learning curve in relation to a direct versus indirect culture:
People in the internship office, especially the case manager I was working with, were
extremely passive. I am a direct, extremely direct person. It was hard to communicate or
get things done. I am definitely saturated in the American culture, and the individualistic
mindset, whether I want to be or not, especially in this context.
Sara did acknowledge her biased North American mindset, in addition to the independent,
individualistic, and efficient cultural mandate she gained from her supervisors and professional
experiences in her home country. Interestingly, Sara described a stark contrast between this and
her communal and indirect family that allowed her to understand the passivity she encountered
abroad.
Homestays highlighted prejudices and biases in students’ thinking. Nine out of ten
interviews articulated the significance of the homestay experience related to their changes in
beliefs about diversity. Living with a family from [host country] reinforced Cristian’s
stereotypes, particularly in relation to time orientation and the “lateness” that described the
family for almost every event he accompanied them to. “People’s value of relationships over task
is why people are late in [host country].” Nicole, at first, thought the family was trying to control
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 39
and micromanage her, irritating her. Her perspective changed when she began to realize that
culturally, “They do everything as a family, from meals to homework to coming home and
spending time together.” Crystal aimed to fight her ethnocentrism during homestays, because she
“did not grow up in a family that was close or that cherished time together.” Still, she knew that
they were going to do things differently, be geared toward spending time together, and prepare
different foods. Crystal actually desired to move from “doing everything on her own and being
just fine,” to relying on a family to support and teach her. Jessie learned, especially in homestays,
the value of listening and observing, and that this response directly challenged her desire to insert
herself, to prove she knew what to do, what words to speak, and how to interact. “That is an
extremely egocentric thing to do,” she explained, “inserting yourself into a culture you do not
understand.” Although she “hated saying this,” Jessie further described her implicit bias in that
she often interacted with people thinking she knew more than them, whether in class, internships,
or just walking around. Being out of her element abroad forced her to humbly recognize that she
did not know as much as she thought she did.
All students acknowledged the presence of their bias, but some were unable to explicitly
define them. Rachel and Lauryn concluded that bias and prejudice are simply a reality of culture
and society. Crystal talked about the fact that “we all have levels of bias and stereotypes in some
way, shape, or form, whether we intend to or not.” Sydney described the world as full of
stereotypes and biases, but was unable to explicitly define them, although she did suggest we
should do our best to get rid of them. Jonathan understood that biases affect his actions more
now than he did before studying abroad, that he became more of aware of them. He knows that
many more are present even if he cannot recognize them. Sara processed similarly.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 40
In a journal entry, Anna articulated the need for more compassion in her interactions with
people, particularly after some difficult cultural days in homestays. Lauryn wrote something
similar, that compassion could combat the negativity she was feeling toward herself. “I do not
always feel like I live up to my own standards, even though they are unrealistic.” Most likely due
to a lack of reflection and thought, Cristian was unable to articulate both changes to his beliefs
and define his biases after the follow-up email.
If students were able to explicitly define biases, movement regularly occurred in
confronting them. Four students were able to specifically define their implicit biases and
prejudices. Nicole provided specific examples of seeing cultural practices and things that
demonstrated her bias and prejudice, about her home country and [host country]. After seeing
children with their mothers on the streets, Nicole questioned the mother’s care, “This is so
terrible. How can mothers discard their babies this way, and put them on their back unprotected
in the sun?” She described her biases, as someone who desires to be an educator, in the lack of
structure, discipline, and preparation in the classroom teachers in [host country]. These biases
were confronted, where directly after Nicole described her disgust of motherhood in [host
country] on the street, two weeks into her time abroad, she realized the reality that the mother
may not have the ability to pay for care and in the grand scheme of things, the baby is fine. She
further learned the “value of simplicity, that things are easier back home and harder abroad” and
that getting twenty things done in one day is not necessarily the definition of success. In a similar
vein, Lauryn described her desire to return home and not “go back running around like crazy.”
Instead, she talked about making sure to take time for herself, not always having to do
something. [Host country] taught her that, where at first, the inefficiency of the [host country]
and lack of customer service irritated her.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 41
Two students’ biases and prejudices described the [host country]’s physical
characteristics and their expectations of limited development. It surprised Jessie how developed
the country was, both economically and socially. She “prepared herself and braced herself for the
worst” prior to entering in. Cristian found it difficult to not compare the country to others he had
visited. He assumed the country would be dirty and expected no sidewalks. [Host country]’s
cleanliness pleasantly surpassed his expectations.
Naturally, there were some biases and prejudices articulated about students’ views of the
people in the new culture that they suddenly found themselves immersed in, including two
students’ views about the other students studying with them. Anna acknowledged her quickness
to judge others around her and aimed to “imagine people she interacted with as connections,
rather than stereotypes.” Both Cristian and Ryan entered into the program questioning the
openness of other students, particularly with the number of white students surrounding them.
They talked about the expectation they had about “typical study abroad students who do not
know what it is like to be a minority on campus.” Clumping all white people together, assuming
that they are all the same created a guard for Ryan, particularly at the beginning of the program.
A unique bias brought up by Cristian described what parents and others might say about study
abroad, impacting certain students’ ability to:
It is hard for students of color to study abroad or travel because there is this fear that our
parents tell us of how different it is, there is a lot of pushback on these things, and hard to
fight. It is hard to fight what our parents are being told and the backlash we are receiving
at home about how unsafe it is.
Cristian hoped that his experience and conversations with his parents could change this bias and
alleviate safety concerns surrounding studying abroad in developing countries.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 42
Motivation
The following M findings address the third research question: What is the stakeholder
motivation related to the organizational goal? The study found that students valued openness to
diversity and the importance of interacting with others different than themselves and that
students felt more efficacious in their ability to interact with dissimilar others as the semester
progressed.
Value of openness to diversity and interactions with dissimilar others. The first
motivational influence in this study was that students must value openness to diversity and the
importance of interacting with others different than themselves. Pascarella et al.’s (1996)
subscale, specifically Q2 embedded value questions in relation to diversity. Paired samples t-
tests for dependent groups showed no significant change between the two survey times for Q1,
Q2, and Q3. There was not a significant difference in the mean scores of students between Time
1 (M=4.37, SD=0.56) and Time 2 (M=4.55, SD=0.51) for Q1; t(26)=-1.41, p = 0.17. There was
not a significant difference in the mean scores of students between Time 1 (M=3.96, SD=0.90)
and Time 2 (M=4.07, SD=0.78) for Q2; t(26)=-0.72, p = 0.48. There was not a significant
difference in the mean scores of students between Time 1 (M=4.41, SD=0.69) and Time 2
(M=4.59, SD=0.57) for Q3; t(26)=-1.22, p = 0.23. However, all students enjoyed having
discussions with people with different ideas and values (Q1) and all students agreed and strongly
agreed that the real value of a college education lies in being introduced to different values (Q2)
during Time 2. All but three students enjoyed talking with people who have different values
because it helps them understand themselves better (Q3) at both survey times. These responses
and students’ choice to study abroad demonstrated value.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 43
Students attributed intrinsic and attainment value to openness to diversity and
interactions with dissimilar others. Wigfield and Eccles (2000) describe different components of
values that helped analyze the responses students gave in relation to their value of diversity. The
first is intrinsic value, or the enjoyment one gains from doing a task, or in this case, in being
open. Seven out of ten students articulated their intrinsic value of openness, centered around their
reasons and motivations to study abroad, particularly related to their enjoyment of past
interactions and travel. All students seemed to value openness and interacting with people
different than them prior, during, and post study abroad. Jonathan described study abroad as an
opportunity to “not just learn a language, but engage with a different group of people and be able
to understand the idiosyncrasies and different practices of the community.” He loved doing this
while abroad. For Lauryn, learning about a place or culture from reading a book or doing
research is one thing, but it was so much more enjoyable to actually be there, talk to people who
are there every day, and try to understand them. Lauryn, Ryan, and Cristian all appreciated and
acknowledged the fact that they were granted a special opportunity to study abroad. Crystal
desired to “get out of the bubble and the mindset that the American dream is the only way to
live” and Sara, Sydney, and Jessie wanted to go and experience a new culture, to make new [host
country] friends. Nicole simply wanted to travel, because she enjoys it. In addition, she valued
the learning she did about another culture, expanding her perspective, doing school in a different
setting, breaking down barriers, and understanding that “people different than you have so much
to offer.” Cristian articulated this value of openness to diversity and interacting with dissimilar
others as something he loves to do. “Meeting people outside of my comfort zone was one of my
favorite parts of the semester.” Lauryn’s journal entry about being present with people around
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 44
her, even in the midst of only a few days left in her study abroad experience showed her
attainment value and enjoyment in continuing to interact with others, even when it was hard:
Be present with the people around you in this season of life. They were put there for a
reason, as iron sharpens iron. You learn from each other, you teach each other. It is
hard, it hurts, it sucks, but it is worth it. It is worth every last bit of the pain. The joy
outweighs the sadness of saying goodbye.
Attainment value, or the importance of doing well on a given task (Wigfield & Eccles,
2000) showed up in interactions with homestay families and internship sites. Five students
interviewed described feeling the weight upon entering into their homestay family, knowing that
they represented the program, their institutions, and even their own families back home. Anna
described how she learned about parenting from her host family, seeing the importance of this
impacting her future role as a mother. For Sydney, it was the connectedness that created the
relationship between herself and her homestay mom, particularly with similar faiths and at least
words in a shared language. Jonathan described how he learned about joy from his homestay
mother, about how to make […] and the history behind [host country]. For Jonathan, the value
and importance of the time with homestay families sustained him through the difficult and
challenging moments.
I do not know if I would say that I would want to do it again, because it was really
difficult, but I learned a lot from my entire family. I would not have learned as much as I
did about other people and the culture if I had not been placed in homestays and forced
out of my “normal.”
In the moment, and Jonathan was not the only student to say this, the value and importance of
this part of the program was unseen. The learning often times came after, with reflection. One of
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 45
Lauryn’s journal entries provided some additional input about both the challenge and importance
of homestays:
Homestays are almost over. Living with a family has been so rewarding and also so
difficult at times. Cultural differences are real, but one thing I have learned is that love
transcends all boundaries – whether that be cultural, language, or simply that of
differing worldviews. Homestays caused me to learn this.
Interactions with dissimilar others though were not always considered a positive learning
experience and negatively impacted Nicole in relation to her motivation to continue to interact
with people different than her:
The biggest challenge for me was my homestay family. I did not feel as though the things
I valued were also valued in the home. It made me not want to get to know them or learn
from them anymore.
Students attributed utility value to openness to diversity and interactions with dissimilar
others. Researchers have positively equated study abroad and openness to diversity to
employability (Di Pietro, 2014; Schmidt, Lewark, & Strange, 2008) and an indicator of
professional excellence, mitigating stereotyping and less prejudice in relation to working with
others (DeJaeghere & Zhang, 2008; Flynn, 2005). Utility value is defined as the usefulness of a
task, or how the task fits into the individual’s future plans (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000),
particularly through student internships, as described by three students. Sydney learned from her
internship supervisor how to see students individually and prepare a lesson, and that her role is
both leader and teacher. Nicole talked about her ability now to understand students’ stories, and
that her internship granted her empathy working with inner city kids in the future and their
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 46
“feelings of being out of place and sometimes out of control” in a new place and culture. Sara
described her openness as fruitful to her career aspirations as a social worker:
I am going to be working with people from that have all different personality types and
backgrounds, whether domestic or international. I also learned how to address conflict
with people who handle it differently than me. Their worldview was so different, their
way of life so different. One of the greatest things I learned was the diversity of people,
and how different everyone is, is so good.
Confidence to interact with dissimilar others. The second motivational influence in
this study was that students need to feel efficacious in their ability to interact with dissimilar
others. Paired samples t-tests for dependent groups showed no significant change in mean
responses for Q14: I feel more confident interacting with people who are different than me, as a
result of study abroad. There was not a significant difference in the mean scores of students
between Time 1 (M=4.15, SD=0.86) and Time 2 (M=4.48, SD=0.75) for Q14; t(26)=-2.08, p =
0.05. Still, 21 out of 27 students either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement at Time 1, 23
out of 27 felt the same at Time 2. No student was neutral, disagreed or strongly disagreed to this
statement after their time abroad, whereas one disagreed and four were neutral prior.
Students felt more efficacious in their ability to interact with dissimilar others as the
semester progressed. All students articulated a mixture of feelings, whether nervousness,
intimidation, or discomfort with engaging in a new place for a significant period of time,
concluding that semester entry showed limited confidence. Lauryn was apprehensive about
meeting new people, particularly her homestay family. Jonathan was nervous and intimidated
because “being in an internship in a foreign country is really different type of situation.” Not
meeting expectations, and the inability to communicate about them, highlighted his fears.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 47
Jonathan, Nicole, Jessie, and Crystal all articulated a lack of confidence upon entry into
homestays, because stepping out in conversations in Spanish was extremely difficult. “The
language barrier was tough,” Nicole described. Similarly, Anna described herself as an introvert
and that interacting with new people was “nerve-wracking, anxiety-inducing, and intimidating
since social skills are not her forte.”
All but one student moved from describing the initial feelings of nervousness to
transitioning to confidence and comfortability to interact with dissimilar others. Anna desired to
build relationships with people, and knew that she had to “go for it.” Through practice and taking
chances, she accomplished and surprised herself with the number of friendships she left [host
country] with. For Crystal, it was the support and help of her homestay mom, specifically with
Spanish homework, of correcting her graciously and patiently, where she felt encouraged and
motivated to speak and interact. Although Nicole would say she “did not have the skills to
interact with people different than me entering into the program,” she built them living abroad.
Jessie’s confidence grew as she placed more and more value on the growth she was seeing in
herself, both professionally and as a culturally competent person. Lauryn wrote in her journal
one month into her time abroad about her fears and challenges in her interactions with others, in
the midst of getting to know others in the program, and her conclusion that there were some
unhealthy beliefs in her:
I feel like there is something wrong with me. I have a fear of commitment, which makes
me cautious. I feel like I can only see the grey areas – that I am lost in the “in-between”
and drowning in the world of relativity. I am struggling to see the good in this, and I do
not know how to change it. I have conflict. I know this world needs people like me, but
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 48
sometimes it feels like I do not exist. I invalidate my feelings and desires for the sake of
others, I doubt what I know. This is unhealthy.
Two months later, one week prior to departure, she wrote about the invaluable friendships and
relationships that she created, and her grief realizing that she was going to say goodbye to them.
These entries indicated movement, though challenging, in her value of interacting with others for
the duration and entirety of the program.
Past experiences impacted students’ confidence to interact with dissimilar others.
Nicole described her white-washed hometown as having “the same socioeconomic class, same
race, same family structures, where everybody was like her” impacting her lack of confidence.
“The world I came from was not diverse at all,” she said. Differently, Lauryn was both
comfortable and looked forward to engaging culturally, being used to cultural differences and
understandings that things are done differently, a concept she grew up with. She knew that she
“would not be graceful the whole time” but expected herself to interact successfully across the
diversity spectrum. Sara was confident living in a different country, and expected uncomfortable
and awkward interactions, but never doubted her ability to make a connection. Jonathan also
described himself as efficacious, as he was “willing to jump into difficult conversations,
especially in a different language.” Interestingly, he pointed to his time abroad as a self-efficacy
influential factor as he “would not have been able to understand or even see the importance of
these types of conversations” before studying abroad. Ryan described a specific conversation
that increased his confidence, explicitly in his interactions with people with different political
ideologies and views:
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 49
Values-speaking, that conversation with my professor and later with my homestay was
good because it allowed me to feel more comfortable and safe, sharing my political views
or sharing my social ones, because that is something that is important to me.
Both his homestay family and professor asked him about his view of [political figure], and
opened up the conversation to a discussion, and eventually a debate between democracy and
socialism. This interaction increased his confidence to converse and disagree about a variety of
topics, amidst emotional reactions and scenarios.
Organization
The following organization findings address the fourth research question: What is the
interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder knowledge and
motivation? The study found that the organization generally valued openness to diversity, and
that for the most part, organizational programming and staff encouraged and facilitated openness
to diversity.
Organizational value of diversity. The organizational value of diversity in thought and
behavior, the first organization influence, was limited by data and assessment of a cultural
model. It is difficult to analyze a cultural model, in addition to the small number of survey and
interview questions asking about the specific influence. Still, six students talked about specific
topics of conversation, trainings, and the quickness of the organization to engage and encourage
conversations demonstrating the organizational value of diversity in thought and behavior.
Additionally, the application, admissions, and hiring of faculty and staff processes further
highlighted organizational value. A point of tension a student realized was that the student
population may not represent the organizational value of diversity since partner institutions also
lack diversity among their student bodies.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 50
Three students, Ryan, Cristian, and Sydney evaluated and critiqued the admissions and
application process and in relation to the program valuing a diversity of thought and behavior in
the student body, specifically. Sydney alluded to the fact that program could become more and
more diverse as more and more schools get involved and concluded that a diversity of students
was helpful in learning about the differences in the people studying with her. The price point and
demographic of the typical study abroad student, including GSA, was critiqued by Ryan.
I know the type of students have to have the ability, economically, socially, ethnically,
sexually, religiously, and that the application process says […] will not deny a student
based on these things, it says that you are open.
Ryan further granted explanation to the statement that although the processes say that the
program is open, the lack of diversity, specifically racially among students, begs the question of
the program’s value of it. Oppositely, three other students described the student body as diverse.
He did notice, however, the significant number of local faculty members within the program
from [host country]. “Because faculty were local, it is nice that it is not a bunch of white people
from the United States trying to run the program and teach us as students.”
Organizational programming and staff. The second organization influence in this
study was that organizational programming should encourage and facilitate openness to diversity
as a cultural setting. Questions 15 and 16 were specific survey questions that asked about the
program’s facilitation of openness to diversity. Paired samples t-tests for dependent groups
showed no significant change between Time 1 and 2 for Q15 and Q16. There was not a
significant difference in the mean scores of students between Time 1 (M=4.11, SD=0.89) and
Time 2 (M=4.30, SD=0.78); t(26)=-1.15, p = 0.26 for Q15. There was not a significant difference
in the mean scores of students between Time 1 (M=4.44, SD=0.64) and Time 2 (M=4.63,
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 51
SD=0.74); t(26)=-1.41, p = 0.17 for Q16. Positive change was reported as all students, during
Time 2, either agreed or strongly agreed that the program facilitated and promoted their openness
to diversity, and all but two students felt the same about the program encouraging interactions
with dissimilar others. Q18 asked students to rank a variety of experiences and their impact on
their openness to diversity. Figure 2 shows the top ranked from the 27 paired samples for Time 1
(left) and 2 (right).
Figure 2
Student Responses to Q18: Rank the following experiences in their changing and/or facilitating
your openness to diversity for Time 1 and 2
Homestays, internships, and academic courses ranked highest on the impact scale at both survey
times. Twelve students ranked homestays, five ranked academic courses, and three ranked
internships highest at Time 1. Fifteen students ranked homestays, five ranked internships, and
three ranked academic courses highest at Time 2. Time 2 revealed additional impact of
homestays and internships on student openness to diversity as more students ranked these
experiences higher than before. Program apartments, program activities, faculty and staff, and
public transportation ranked least impactful at both survey times.
Over-programming did not encourage or facilitate openness to diversity. Although most
of GSA’s programming did encourage or facilitate openness to diversity, the sheer number of
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Homestays Internships Academic Courses Public
Transportation
Student Activities Faculty & Staff
Q18
Time 1 Time 2
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 52
activities did not. In interviews, all students talked about the value of the events and activities
that helped foster openness to diversity. Anna thought the program provided opportunities for
students to be more open and take action, and that the activities encouraged students to get to
know each other. For Cristian, the activities and events made him feel a part of something, made
him “feel happy to be a part of the community.” Other students interviewed felt like some
activities and busyness of the schedule actually hindered their ability to engage culture and
interact with people outside the program. Anna discussed that “she felt like more of a tourist than
actually trying to learn and be in culture” when she was asked about the activities provided the
program. Crystal wished that she “was able to meet and spend time with people outside of the
program” and take advantage of relationships with people from [host country] in the limited
amount of time she was there. Both students talked about the number of events planned taking up
every weekend made that difficult. Sara talked about feeling untrusted by the program to explore
and the impact of the sheer number of activities. “Some rules and policies made it feel like we
were not adults or trusted to find new places to hang out. Not having one weekend free made that
difficult too.” Sydney suggested some ideas for future semesters, where students could be
introduced to diversity and locals early in the semester, to be better educated through exposure
rather than lecture.
Half of the students articulated that the program’s policies fostered openness. Within the
first week of the program, both Nicole and Ryan described that the program talked about cultural
stress and differences and staff showed students how to do things and not do things. This was
helpful to their openness. In addition, the program explained greetings and did not allow students
to choose who they were going to live with, which Nicole did not enjoy, but understood its
purpose of pushing students out of their comfort zones. Jessie articulated a similar sentiment. In
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 53
regard to policies about student conduct, Cristian understood why the program “held our hands
and restricted us from doing some things and going some places.” It made him feel safe knowing
the program was “looking out for him.”
Living in community fostered openness among the students, specifically with each other.
Sara highlighted that the [program living situation] fostered openness and building of
relationships. She further described the program as “set up to be open, with others and myself.”
Even amidst differences and the spectrum of personalities, religious beliefs, and political beliefs,
in the [program living situation], all but one student interviewed viewed their living with other
students as positive learning experiences and conducive to interactions and conversations. Living
with others though sometimes provided what Cristian called “romantic pressure” in trying to set
up students with each other, and how that made friendships difficult.
GSA staff encouraged and facilitated openness. Every student interviewed articulated
how the program staff’s intentionality, hospitality, and creation of safe spaces for conversations
fostered their willingness, as students, to be open. Jessie described the program staff as well
equipped and prepared to have study abroad students and that the program was conducive to
growth, even though “comfort was not the program’s MO.” She argued that every student, no
matter whether they could articulate it or not, grew substantially. She continued by describing
situations and scenarios where the program “threw her” into uncomfortable situations where they
had to rely and be open with one another, particularly about their fears. Ryan talked about the
safe spaces that were created by program staff willing to learn about cultural differences and
sharing stories and experiences that helped him understand his own. It was staff’s welcoming of
cultural diversity that impacted his desire to be:
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 54
The one thing that made me feel as though the staff were open to me personally, was the
intentionality about setting up time to meet one on one with me. The staff was inviting,
that told me that I can begin trusting these people because those conversations asked
about me and my story. Those conversations could run deep… or surface level. Either
way, those conversations made me feel as though I was interesting and had a unique
voice, worthy to be heard.
Jessie and Nicole articulated Ryan’s sentiments in talking about the “safe haven” provided by
staff allowing them to step out into challenging circumstances, talk about hard issues in their
own language, and not feel alone. One of Lauryn’s journal entries reiterated her gratitude for not
going through the study abroad experience alone:
I am afraid of intimacy. Do I feel unlovable? I am not sure. But, I am so, so glad that I do
not have to go through any of this, answering these questions alone.
Jonathan, Lauryn, and Jessie specifically talked about the modeling provided by the program in
regard to openness to diversity. For them, staff’s experiences and openness impacted them
positively as staff shared about themselves. Jonathan articulated that the staff “was there for us”
and that the staff were in the [host country] “because they love students, the work, and the
culture.” Knowing that he was supported by the program, he was able to go “all in” to his
internship and homestay. Nicole, knew that with “a foundation of support from staff,” she could
be open to others.
Solutions and Recommendations
The KMO solutions and recommendations are based on the findings and aim to increase
overall student openness to diversity during study abroad. The conceptual framework for this
study illustrates the interconnectedness of the three KMO influences and thus, the solutions and
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 55
recommendations reflect their interaction. These interactions answer the fifth research question:
What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation,
and organizational resources?
Knowledge
This study found that although students were able to articulate changes in beliefs about
diversity, superficial beliefs grew more profound as the semester progressed. Some students
warranted time and space for reflection. Helping students develop openness requires effort,
assessment, planning, and self-reflection (Pascarella et al., 1996; Whitt et al., 2001). By
providing a journal for students to complete, with developmental prompts related to specific
events and activities scheduled throughout the semester could aid in students’ ability to know
about their changes in beliefs about diversity to occur earlier in the program. Additionally, the
creation of online modules to be completed prior to student arrival (incorporated into
coursework) teaching students tools for self-reflection throughout the semester as well as the
cultural differences they might encounter while in [host country] could aid in metacognitive
gains even before students board a plane. Self-reflection on beliefs about diversity directly
relates to students becoming life-long learners and is a powerful tool to motivate change
(Cabrera et al., 2002; Mayhew et al., 2008; Whitt et al., 2001).
Although exposure to different perspectives, through study abroad or other means, is
essential to increasing awareness, it is students’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about diversity
that ground openness (Harper & Yeung, 2013). Increasing cognitive load by engaging the learner
in meaningful learning and schema construction facilitates effective learning (Kirshner, Kirshner,
& Paas, 2008). Providing opportunities for evaluation or making judgments based on criteria and
standards aids metacognitive learning (Krathwohl, 2002). These principles relate to the
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 56
recommendation of an alumni mentorship program to help students understand their implicit
biases and prejudices, since the findings found variance related to this knowledge influence. Past
students in the program have invaluable insight as they experienced changes in their beliefs.
Providing students studying abroad with case studies and models from alumni articulating their
changes in beliefs could prove beneficial to increasing openness, make judgements, and ground
their openness. Hearing about others’ implicit biases and prejudices could condone or confront
their own. Scott and Palincsar (2006) suggest that social interaction and cooperative learning
facilitate construction of metacognitive knowledge, that is thinking about one’s own thinking.
Specifically asking alumni to connect individually with incoming students prior to and during the
semester could provide this social interaction and aid in metacognitive learning. Another
recommendation for additional social interaction, in collaboration with the findings that
homestays highlighted students’ prejudices and biases is to extend student presence in
homestays. Table 7 shows the validated knowledge influences, principles, citations, and context-
specific recommendations.
Table 7
Summary of Knowledge Influences, Principles, Citations, and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Students need to know how
their beliefs are changing or
have changed.
Helping students develop openness
requires effort, assessment, planning, and
self-reflection (Pascarella et al., 1996;
Whitt et al., 2001).
Self-reflection on beliefs about diversity
directly relate to students becoming life-
long learners and motivates change
(Cabrera et al., 2002; Mayhew et al.,
2008; Whitt et al., 2001).
Educate students to evaluate their
own beliefs and biases through
structured self-assessment
opportunities utilizing journals,
developmental prompts, and
online modules.
Educate students studying abroad
with case studies and models
from past students articulating
their changes in beliefs through
alumni mentorship.
Students need to understand
their own implicit bias
(prejudices and stereotypes).
Students’ perceptions, attitudes, and
beliefs about diversity that ground
openness (Harper & Yeung, 2013).
Providing students studying
abroad with case studies and
models from alumni articulating
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 57
Increasing cognitive load by engaging the
learner in meaningful learning and
schema construction facilitates effective
learning (Kirshner et al., 2008).
Providing opportunities for evaluation, or
making judgments based on criteria and
standards aids metacognitive learning
(Krathwohl, 2002).
Social interaction, cooperative learning,
and cognitive apprenticeships (such as
reciprocal teaching) facilitate
construction of new knowledge (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
their changes in beliefs and biases
through an alumni mentorship
program.
Provide additional opportunity
for social interaction by
extending student presence in
homestays.
Motivation
This study found that students valued openness to diversity and the importance of
interacting with dissimilar others. Regularly, value grew throughout the semester. Understanding
the role of openness and articulating the educational benefits positively impact students’ value of
openness (Martin et al., 2015; Stone & Petrick, 2013). Researchers have found that the amount
of value placed by an individual on a behavior, belief, or construct directly relates to the amount
a motivation with which that individual behaves, believes, or thinks (Eccles, 2009; Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Cambria, 2015). Clarke et al. (2009) found that students who
understood the value of openness to diversity, perceived themselves to be more proficient,
approachable and open to other cultures. The recommendation related to this influence is for
GSA staff and faculty to continue to acknowledge and commend students’ choice to study
abroad already demonstrating openness at the beginning of the semester, aiming to increase the
intrinsic value of the experience and motivate them to interact with diverse people earlier in the
semester. Since Di Pietro (2014) suggested labor market payoffs for study abroad and openness
to diversity providing for positive professional associations, information can be added to the
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 58
online modules recommended for the K information about promotion, hireability, and salary
gains for study abroad students. Articulating and employee’s competitive advantages with
international internship experience, openness, and second language acquisition could increase
utility value attributed by students to study abroad and openness. Interest could also be impacted.
Valuing difference is important, but students feeling efficacious in their ability to interact
with dissimilar others impacts motivation, the second M influence in the study. High self-
efficacy can positively influence motivation (Pajares, 2009). Levels of confidence influence
choices, courses of action, and how much effort one will expend on an activity (Usher & Pajares,
2009). Students’ entry to study abroad showed limited confidence. The alumni mentorship model
could build self-efficacy, reminding students of past successes interacting with dissimilar others,
particularly in homestays and internships. Alumni mentors could further facilitate dialogue and
effective learning, providing space for collaborative learning.
A second recommendation to providing local university tutors for language learning
allows study abroad students to be challenged and motivated to connect. Scarino et al. (2015)
suggests that these connections could become educational motivators. Liang and Prince (2008)
found that placing students in cross-racial experiences, wherein they interact with people from
different backgrounds increases confidence. The program’s current models of placing students in
internships and homestays are seminal opportunities for interacting with dissimilar others, and
although local faculty help in creating confidence in students to interact, Bowman (2014) argues
that successful interpersonal interaction with peers promotes confidence and openness. Table 8
shows the validated motivation influences, principles, citations, and context-specific
recommendations.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 59
Table 8
Summary of Motivation Influences, Principles, Citations, and Recommendations
Motivation Influences
Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Students must value
openness to diversity
and the importance of
interacting with others
different than
themselves.
Understanding the role of openness and
articulating the educational benefits
positively impact students’ value of
openness (Martin et al., 2015; Stone &
Petrick, 2013).
The amount of value placed by an
individual on a behavior, belief, or construct
directly relates to the amount a motivation
with which that individual behaves,
believes, or thinks (Eccles, 2009; Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Cambria,
2015).
Students who understood the value of
openness to diversity, perceived themselves
to be more proficient, approachable and
open to other cultures (Clarke et al., 2009).
Labor market payoffs for study abroad and
openness to diversity providing for positive
professional associations (Di Pietro, 2014).
Rationales that include a discussion of the
importance and utility value of the work or
learning can help learners develop positive
values (Eccles, 2006).
Learning and motivation are enhanced if the
learner values the task (Eccles, 2006).
Train students about the value of
openness to diversity, describing the
benefit to students both personally and
professionally utilizing online
modules and staff commendations.
Students must feel
efficacious in their
ability to interact with
dissimilar others.
High self-efficacy can positively influence
motivation (Pajares, 2006).
Levels of confidence influence choices,
courses of action, and how much effort one
will expend on an activity (Usher & Pajares,
2009).
Interpersonal connections could become
educational motivators (Scarino et al.,
2015).
Placing students in cross-racial experiences,
wherein they interact with people from
different backgrounds increases confidence
(Liang & Prince, 2008).
Remind students of past successes
interacting with dissimilar others,
particularly in homestays and
internship, through an alumni
mentorship model.
Provide local university tutors for
students to be both challenged and
encouraged to connect with dissimilar
peers.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 60
Organization
The O findings found that the participants felt the organization generally valued diversity
in thought and behavior. Value of diversity should be evidenced and highlighted. Effective
organizations know that dimensions of diversity include race, culture, religion, gender, sexual
orientation, age, immigrant status, profession, personality type, functional background, education
level, and other demographic and socio-economic characteristics. Angeline (2011), Prieto,
Phipps, and Osiri (2009) suggest that organizations must integrate these dimensions into their
practice. In this case, integration impacts the application and admissions process by marketing at
diverse schools and offering scholarships to minority students.
Organizations should continue to promote diversity at the highest levels of the
organization (DiTomaso, Post, & Parks-Yancy 2007; Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez-Burks, 2008).
Asking diverse professionals to serve as GSA’s board of directors could further show
organizational value of diversity thought and behavior from the top down. Research has shown
that employee potential cannot be realized if dissimilar others, whether diverse racially, sexually,
or culturally, are excluded from boardrooms, management, or entry-level positions (Kochan et
al., 2003; Murgia & Poggio, 2013). Continuing to hire local faculty is a practice to be continued.
The negative impact of over-programming relates to the second organizational setting of
programming encouraging and facilitating openness to diversity. Effective organizations promote
a culture that promotes equity and inclusion and cultivate an atmosphere where diversity is
viewed as an asset to the organization and its stakeholders rather than as a threat (Angeline,
2011; Prieto et al., 2009). Eliminating a few staff-led activities and leaving open weekends for
student-led activities could combat tourism and encourage engagement. Extended homestays,
one of the K recommendations, warrant zero program activities to encourage social interaction.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 61
Limiting activities could also impact the space and time students desired for self-reflection.
Table 9 shows the validated organization influences, principles, citations, and context-specific
recommendations.
Table 9
Summary of Organization Influences, Principles, Citations, and Recommendations
Organization Influence Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Organizations should value
diversity in thought and
behavior.
Effective organizations know that dimensions of
diversity include race, culture, religion, gender,
sexual orientation, age, immigrant status,
profession, personality type, functional background,
education level, and other demographic and socio-
economic characteristics; they integrate these
dimensions as well as the intersection of identities
into their practice (Angeline 2011; Prieto et al.,
2009).
Effective leaders promote diversity at the highest
levels of the organization (DiTomaso et al., 2007;
Stevens et al., 2008).
Employee potential cannot be realized if dissimilar
others, whether diverse racially, sexually, or
culturally, are excluded from boardrooms,
management, or entry-level positions (Kochan et al.,
2003; Murgia & Poggio, 2013)
Demonstrate value
through the application
and admissions process;
market at diverse schools
and offer scholarships to
minority students.
Promote diversity at the
highest levels of the
organization by asking
diverse professionals to
serve as GSA’s board of
directors.
Organizational
programming and staff
should encourage and
facilitate openness to
diversity.
Effective organizations promote a culture that
promotes equity and inclusion and cultivate an
atmosphere where diversity is viewed as an asset to
the organization and its stakeholders rather than as a
threat (Angeline, 2011; Prieto et al., 2009).
Eliminate a few staff-led
activities and leave open
weekends for student-led
activities could combat
tourism and encourage
engagement.
Limitations
Some of the limitations of the study include time abroad, number of survey respondents
and interview participants, and other factors impacting student openness to diversity. This study
based time abroad on one semester (three and a half months), limiting exposure, experiences, and
opportunities for interactions with dissimilar others impacting openness to diversity.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 62
Additionally, although Time 1 was realized at the midpoint of the semester, Time 2 granted
students only four weeks to reflect and demonstrate change. Additional time between survey
times could impact results. The 30 student population of Fall 2017 GSA students as well as only
ten interview participants, with only one student with study abroad experience were limiting
factors for data collection. Gaining data and research on African American students was also
unrealized due to the lack of African American students studying with GSA. Lastly, openness to
diversity as a disposition lends itself to multiple leading indicators and factors. The only factors
addressed quantitatively in this study were study abroad experience, sex, class year, and
ethnicity.
Recommendations for Future Research
Data analysis did reveal some areas for future research, the impact of study abroad
experience on student openness to diversity since the data showed that students that studied
abroad previously showed decreases in openness to diversity across both subscales, whereas
students without prior study abroad experience showed significant increases in openness to
diversity. Analysis of means showed that students showed positive change in openness to
diversity across all subscales regardless of sex, class year, or ethnicity. Since the factors included
small sample sizes (e.g. students with study abroad experience, male students, non-white
students, etc.), additional research could be conducted to see if these factors are leading
indicators for openness to diversity. Multiple other factors like family background, religious
orientation, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status could be studied and assessed in the
future.
Since the generalizability of this study was never the goal, particularly with the small
sample size, future research could focus on larger representative populations, for longer periods
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 63
of time. In addition, the increases in openness to diversity occurred in students after only one
semester abroad, the impact of time, immersion, and more experiences with dissimilar others
could show additional change, and statistically significant change across subscales. Students’
value of openness to diversity and the effects that come from changes in openness could take
some time to be realized or measured, granting opportunity for longitudinal studies. Lastly,
future studies could research openness to diversity gains in study abroad students compared to
the general population, as student abroad students most likely enter a semester abroad already
more open than those who do not.
Conclusion
The diverse world of race, culture, language, and values requires students to effectively
embrace and function within and across them, both personally and professionally (Clarke et al.,
2009; DeJaeghere & Zhang, 2008; Flynn, 2005; Gerson & Neilson, 2014; Nguyen, 2012; Riley-
Eddins & Alberta, 1999). Students in GSA learned to do so, through a variety of experiences,
during and post their time abroad. GSA’s value of diversity, facilitation and encouragement of
openness impacted students positively and provided opportunities for them to engage and
interact in an unfamiliar context. Every student interviewed acknowledged that their study
abroad experience left a lasting imprint on their lives, and that the relationships they made will
be remembered. GSA students demonstrated gains in openness to diversity as well as their value
of diversity, and self-efficacy to interact with dissimilar others. With openness to diversity as an
integral outcome of the undergraduate experience, this study provides credible evidence for the
disposition as an outcome for GSA students, aiding education’s endeavor to produce functional
graduates and global citizens (Cabrera, Crissman, Bernal, Terenzini, & Pascarella, 2002; Clarke
et al., 2009; Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2004; Martin, Katz-Buonincontro, & Livert, 2015).
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 64
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria
Participating Stakeholders
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal, study abroad students are the stakeholder group of focus for this study. The
typical age range, from the U.S. College Student Demographics Report in 2012, is 18 to 24 years
old, describing nearly 80% of the population that studies abroad. According to the Institute of
International Education (IIE), 63.5% of U.S. students studying abroad were female, in 2009-
2010.
Sampling Criterion: Survey (QUAN)
Criterion 1. All Fall 2017 GSA students
Quantitative: Census Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Surveys were given to all students studying abroad with GSA roughly halfway in (six
weeks post arrival) to their time abroad of the Fall 2017 semester, as the marker of the beginning
of the data collection process. This was Time 1. Since email addresses were given by students
and compiled by GSA during the admissions and acceptance process into the program, the
survey was administered online through Qualtrics to ensure maximum participation. Two email
reminders accompanied the test throughout the two-week collection period. Twenty-eight of 30
surveys distributed were completed.
The quantitative method, in answering the research questions, suggested a relationship
dependent on the variable of time abroad. Time 2 was administered to each participant in the
same format as Time 1, four weeks post departure, in an aim to show the developmental process
of changes to openness to diversity. A code given to each Time 1 participant was used for Time
2 to ensure a paired sample. Some responses did not change (e.g. precollege experiences,
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 65
demographic data, etc.) between survey times and thus, not asked in Time 2. Two email
reminders accompanied the test throughout the two-week collection period. Twenty-nine of 30
surveys distributed were completed. Survey respondents resulted in the study having 27 paired
sample responses (N=27). At the end of Time 2, all participants willing to continue in data
analysis via interviews had the opportunity to select an option for further participation. Twenty-
two students were willing to continue to participate in the study.
Census sampling described this portion of the study, as the goal of quantitative methods
is to collect data from as many participants possible (Creswell; 2014; Johnson & Christensen,
2015). The rationale provides that because the population of current GSA students on the ground
each semester counts below 40, the collection of data can conveniently be gained from the entire
population. See Appendix B for the Survey Questions.
Sampling Criteria: Interview (QUAL)
Criterion 1. Purposeful sample of Fall 2017 survey respondents who selected the option
for further participation
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Interviewing yields rich data for qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A
purposeful sample of ten Fall 2017 survey respondents were selected for interviews, providing
data for the qualitative portion of the study, from the survey respondents who selected the option
for further participation. The goal was to purposefully select a rich variety and diversity in the
sample. Since the sample aimed to study a breadth of student experiences and thoughts (Johnson
& Christensen, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the researcher selected participants, ages 18 to
24, from multiple institutions (a minimum of five different institutions), both male and female,
representing multiple ethnicities and backgrounds. An informal, open-ended interview was used
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 66
since the purpose of interviewing is to enter into the participant’s perspective, particularly in
relation to openness to diversity and the influences surrounding the disposition (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002).
All ten students agreed to interview requests: four male students, six female students, five
white students, three Latinx students, and two Asian/Pacific Islander students, from nine
different institutions. One student with study abroad experience was interviewed. Each interview
was scheduled for the duration of one hour, over the internet, in a quiet location, utilizing a
media tool, since the interviewer and student were separated by distance. No interviews
surpassed that time frame. Due to the nature of the interviews, the research questions measuring
a disposition with multiple factors for change, redundancy was not the goal, but rather a
reasonable coverage of the phenomenon being studied (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews
were scheduled after the semester’s completion, one month post the survey’s completion to grant
as much opportunity possible to gain and reflect on learning and changes in beliefs, as well
provide the researcher time to analyze the survey data prior. Two follow-up emails were sent to
participants who communicated needing additional time to reflect on the interview questions
about bias. Once the interview and transcription were completed, thank you gift cards were
distributed to each participant via email and coding of the interview occurred. See Appendix B
for the Interview Protocol.
Sampling Criteria: Document Analysis (QUAL)
Criterion 1. Self-selected entries from Fall 2017 interview participants
Document Analysis Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Mining for data in documents and artifacts was an important and reliable data collection
strategy for qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Unlike public sources of data, these
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 67
journals are considered personal documents, property of each GSA student. Bogdan and Biklen
(2011) refer to personal documents as any “first-person narrative that describes an individual’s
actions, experiences, and beliefs” (p. 133). Although an entire study could be based on personal
documents, this study used them, in addition to interviews to support the qualitative findings.
Due to the metacognitive nature of the knowledge influences in this study of openness to
diversity, document analysis aided the survey and interviews in describing human experiences,
inner meanings, and data concerning students’ attitudes, beliefs, and views of the world and of
themselves throughout the process of change. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest this method.
At the end of each interview, the researcher requested that the participant self-select
journal entries throughout their time abroad that showed a significant change in beliefs, thoughts,
and behaviors related to openness to diversity. Document analysis was not disclosed throughout
their time abroad to prevent any writing bias or sway as students record thoughts, experiences
and reactions. Students could choose to select and send journal entries that show a change in
beliefs, thoughts, and openness. Three out of ten interview participants sent twenty journal
entries.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 68
Appendix B: Protocols
Survey Questions (QUAN)
Openness to Diversity and Challenge (ODC – Student)
(Pascarella et al., 1991)
This survey is a 7-item instrument. Students are asked to rate level of agreement (1 strongly
disagree, 2 disagree somewhat, 3 neutral, 4 agree somewhat, 5 strongly agree) to the following
items:
Q1. I enjoy having discussions with people whose ideas and values are different from my own.
Q2. The real value of a college education lies in being introduced to different values.
Q3. I enjoy talking with people who have values different from mine because it helps me
understand myself and my values better.
Q4. Learning about people from different cultures is a very important part of my college
education.
Q5. I enjoy taking courses that challenge my beliefs and values.
Q6. The courses I enjoy the most are those that make me think about things from a different
perspective.
Q7. Contacts with individuals whose background (e.g., race, national origin, sexual orientation)
is different from my own is an essential part of my college education.
Openness to Diversity and Challenge: Critical Role for Faculty (ODC – Faculty)
(Ryder et al., 2015)
This survey is a 5-item instrument. Students are asked to rate level of agreement or engagement
with the following climate for learning measures while they were studying abroad (1 almost
never, 2 not very often, 3 occasionally, 4 often, 5 almost always) to the following items:
Q8. Classes help explore diverse perspectives, cultures, and worldviews.
Q9. Classes encourage students to research ideas and explore controversial issues with various
perspectives.
Q10. Faculty and staff in this program teach about the importance of considering diverse
intellectual viewpoints.
Q11. Faculty and staff in this program help students think through new and challenging ideas and
perspectives.
Q12. Faculty and staff in this program advocate the need for students to respect perspectives
different then their own.
Supplemental Question(s)
This survey is a 6-item instrument. Students are asked to rate level of agreement (1 strongly
disagree, 2 disagree somewhat, 3 neutral, 4 agree somewhat, 5 strongly agree) to the following
items:
Q13: I feel more open to new experiences than before I came on study abroad.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 69
Q14. I feel more confident interacting with people who are different than me, as a result of study
abroad.
Q15. I feel the program facilitated and promoted my openness to diversity.
Q16. I feel the program encouraged me to interact with people different than me.
Q17. I see the world differently now than before I studied abroad.
Students are asked to rank (by level of importance in changing and/or facilitating their own
openness to diversity) (1 being the most important, 7 being the least important) to the following
items:
Q18. Rank the following experiences in their changing and/or facilitating your openness to
diversity:
a. Academic Courses
b. Homestays
c. Internships
d. Public Transportation
e. Program Apartments
f. Student Activities
g. Faculty & Staff
Demographic Characteristics & Variables
Q19. Class year: Students are asked to indicate their class year (Underclassmen – Freshman or
Sophomore & Upperclassmen – Junior or Senior)
Q20. Sex: Students indicate the category with which they identify (Male, Female, Choose not to
answer)
Q21. Have you participated in other study abroad programs prior to this one – L&LI? (Yes/No)
Further Participation
Q22. Are you willing to participate further in this study of study abroad’s impact on student
openness to diversity? Students are asked to check one of two boxes (yes, no). If yes, students
will click on a separate link to provide contact information.
* Please note that not all students who check “yes” may be selected for further participation.
Interview Protocol (QUAL)
Thank you for taking the time to interview with me today. Prior to beginning, I want to
be sure you understand that you may choose to not participate or not answer any question, at any
point during this interview. The interview will take no longer than an hour and a half, but the
norm tends to be closer to one hour. I also want to ask your permission to record and use the data
collected in this interview for the purpose of researching study abroad’s impact on student
openness to diversity. The answers you provide will not be attached to your name and will be
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 70
kept confidential. In addition, the questions asked are meant to be open-ended, and give you
room to expand with experiences, thoughts, and feelings. Feel free to do so! The nature of the
topic of openness to diversity distinguishes and requires open-ended questions (Patton, 2002).
So, may I record our conversation and take notes today? Ready to begin?
Broad & Follow-Up Questions:
1. Why did you choose to study abroad?
1a. How did you feel when you first met the people around you, in and outside of the
program? As you have gotten to know them, how are they different than you? How are
they similar?
2. Tell me about some of the most impactful experiences you had while you were abroad.
How did you make the most of them?
2a. Can you describe the interactions you had with people different than you? How
valuable were these interactions to you?
2b. How comfortable were you in getting to know people from a different culture?
3. How have these experiences changed you? How did study abroad change you?
4. What did you learn in the course of your time abroad? What have you learned since your
departure?
4a. What did you gain (learn) while abroad, that has influenced the way you think and/or
behave? Influenced your biases?
5. If openness to diversity is defined as both an ability to articulate and value difference, did
you have any experiences or interactions that have changed your level of openness to
diversity?
5a. How did the program help increase your openness to diversity?
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 71
5b. What things did the program do that were not helpful in increasing your openness to
diversity?
6. What was the best advice you received that would be helpful to others who are interested
in studying abroad? What are the top five tips you would give to a friend of yours who
was going to study abroad?
Thank you again for your time and valuable input. By the end of the week, I will send
you a transcript of our interview, so you can look it over for accuracy. In addition, I would like to
send you a Starbucks gift card as a thank you for participating. Any questions you have before
we end our time together? Thank you.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 72
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
All research, including qualitative research, is concerned with producing credible and
trustworthy knowledge (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Maxwell, 2013). Ethics aid in the effort, but
researcher bias and reactivity are threats to the study’s qualitative credibility. Eliminating the
researcher’s theories, beliefs, and perceptual lens is not the goal, but rather the understanding of
them (Maxwell, 2013). Regular self-reflective measures were conducted and documented by the
researcher, via memos and journals throughout data collection. Although long-term participant
observation would be beneficial, the convenience and short-term engagement of participants in
GSA prevent this as a strategy for credibility. However, respondent validation and triangulation
were utilized. All interviews were recorded with permission, transcribed, and sent to each
respondent for edits within two weeks of the interview to assure that what was written was
indeed what was said, limiting misinterpretation. Validation occurred both post interview, as
well as throughout the interview, where the researcher clarified responses with follow-up
questions. Triangulation provided internal credibility to the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Because human beings were the primary instrument of data collection and analysis,
interpretations of reality occurred and warranted multiple methods of data collection. Conducting
interviews and analyzing journals increased credibility of the research because it allowed the
data to be compared and cross-examined for accurate analysis.
In regards to qualitative trustworthiness, the researcher as the interviewer underwent
training, reviewed interview questions regularly, and practiced interviews pre data collection. For
personal documents, the removal of names and identifiers assured anonymity. Obligated to
present and provide detailed description of the study’s context, the study limited making explicit
claims about the generalizability of accounts and findings due to the study of a single program,
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 73
setting, and a small number of individuals (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 74
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability
Validity increases as a test, scale, and instrument measured what it is supposed to
measure. Reliability is simply the degree to which a test or survey measures something
consistently (Salkind, 2017). Since the large majority of survey instruments used in this study
were preexisting, and have been utilized in multiple articles, arenas, and studies, criterion and
content validity prove apparent. Pascarella et al. (1996) were experts on the subject matter of
openness to diversity and collected data from multiple populations of college students over
decades of research. The questions and statements stem from expertise and content mastery. In
addition, the first subscale of items have been added to the College Student Experience
Questionnaire (CSEQ), where the questions have been shown to be reliable and valid in
numerous surveys and extensive literature (Edison et al., 2001; Kuh, Gonyea, Kish, Muthiah, &
Thomas, 2003). In addition, Pascarella et al. (1996) reported a Cronbach’s alpha rating of 0.83
for the precollege measure and 0.84 for the end-of-first-year follow-up, demonstrating internal
consistency (Summers, Svinicki, Gorin, & Sullivan, 2002). Ryder et al.’s (2015) instrument
measured a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81.
Following previous research, the mean value of the Likert scale for the survey statements,
separated by subscales, has been and is continuing to be used as a measure of undergraduate
student openness to diversity and challenge (Cabrera et al., 2002; Edison et al., 2001; Pascarella
et al., 1996; Ryder et al., 2015; Whitt et al., 2001). These examples show both test-retest
reliability, as well as criterion validity over time. Openness, as a disposition, inherently includes
construct validity. Salkind (2017) defines construct validity as whether or not a test measures
some underlying psychological construct. Thus, the instruments used in this study, have shown
that the statements regarding openness to diversity correlate to the kinds of behaviors and
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 75
outcomes predicted for respondents high levels of openness: increases in cognitive development
(Pascarella, Palmer, Moye, & Pierson, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), academic success
and persistence (Pascarella et al. ,1996), and improved perceptions of race relations related to a
nondiscriminatory environment on campus (Whitt et al., 2001). For these reasons, the use of
Pascarella et al.’s (1996) and Ryder et al.’s (2015) unaltered and unchanged instruments provide
confidence to the results and sample of undergraduate students in relation to changes to openness
to diversity. The supplemental items asked more specifically about the organizational context,
influences, and additional demographic data for the study.
Lastly, the bias inherent in nonresponse rates was targeted by asking participants to take
the survey online. Additionally, the limited number of questions and direction asking participants
to answer all questions decreased nonresponse rates. All surveys were completed in their
entirety. The instruments matched the intended target population further limiting potential bias of
the researcher (Irwin & Stafford, 2016).
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 76
Appendix E: Ethics
Involving human subjects in research requires ethical considerations in regards to plans,
thoughts, and discussions (Glesne, 2011). Ethics are inseparable from interactions in the context
of research, where informed consent, avoidance of harm, and confidentiality determine
decisions, purposes, and design of research studies (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Patton (2015) identifies credibility, rigorous methods, and ethics as essential components of
research. Clear communication answers many ethical questions and grants participants both
information on how the results will be collected and might be used (Krueger & Casey, 2009). At
the core of expectations and obligations is ethical responsibility, as participants agree to
participate, talk openly, and answer questions honestly (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). After all, the
purpose of interviewing is to allow researchers to enter into the other person’s perspective, to
gather their stories, with both caution and openness.
Informed consent did contribute to empowering research participants (Glesne, 2011). Due
to the topic of the study having the potential to bring up controversial, personal, and sensitive
issues and dispositions, written informed consent accompanied the quantitative method at the
beginning of both tests, and verbal informed consent accompanied all qualitative methods, at the
beginning of the interview. This was due to signed informed consent forms creating links
between the research and participants, which might prevent some people from participating
(Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Informed consent, both verbal and written, included the purpose,
methods, and results’ use.
Voluntary participation of human subjects was another emphasis of this study and of
credible research; that is, research subjects were able to withdraw, without penalty, from the
study at any point (Glesne, 2011; Patton, 2002; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Equally as important as
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 77
participants understanding their voluntary decision was confidentiality (Glesne, 2011; Patton,
2002). Privacy is a foremost concern for researchers, respecting participants by not discussing
with anyone the specifics of what is seen, heard, or collected. All names were removed from the
study, providing for a study that realizes the sensitive nature of certain issues (Glesne, 2011).
The survey was designed to allow participants to exit the survey at any point, with no required
questions. Survey participants were coded to ensure paired sampling, and to remove any markers
attached to names or email addresses. All interviews were also designed to allow participants to
exit the interview at any point, with an option to not answer a question posed. At the same
moment, participants were asked for permission to record the conversations, with the assumption
that most people who agree to be interviewed enjoy sharing their knowledge, opinions, and
experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and
sent to each respondent for edits within two weeks of the interview. Quotes, actual things said by
real people, is the prize sought by qualitative researchers (Patton, 2002) and thus, this study
preferred recorded interviews. The researcher reiterated answers to assure clarity, asked follow-
up questions, and gave feedback to the process and progress of the interview. As Patton (2002)
describes, a good interview feels like a connection. Transcripts, tape recordings, and raw data
were stored in an online, password protected storage service. Document analysis assured no
coercion to participate in the document analysis phase of data collection. Self-selected journal
entries aided this effort.
Potential confusion could have arisen due to the researcher’s many roles in the
organization. The goal was not to be a Reformer/Intervener, although some things might be said
that the researcher deemed unjust or wrong (Glesne, 2011). Another role that the researcher
could have assumed is that of Glesne’s (2011) Advocate, or a researcher who takes a position on
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 78
an issue through the research. The researcher is passionate and knowledgeable about both study
abroad and academia’s relationship, and openness to diversity; the researcher desires for study
abroad’s credibility and validity as a change agent to increase. Reciprocity could define ethical
issues for the study, as students could assume better grades for participation or lower grades for
not. Understanding the researcher’s role as investigator was best practiced by participants
receiving no payment for participation, communicating clearly about the roles the researcher is
playing in this context, and articulating when research is being recorded and how data will be
received, transcribed, returned, and used. The closer the relationship between researcher and
participants, the more special obligations and expectations emerge (Glesne, 2011; Rubin &
Rubin, 2012; Weiss, 1994). Since the researcher had relationship with students while they were
studying abroad, assured separation of roles, particularly as a director, professor and researcher,
was of upmost importance. Thus, Time 2 survyes, interviews, and document analysis were
conducted once students returned home.
Plummer (2001) states that although confidentiality may appear as a prerequisite for
research, it frequently becomes an impossibility. This study makes a case for this argument, as
the sample is small and embodies a limited number of students who attended the program.
Anonymity was difficult to accomplish as all students knew each other and about their
participation in this study. All markers, including email addresses, have been removed as to
protect participants’ anonymity. The results did not articulate the institutional affiliation of
students. Additionally, interviews were held online and in private locations to prevent
identification.
Regardless of interview strategy, the wording of questions will affect the nature and
quality of responses received (Patton, 2002). Things might be said that impact, both positively or
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 79
negatively, the researcher. As a resident of the country of study for many years, comments and
phrases against native culture and people could prove data analysis and reporting difficult. Due
to the sensitive topic, interviewing and document analysis may have unanticipated effects
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As openness to diversity is both a personal and professional value of
the researcher, fulfilling neither a judge or therapist role in the process needs to be accounted for.
Accountability measures include regular awareness tools via reflection about the nature of the
topic, and the process of data collection and analysis.
Due to the close nature of the relationship between the researcher and participants, the
researcher had to be aware of the pressure felt by interviewees. Researchers cannot pressure the
sample to participate or respond to every question (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Further biases that
could have impeded the researcher’s ability to engage in data collection, analysis, and reporting,
was the fact that the researcher is a Caucasian, white male. Posing and probing questions about
openness to diversity could prove challenging, particularly to minority student participants. The
researcher’s ability to connect, understand, and articulate openness could be hindered by
privilege. The close relationship that the researcher has with participants instills trust and
vulnerability that an outside researcher could not obtain. Two of Weiss’ (1994) reasons for
conducting qualitative research with human subjects is to integrate multiple perspectives and to
bridge intersubjectivities (i.e. grasping a situation from the inside, as the participant might).
Being a Caucasian, white male hindered and hinders the researcher’s ability to grasp the situation
from that perspective. However, being a Caucasian, white male who identifies as a third-culture
kid, having grown up overseas for the entirety of childhood and the majority of adolescence,
granted some understanding to the perspective. An additional bias of faith could also impact the
researcher’s ability to hear, collect, and report data through a Christian lens, in relation to
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 80
openness to spiritual or religious diversity. These lenses could impact not only the initial phase
of recruiting respondents, but in the final stages of the study, prioritizing how best to interpret
and report the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002; Weiss, 1994). Purposeful sampling
of multiple students, differing in gender, ethnicity, and institutional affiliation helped account for
these biases.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 81
Appendix F: Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
GSA’s implementation and evaluation plan, post research and data collection, uses the
New World Kirkpatrick Model, maintaining and honoring the time-tested four levels and added
elements to operationalize them effectively (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Rarely are these
levels evaluated in a linear, sequential fashion, but Level 4 is where this study will begin to
bridge the gap between individual initiatives and organizational results by defining leading
indicators. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) write that clarity here is critical, as targeted
outcomes determine successful implementation, both in and outside of the organization. Each
leading indicator is one step toward reaching the true target of organizational results.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
GSA operates and provides short-term and semester-long learning opportunities for
students to engage challenges and learn to respond appropriately in an international and
intercultural context. GSA’s goal is that each semester, beginning August 2017, 100% of student
participants will demonstrate an increase in openness to diversity during time abroad. Successful
implementation of this goal will lead to the creation and implementation of regular assessments
efforts, increase GSA’s best practices and student participation, improve decision-making,
provide credible research and merit to one of the many desirable effects of study abroad, and
create measures for student success in and post time abroad. This study examined the knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences that impact students’ ability to increase and grow in
openness to diversity. The proposed solutions and recommendations, providing students with
structured self-assessment opportunities and tools, additional opportunities for social interaction
with dissimilar others through extended homestays and local tutors, connecting current students
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 82
with alumni mentors, and continuing to train students on the benefits and value of openness to
diversity. As an organization, GSA should continue to demonstrate value of diversity through
marketing, admissions, scholarship opportunities, a diverse board of directors, and combatting
over-programming to allow for student-led activities, should produce the desired outcome – an
increase in openness to diversity in students.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 11 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for GSA. If the internal
outcomes are met as expected for students, then the external outcomes should also be realized.
Table 11
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increased value and trust in
study abroad outcomes with
academic institutions
(strengthened relationship with
academia)
1a. The number of students
studying abroad.
1a. Aggregate data on institutional aid
granted per semester for study abroad
programs, in addition to the number of
students studying abroad each semester
across institutions.
2. Increased number of
graduates open and willing to
pursue international careers and
positions.
2a 2a. The number of job applicants
and offers on recent college
graduates to a location/culture
different than their own.
2a. Collect data from college graduates
on job placement and professional
experience abroad post graduation.
3. Increased openness among
college students to racial and
ethnic diversity.
3a. The number of race-related
incidents on college campuses.
3a. Solicit annual data from higher
education institutions, and local police
stations.
Internal Outcomes
1. Increased openness to
diversity among study abroad
students.
1a. The level of openness prior to
arrival versus the level of
openness post departure (study
abroad as the independent
variable).
1a. Aggregate data from students pre
and post study abroad (collected via
survey).
2. Increased number of
culturally competent students in
the workplace.
2a. The number of discrimination
or harassment reports.
2a. Aggregate data from businesses and
organizations tabulating the number of
reports on a quarterly basis.
3. High student confidence and
success in interactions with
dissimilar others.
3a. The diversity present in student
friend groups.
3a. Collect data on the breakdown
among student friend groups (smaller
contexts via observation, larger groups
via survey).
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 83
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus for this study are the students studying
abroad, changing their openness to diversity. Highlighted in this study, the first critical behavior
is that the students must be able to confidently and competently interact with dissimilar others
(people who are different than themselves). The second critical behavior is that students must
regularly assess and reflect on their changes in behavior and beliefs about diversity. The third
critical behavior is that students must challenge biases and prejudices, in themselves and others.
The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcomes appear in Table 12.
Table 12
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Study Abroad Students
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Confident and
competent
interaction(s) with
dissimilar others.
The number of
conversations and
interactions with
dissimilar others.
1a. The program will facilitate
opportunities for students to
interact with dissimilar others
(through alumni mentors,
internship supervisors, and
homestay families).
1a. During the 1st week
of Orientation, and
throughout time abroad.
Homestays begin 4
weeks into the program,
4-weeks in length
(possibility for extended
stay)
Internships last 10
weeks.
1b. Students required to take a
language and culture course in
order to increase efficacy in
interactions.
1b. Weekly, students
engage in academic
coursework related to
language and culture
acquisition.
2. Assessment and
reflection on changes
in behavior and
beliefs about
diversity.
The number of times
spent reflecting
(verbally or in written
form) on changes in
openness.
2a. The program will provide
journals, developmental prompts,
and online modules for students
to complete throughout time
abroad.
2a. During the first week
of Orientation, and
throughout time abroad.
Upon departure, students
are given additional
prompts in journal to
facilitate change in
openness to persist.
2b. The program staff and alumni
will regularly connect with each
student and ask questions to aid
in their reflection.
2b. Bi-weekly, a staff
member is assigned to
each student for
individual meetings.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 84
3. Challenge biases
and prejudices, in
themselves and
others.
The number of times
students challenge
biases in conversations
and interactions with
others.
3a. The program staff and alumni
will model how to challenge
biases and prejudices.
3a. Ongoing - throughout
semester.
The number of times
students acknowledge
and challenge biases
and prejudices via
reflection.
3b. The program will provide
journals, developmental prompts,
and online modules for students
to complete throughout time
abroad.
3b. During the first week
of Orientation, and
throughout time abroad.
Upon departure, students
are given additional
prompts in journal to
facilitate challenge to
bias and prejudice to
persist.
Required drivers. Students require the support of their colleagues, their parents, and the
faculty and staff that teach, mentor, train, and encourage them in their endeavor to study abroad
and ultimately, their desire to grow in openness to diversity. Rewards should be established for
achievement of performance goals to enhance program support of students. Table 13 shows the
recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of study abroad students.
Table 13
Required Drivers to Support Study Abroad Students’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Educate students to challenge themselves in their beliefs and behavior,
particularly in connecting and interacting with dissimilar others.
Ongoing 1, 3
Educate students studying abroad with case studies and models from alumni
articulating their changes in beliefs.
Ongoing 2, 3
Educate learners to check their progress.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Educate students to evaluate their own beliefs and biases through structured self-
assessment opportunities.
Ongoing 2, 3
Encouraging
Train students about the value of openness to diversity, describing the benefit to
students both personally and professionally.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Remind students of past successes interacting with dissimilar others to increase
confidence.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 85
Provide an alumni mentor that builds self-efficacy and enhances motivation for
current students.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Assign challenging but attainable tasks that allow students to choose to interact
with dissimilar others.
Monthly 1
Rewarding
Public acknowledgement, when students challenge biases and prejudices, in
themselves and others.
Ongoing 3
Public acknowledgement, when students confidently and competently interact
with dissimilar others.
Ongoing 1
Monitoring
Staff can create additional opportunities for students to interact with dissimilar
others through local tutors and extended homestays.
Ongoing 1
Staff can ask students to self-report their confidence and self-efficacy in these
interactions. Staff can also ask students to reflect and articulate changes in their
behaviors and beliefs about diversity.
Ongoing 2, 3
Organizational support. Implementation requires GSA support of the articulated
required drivers and critical behaviors by demonstrating value of diversity, promoting it, and
allowing students to lead. In order to model the value of openness to diversity, the organization
will market at diverse institutions, offer scholarships to minority students, and select a diverse
board of directors. Creating a culture that actively engages in culture provides for open weekends
where students can lead activities and continue to interact with dissimilar others.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Among many learning goals, following completion of the recommended
solutions, the students will be able to:
1. Recognize, define, and explain the impact of implicit biases and prejudices (M and P)
2. Generate their own beliefs about diversity during and post time abroad (M)
3. Monitor their ability to reflect on their learning and articulate changes to their beliefs
about diversity (M)
4. Indicate confidence and desire to interact with dissimilar others (Self-efficacy and
Value)
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 86
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with a two-
tiered model of an alumni mentorship program and regular, structured self-assessment tools,
aided by staff. The learners, students, will be paired up with an alumnus and encouraged to spend
regular time in conversation discussing a broad range of topics pertaining to their changes in
beliefs about diversity, their successes and failures in interactions with dissimilar others, and the
articulation of their own biases and prejudices during their time abroad. The alumnus will be
expected to share about his or her own experiences during their own time abroad, and model for
students the generation of new beliefs, thoughts, and behaviors. The program will also consist of
structured self-assessment tools, where students are granted in-depth prompts to respond to,
challenge their implicit biases and prejudices, and self-report on their growth in confidence
throughout the semester, including remembering past successes. Staff will provide accountability
and openness to discussing these reflections and learning goals. The total time for completion is
the duration of a semester, where students who complete the program can choose to engage
further as an alumni mentor for incoming students, resulting in long-term reflection, summation,
and value of the experience.
Components of learning. Demonstrating declarative knowledge is often necessary as a
precursor to applying knowledge to solve problems. Just as important is procedural and
metacognitive knowledge, particularly in this study, as the ability to reflect on learning and
changes in their beliefs is fundamental to students’ learning goals. It is also important that
students value the semester abroad experience as a prerequisite to practicing interactions with
dissimilar others and openness to diversity. However, they must also be confident that they can
succeed. As such, Table 14 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of
learning.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 87
Table 14
Components of Learning for GSA
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using multiple choice and true/false. At the beginning of the semester.
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair, think, share” and other
individual/group activities, including alumni mentors.
Before and during the semester.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Inferring cultural responses and determining the best course of action,
cause and effect relationships.
At the beginning of the semester.
Demonstration in groups and individually of using the skills gained to
successfully perform the tasks and interactions.
During the semester.
Quality of the feedback from peers, mentors, and staff during group
sharing.
During the semester.
Individual application of the skills with locals (including language and
cultural competencies).
During the semester.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment survey asking participants
about their level of confidence before and after the semester.
At the beginning and after the semester.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Staff’s observation of students’ statements and actions demonstrating
that they see the value and benefit of what they are being asked to do,
including biases and prejudices present.
During the semester.
Discussions of the value of what they are being asked to do, in and
outside of class.
During the semester.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. At the beginning and after the semester.
Confidence “I think I can do it this semester.”
Observations of peers; attributing and encouraging changes observed. During and following in-class activities,
interview prompts, and cultural
immersion experiences.
Discussions following practice and feedback.
During the semester.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment tool. During and after the semester.
Commitment “I will do it during the semester.”
Discussions following practice and feedback.
During the semester.
Create an individual action plan, both in behavior and thought.
At the end of the semester.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment tool. During and after the semester.
Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 Reaction is the most familiar to professionals and one of the simplest to evaluate
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The key to successful evaluation of Level 1 is to focus on
formative methods to evaluate the three components of Level 1 - engagement, relevance, and
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 88
customer satisfaction. Table 15 presents the methods and tools used, in keeping it simple and
asking only a few questions to help track and report post-program evaluation.
Table 15
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Language learning and cultural competency Ongoing, throughout the semester, Spanish
proficiency survey given pre and post semester
completion
Completion of online modules, journal and reflection
prompts(s)
Ongoing, throughout the semester,
Observation by staff and faculty During the semester
Observation by selected locals During the semester
Attendance During the semester (at the beginning of every
class period/session and student activity)
Course evaluation(s) During last class period/session of the semester
Relevance
Brief pulse-check and evaluation with students via survey
(online) and discussion (ongoing) mid-semester and end of
semester (debrief)
Post midterms, and during the final week in-
country during debrief
Course evaluation(s) During last class period (session) of the semester
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check and evaluation with students via survey
(online) and discussion (ongoing)
Post midterms, and during the final week in-
country during debrief
Course evaluation(s) During last class period (session) of the semester
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation (semester program). Level 1
and Level 2 evaluations are important to measure students’ engagement, relevance, and
satisfaction about the quality of the training, or in this case, the semester program as well
students’ new knowledge and skills, including application of cultural competency and language
learning. Questions will also include inquiry about the value of what was learned and their
confidence to continue application. Students are able to provide feedback on the program
activities, culture, accessibility of information prior to arrival and during the semester, including
the quality and care given to them by faculty and staff.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 89
Although attendance of events and classes, observational data, and brief pulse-checks
during the semester are helpful in evaluating Level 1 and 2 reactions and learning goals, students
will be asked to complete an end of semester evaluation that ask a variety of scaled questions as
well as opportunities to provide open ended feedback about their semester and future ones.
Appendix G shows example Level 1 and 2 rating items, such as those that would be included in
the end of semester evaluation.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Two months post students’
departure (February for Fall students, July for Spring students), students will be asked to
complete an evaluation that will assess students’ ability to integrate learning in both behavior and
thinking (Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4), Kirkpatrick’s blended evaluation approach (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Questions will include declarative questions that focus on summarizing their
learning and differentiating cultures, procedural questions recalling past successes of interacting
with dissimilar others, metacognitive questions asking about students’ implicit biases and
prejudices, as well as plan and monitor changes in their beliefs and how they might continue to
practice openness post time abroad. Level 4 evaluation suggests transfer of skills and knowledge
to behavioral changes and results, and thus the delayed evaluation grants students time to reflect
on their changes in beliefs about diversity post return to their own culture. Appendix G shows
example Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 rating items, such as those that would be included in the delayed
evaluation.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The purpose of data analysis post evaluation is to take appropriate action, to make data-
based decisions. Effective evaluation tools ensure transfer in learning and that behavioral change
has occurred (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Gaining information through both formative and
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 90
summative assessments will not only answer GSA’s accomplishment of the organizational goal,
but yield information that could shape other study abroad programs aiming to measure student
outcomes.
Data analysis assumes that the level of certain metrics, such as confidence, changes in
behavior and results are meeting organizational expectations (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Due to the fact that students study abroad through partner institutions, data will be shared with
institutional decision makers and stakeholders. Students will also have access to the results. As
the integrated plan suggests, data will be collected at both the end of the semester and post.
Reports and information granted to stakeholders, both in and outside of the organization, could
provide valuable insight into how students react to study abroad, accomplish learning goals, and
eventually demonstrate critical behaviors. Figure 3 shows one example of reporting data from the
first five questions on both the immediate and delayed evaluation tools.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 91
Figure 3
Sample Infographic for Delayed Evaluation (Q1-Q5)
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was used as a
framework for developing this study’s evaluation and implementation plan in order for the
organization to meet its organizational performance goal. The advantage of beginning with Level
4 is that desired outcomes guide the plan through required drivers, critical behaviors, learning
goals, and reactions. Ongoing data collection (immediate and delayed) throughout provides for
solutions and recommendations to be adjusted and adapted throughout implementation based on
student responses.
DURING AFTER
3.4 4.0
2.8 4.2
2.5 3.9
3.5 3.7
1.5 3.5
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 92
Appendix G: Evaluation Models
Immediate Evaluation (Level 1 and 2)
For questions 1-10, please use the following rating scale (comments included for each item):
1 2 3 4 5
None or very low level Very high level
Before the program After/During the program
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1. Knowledge of and proficiency in the Spanish language (Level 1).
2. Ability to engage in [host country] culture with competence and confidence (Level 1 &
2).
3. Value of time abroad to my professional career and aspirations (Level 1).
4. Value of time abroad to my personal identity as a global citizen (Level 1).
5. Enjoyment of interactions with dissimilar others (Level 2).
6. Confidence to interact with dissimilar others (Level 2).
7. Understanding my own implicit biases and prejudices (Level 2).
8. Knowledge of [host country] customs, traditions, and cultural behaviors (Level 2).
9. Learning both in and outside of class (activities, lectures, etc.) (Level 2).
10. Ability to recognize changes in my beliefs and in my peers (Level 2).
Delayed Evaluation (Blended: Level 1, 2, 3, and 4)
For questions 1-7, please use the following rating scale (open-ended comments included for each
item):
1 2 3 4 5
None or very low level Very high level
During the program After the program (Now)
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1. Use and application of the Spanish language (Level 1).
2. Value of time abroad to my professional career and aspirations (Level 1).
3. Value of time abroad to my personal identity as a global citizen (Level 1).
4. Enjoyment of interactions with dissimilar others (Level 2).
5. Confidence to interact with dissimilar others (Level 2).
6. Understanding my own implicit biases and prejudices (Level 2).
7. Ability to recognize changes in my beliefs and in my peers (Level 2).
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 93
8. What positive results are you seeing in your life as a result of your time abroad? (Level 4)
9. Which goals of the program aligned with your goals? (Level 4)
10. Who holds you accountable to integrating what you learned while abroad? (Level 3)
11. What things have increased your confidence to interact with dissimilar others (Level 2, 3,
and 4)?
12. Summarize the differences between the [host country] and your home country? (Level 2)
13. How have you challenged or confronted your implicit biases and prejudices in the last
week? (Level 3 & 4)
14. How have you seen your time abroad increase your value professionally and as a person?
(Level 3 & 4)
15. What encouragement would you give to a student coming to study abroad after you?
(Level 3)
a. Is there anything you would have done differently during your time abroad? (Level 3 &
4)
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 94
References
Abrams, I. & Heller, F.H. (1978). Evaluating academic programs abroad: The CIEE project. The
Council for International Education Exchange. Retrieved from https://www.ciee.org/
images/uploaded/pdf/occasional21.pdf
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Alt, D. (2015). Constructivist learning and openness to diversity and challenge in higher
education environments. Leaning Environments Research, 18(1), 2-21.
Anderson, P.H., Lawton, L., Rexeisen, R.J., & Hubbard, A.C. (2006). Short-term study abroad
and intercultural sensitivity study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(4),
457-469.
Angeline, T. (2011). Managing generational diversity at the workplace: Expectations and
perceptions of different generations of employees. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(2), 249-255.
Association of International Educators (NAFSA). (2014). Trends in U.S. study abroad. (Press
Release). Retrieved from http://www.nafsa.org/Explore_International_Education/
Advocacy_And_Public_Policy/Study_Abroad/Trends_in_U_S__Study_Abroad
Avery, D.R., Volpone, S.D., Stewart, R.W., Luksyte, A., Hernandez, M., McKay, P.F., & Hebl,
M.R. (2013). Examining the draw of diversity: How diversity climate perceptions affect
job-pursuit intentions. Human Resource Management, 52(2), 175-194.
Bachner, D. & Zeutschel, U. (2009). Long-term effects of international educational youth
exchange. Intercultural Education, 20(1), 45-58.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 95
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 1-12.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandyopadhyay, S. & Bandyopadhyay, K. (2016). What makes business student participate in
study abroad programs? Competition Forum, 325-332.
Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2004). Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemological
reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 31-42.
Behjat, S. (2012). Emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and diversity receptiveness of
university students: A correlation study. International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(4), 1-10.
Bernier, C.S. (1995). Multicultural education; raising cultural awareness and reducing prejudice
among a middle school population. Institute of Education Services. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov.
Bernstein, E. (2006, April). Colleges impose restrictions on study-abroad programs. Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/
Bidwell, A. (2014, November). U.S. falls short in studying abroad. U.S. News & World Report.
Retrieved from www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014
Bliss-Moreau, E., Barrett, L.F., & Wright, C.I. (2008). Individual differences in learning the
affective value of others under minimal conditions. Emotion, 8(4), 479-493.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 96
Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (2011). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods: 5
th
edition. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bond, M.A. (1998). Gender, race, and class in organizational contexts. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 27(3), 327-355.
Bollag, B. (2005). Project finds rapid growth in study-abroad programs. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 51(38), 5.
Bowman, N.A. (2014). Conceptualizing openness to diversity and challenge: Its relation to
college experiences, achievement, and retention. Innovative Higher Education, 39, 277-
291.
Brooks, R. & Waters, J. (2011). Student mobilities, migration, and the internationalization of
higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255-343.
Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A., Crissman, J.L., Terenzini, P.T., Bernal, E.M., & Pascarella, E.T. (2002).
Collaborative learning: Its impact on college students’ development and diversity.
Journal of College Student Development, 43(1), 20-34.
Cabrera, A.G. & Nora, A. (1994). College student perceptions of prejudice and discrimination
and their feelings of alienation: A construct validation approach. Review of
Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies, 16(34), 387–409.
Carlson, J.S. & Widaman, K.F. (1988). The effects of study abroad during college on attitudes
toward other cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12(1), 1-17.
Chemers, S. Oskamp, M., & Costanzo, A (Eds.). (1995). Diversity in organizations. New
perspectives for a changing workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 97
Choi, S. & Rainey, H.G. (2014). Organizational fairness and diversity management in public
organizations: Does fairness matter in managing diversity? Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 34(4), 307-331.
Clauss-Ehlers, C.S. (2006). Diversity training for classroom teaching: A manual for students and
educators. New Jersey: Springer.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clarke, I., Flaherty, T.B., Wright, N.D., & McMillen, R.M. (2009). Student intercultural
proficiency from study abroad programs. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(2), 172-
181.
Cokley, K.O., Tran, K., Hall-Clark, B., Chapman, C., Bessa, L., Finley, A., & Martinez, M.
(2010). Predicting student attitudes about racial diversity and gender equity. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 3(3), 187-199.
Collins, N.F. & Davidson, D.E. (2002). From the margin to the mainstream: Innovative
approaches to internationalizing education for a new century. Change, 34(5), 50-58.
Colman, A.M. (2015). Expectancy-value theory [Def. 1]. In OxFord Reference: A Dictionary of
Psychology Online. Retrieved from www.oxfordreference.com
Combs, G. (2002). Meeting the leadership challenge of a diverse and pluralistic workplace:
Implications of self-efficacy for diversity training. The Journal of Leadership Studies,
8(4), 1-16.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 98
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cubillos, J.H. & Ilvento, T. (2013). The impact of study abroad on students’ self-efficacy
perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 45(4), 494-511.
Cumming, A (Ed). (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors.
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Danisman, A. (2010). Good intentions and failed implementations: Understanding culture-based
resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 19(2), 200-220.
Davidson, D.E. (2010). Study abroad: When, how long, and with what results? New data from
the Russian front. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 6-26.
Davidson, D.E. & Lehmann, S.G. (2001–2005). A longitudinal survey of the language learning
careers of ACTR advanced students of Russian: 1976-2000. Russian Language Journal,
55(180/182), 193-221.
DeJaeghere, J.G. & Zhang, Y. (2008). Development of intercultural competence among U.S.
American teachers: Professional development factors that enhance competence.
Intercultural Education, 19(3), 255-268.
Devine, P.G., Plant, E., Amodio, D., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S.L. (2002). The
regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond
without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 835-848.
Di Pietro, G. (2014). University study abroad and graduates’ employability. IZA World of Labor,
109, 1-10.
DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power,
status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 473-501.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 99
Drews, D.R. & Meyer, L.L. (1996). Effects of study abroad on conceptualizations of national
groups. College Student Journal, 30(4), 452.
Dufon, M.A. & Churchill, E. (2006). Language learners in study abroad contexts. Tonawanda,
NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Earl, L. & Fullan, M. (2003). Using data in leadership for learning. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 33(3), 383-394.
Eccles. J.S. (2009, December). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Eccles, J.S. & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Ecke, P. (2013). Designing and running a short-term study abroad program in Germany:
Guidance for new program directors. Neues Curriculum, 1–29.
Ecke, P. (2014). The effects of study abroad in the German-speaking world: A research review.
A Journal of the American Association of Teachers of German, 47(2), 121-139.
Edison, M.I., Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T., & Nora, A. (2001). Influences on students
openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third year of college. Journal
of Higher Education, 72, 172-204.
Endicott, L., Bock, T., & Narvaez, D. (2003). Moral reasoning, intercultural development, and
multicultural experiences: Relations and cognitive underpinnings. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 27, 403-419.
Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity
development in relation to study abroad study design. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 219–236.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 100
Farrell, E.F. (2007). Study abroad blossoms into big business. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 54(2), 49.
Fischer, K. (2008). Study-abroad providers feel effects of growing public scrutiny. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(32), A40.
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Having an open mind: The impact of openness to experience on
interracial attitudes and impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88, 816–826.
Foronda, C., Baptiste, D., Reinholdt, M.M., & Ousman, K. (2015). Cultural humility: A concept
analysis. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 27(3), 210-217.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York,
NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Fuller, K. (2012). Leading with emancipatory intent: Headteachers’ approaches to pupil
diversity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(6), 672-689.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gerson, M.W. & Neilson, L. (2014). The importance of identity development, principled moral
reasoning, and empathy as predictors of openness to diversity in emerging adults. Sage
Open, 1-11.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Glew, G.J. (2009). Personal values and performance in teams: An individual and team-level
analyses. Small Group Research, 40(6), 670-693.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 101
Gramon, M.A. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ attitudes/beliefs about diversity: What are
the critical factors? Journal of Teacher Education, 55(3), 201-213.
Green, L. & Celkan, G. (2012). Passport to intercultural enhancement: Student’s openness to `
diversity. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2675-2680.
Groggins, A. & Ryan, A.M. (2013). Embracing uniqueness: The underpinnings of a positive
climate for diversity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 264-
282.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
Hadis, B.F. (2005). Gauging the impact of study abroad: How to overcome the limitations of a
single-cell design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 3-19.
Harper, C.E. & Yeung, F. (2013). Perceptions of institutional commitment to diversity as a
predictor of college students’ openness to diverse perspectives. The Review of Higher
Education, 37(1), 25-44.
Härtel, C.E.J. & Fujimoto, Y. (2000). Diversity is not a problem to be managed by organisations
but openness to perceived dissimilarity is. Journal of Australian and New Zealand
Academy of Management, 6(1), 14–27.
Härtel, C.E.J. (2004). Towards a multicultural world: Identifying work systems, practices, and
employee attitudes that embrace diversity. Australian Journal of Management, 29(2),
189-200.
Haslam, S.A., Ryan, M.K., Kulich, C., Trojanowski, G., & Atkins, C. (2010). Investing with
prejudice: The relationship between women’s presence on company’s boards and
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 102
objective and subjective measures of company performance. British Journal of
Management, 21(2), 484-497.
Hassan, S.Y., Bashir, M., Abrar, M., Baig, S.A., & Zubair, A. (2015). The impact of
transformational leadership on employee’s creative self-efficacy: The moderating role of
cognitive diversity. International Journal of Information, Business and Management,
7(3), 251-262.
Henze, Y.A. (2007). A model for intercultural training for study abroad in Germany. Teach
German, 40(2), 153-163.
Hobman, E.V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group
involvement: The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group &
Organization Management, 29(5), 560-587.
Hoffa, W. (2007). A history of US study abroad: Beginnings to 1965. A Special Publication of
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad and The Forum on Education
Abroad.
Hofhuis, J., Van der Rijt, P.G., & Vlug, M. (2016). Diversity climate enhances work outcomes
through trust and openness in workgroup communication. Springer Open, 5, 714-728.
Homan, A.C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G., & DeDreu, C. (2007). Bridging
faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information, elaboration, and
performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189- 1199.
Hooghe, M. (2007). Social capital and diversity generalized trust, social cohesion and regimes of
diversity. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 709-732.
Hulstrand, J. (2006). Beyond anecdote: Education abroad comes of age. International Educator,
52-55.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 103
Hunley, H.A. (2009). Students’ functioning while studying abroad: The impact of psychological
distress and loneliness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 386-392.
Institute of International Education (IIE). (2015). Open Doors 2015: International students in the
U.S. up ten percent to nearly one million; Study abroad by American students picks up
momentum. (Press Release). Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/News-and-
Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2015
Irwin, C. W. & Stafford E. T. (2016). Survey methods for educators: Collaborative survey
development (REL 2016-163). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National Center for education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Ismail, B., Morgan, M., & Hayes, K. (2006). Effect of short study abroad course on student
openness to diversity. Journal of Food Science Education, 5(1), 15-18.
Johansson, C., Astrom, S., Kauffeldt, A., Helldin, L., & Carlstrom, E. (2014). Culture as a
predictor of resistance to change: A study of competing values in a psychiatric nursing
context. Health Policy, 114, 156-162.
Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, M. E. & Bond, M. L. (2000) Personal adjustment, language acquisition, and culture
learning in short-term cultural immersion. International Review, 10, 33-49.
Jurgens, J.C. & McAuliffe, G. (2004). Short-term study-abroad experience in Ireland: An
exercise in cross-cultural counseling. International Journal for the Advancement of
Counseling, 26(2), 147-161.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 104
Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France.
The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 1–124.
Kirkman, B.L., Tesluk, P.E., & Rosen, B. (2004). The impact of demographic heterogeneity and
team leader-team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness.
Group & Organization Management, 29, 334-68.
Kirkpatrick, J.D. & Kirkpatrick, W.K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training and
evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ATD press.
Kirschner, P. A., Kirschner, F., Paas, F. (2008). Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Classroom
Learning, 1(9), 205-209.
Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., Leonard, J., Levine, D., &
Thomas, D. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the
diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42, 3-21.
Konrad, A.M., Prasad, P., & Pringle, J.K. (2006). Handbook of workplace diversity. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002) A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview, theory into
practice. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Krueger, R.A. & Casey, M.A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kruse, J. & Brubaker, C. (2007). Successful study abroad: Tips for student preparation
immersion, and postprocessing. Teaching German, 40(2), 147-152.
Kuh, G.D., Gonyea, R.M., Kish, K.E., Muthiah, R., & Thomas, A. (2003). College Student
Experiences Questionnaire: 4th Edition. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for
Postsecondary Research and Planning.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 105
Landis, D, & Bhagat, R. S. (Eds.) (1996). Handbook of intercultural training: 2
nd
edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Langley, C. & Breese, J.R. (2005). Interacting sojourners: A study of students studying abroad.
The Social Science Journal, 42, 313-321.
Laubscher, M. R. (1994). Encounters with difference: Student perceptions of the role of out-of-
class experiences in education abroad. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Lauring, J. & Selmer, J. (2012). Openness to diversity, trust and conflict in multicultural
organizations. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(6), 795-806.
Lauring, J. & Selmer, J. (2013). Does staff diversity imply openness to diversity? International
Journal of Educational Management, 27(6), 631-646.
Levine, A. & Cureton, J.S. (1998). Student politics: The new localism. Review of Higher
Education, 21, 137-150.
Levine, A. & Cureton, J.S. (1998). What we know about today’s college students. About
Campus, 3(1), 4-9.
Liang, C. & Prince, J.K. (2008). Developing cross-racial self-efficacy: A longitudinal
examination of the role of cross-racial mastery experiences. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 36(3), 168-179.
Lichtenberg, J.D. (1999). Listening, understanding and interpreting: Reflections on complexity.
International Journal of Psycho-analysis, 80, 719-740.
Llanes, A. (2011). The many faces of study abroad: An update on the research on L2 gains
emerged during a study abroad experience. International Journal of Multilingualism,
8(3), 189-215.
Llanes, A. & Muñoz, C. (2013). Age effects in a study abroad context: Children and adults
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 106
studying abroad and at home. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language
Studies, 63(1), 63-90.
Longerbeam, S.D. (2010). Developing openness to diversity in living-learning program
participants. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3(4), 201-217.
Lorz, M. & Krawietz, M. (2011). International mobility and social inequality: Extent,
mechanisms, and development of social differences between 1990 and 2005. Koln Z
Soziol, 63, 185-205.
Martin, D., Katz-Buonincontro, J., & Livert, D. (2015). Understanding the role of openness to
experience in study abroad students. Research in Brief, 56(6), 619-625.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Mayhew, M.J., Grunwald, H.E., & Dey, E.L. (2005). Curriculum matters: Creating a positive
climate for diversity from the student perspective. Research in Higher Education, 46(4),
389-412.
Mayhew, M.J., Walniak, G.C., & Pascarella, E.T. (2008). How educational practices affect the
development of life-long learning orientations in traditionally-aged undergraduate
students. Research in Higher Education, 49, 337-356.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: 3
rd
edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McEwan, E.K. & McEwan, P.J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, Inc.
McLeod, M. & Wainwright, P. (2009). Researching the study abroad experience. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 13(1), 66-71.
Merriam, S.B. & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 107
implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Milem, J.F. (in press). The educational benefits of diversity: Evidence from multiple sectors. In
M. Chang, D. Witt, J. Jones, & K. Hakuta (Eds.). Compelling interest: Examining the
evidence on racial dynamics in higher education. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook:
2
nd
edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milliken, F.J. & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the
multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. The Academy of Management
Review, 21(2), 402-433.
Mitchell, R. & Boyle, B. (2015). Professional diversity, identity salience and team
innovation: The moderating role of openmindedness norms. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 36, 873-894.
Mitchell, R., Nicholas, S., & Boyle, B. (2009). The role of openness to cognitive diversity and
group processes in knowledge creation. Small Group Research, 40(5), 535-554.
Moreno-Lopez, I., Saenz-de-Tejada, C., & Smith, T.K. (2008). Language and study abroad
across the curriculum: An analysis of course development. Foreign Language Annals,
41(4), 674-686.
Murgia, A. & Poggio, B. (2013). Fathers’ stories of resistance and hegemony in organizational
cultures. Gender, Work, and Organization, 4(20), 413-424.
Netz, N. (2013). What deters students from studying abroad? Evidence from four European
countries and its implications for higher education policy. Higher Education Policy, 37,
1–24.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 108
Nguyen, A.M. (2012). Study abroad’s contribution to critical thinking and world citizenship.
Think, 31(11), 27-40.
Norris, J.M. (2006). The why (and how) of student learning outcomes assessment in college
education. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 590-597.
Osterloh, M. & Frey, B.S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer and organizational forms.
Organization Science, 11(5), 538-550.
Pajares, F. (2009, December). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Pascarella, E.T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L.S., & Terenzini, P.T. (1996). Influences on
students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. Journal of
Higher Education, 67, 174-195.
Pascarella, E. T., Palmer, B., Moye, M., and Pierson, C. (2001). Do diversity experiences
influence the development of critical thinking? Journal of College Student Development,
42, 257-271.
Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, M.Q. (2015). The sociological roots of utilization-focused evaluation. The American
Sociologist, 46(4), 457-462.
Petzold, K. & Peter, T. (2014). The social norm to study abroad: Determinants and effects.
Higher Education, 69, 885-900.
Plano Clark, V.L. (2017). Mixed methods research. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3),
305-306.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 109
Plummer, K. (2001). Documents of Life 2: An Invitation to Critical Humanism. London,
England: Sage.
Podsiadlowski, A., Grosche, D., Kogler, M., Springer, C., & van der Zee, K. (2013). Managing a
culturally diverse workforce: Diversity perspectives in organizations. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 159-175.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L.M., & Malle, B.F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A
personality variable in predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763.
Prieto, L., Phipps, S., & Osiri, J. (2009). Linking workplace diversity to organizational
performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity Management, 4(4), 13-21.
Rabl, T. & Triana, M. (2014). Organizational value for age diversity and potential applicants’
organizational attraction: Individual attitudes matter. Journal of Business Ethics, 121,
403-417.
Regan, V., Howard, M., & Lemée, I. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a
study abroad context. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Rehg, M.T., Gundlack, M.J., & Grigorian, G. (2012). Examining the influence of cross-
cultural training on cultural intelligence and specific self-efficacy. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, 19(2), 215-232.
Rexeisen, R.J. (2012). Study abroad and the boomerang effect: The end is only the beginning.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 166-181.
Riley-Eddins, E & Alberta, E. (1999). The value of diversity. Journal of Multicultural Nursing &
Health, 5(1), 5.
Rivers, W. P. (1998). Is being there enough? The effects of homestay placements on language
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 110
gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 492–500.
Rubin, H.J. & Rubin, I.S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Rutherford, S. (2011). Women’s work, men’s cultures: Overcoming resistance and changing
organizational cultures. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press LLC.
Ryder, A.J., Reason, R.D., Mitchell, J.J., Gillon, K., & Hemer, K.M. (2015). Climate for learning
and students’ openness to diversity and challenge: A critical role for faculty. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 1-14.
Salinas, M.F. & Garr, J. (2009). Effect of learner-centered education on the academic outcomes
of minority groups. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(3), 226-237.
Salisbury, M.H., Paulsen, M.B., & Pascarella, E.T. (2010). Why do all study abroad
students look alike? Applying an integrated student choice model to explore
difference in the factors that influence white and minority students’ intent to study
abroad. Research in Higher Education, 52, 123-150.
Salkind, N.J. (2017). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics: 4
th
edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sanner, S., Baldwin, D., Cannella, K., Charles, J., & Parker, L. (2010). The impact of
cultural diversity forum on students’ openness to diversity. Journal of Cultural
Diversity, 17(2), 56-61.
Sasaki, M. (2007). Effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL writers: A multiple-data analysis.
The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 602-620.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 111
Savicki, V. & Brewer, E. (2015). Assessing study abroad: Theory, tools, and practice. Sterling,
VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Scarino, A., Liddicoat, A.J., & O’Neill, F. (2015). Engaging with diversity: A case study of
intercultural experiences of Muslim and non-Muslim students in an Australian school.
Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Report, 1-27.
Schilpzand, M.C., Herold, D.M., & Shalley, C.E. (2011). Members’ openness to experience and
teams’ creative performance. Small Group Research, 42(1), 55-76.
Schmidt, P., Lewark, S., & Strange, N. (Eds.). (2008). What do we know about our graduates?
Graduate analyses for related curricula. Copenhagen, Denmark: University Press.
Schommer-Aikins, M. & Easter, M. (2015). Epistemic processing of communication and
openness to diversity preparing students for a global society. ASBBS eJournal, 11(1),
114-121.
Scott, S. & Palincsar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. The Gale Group. Retrieved from
https://dr-hatfield.com/theorists/resources/sociocultural_theory.pdf
Sedghi, S. (2016, April). The history of studying abroad. Paste Magazine. Retrieved from
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles
Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., Collentine, J., Lafford, B., Lazar, N., & Díaz Campos, M. (2004). A
comparison of Spanish second language acquisition in two different contexts: Study
abroad and the domestic classroom. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study, 10, 1-18.
Selmer, J., Lauring, J., & Jonasson, C. (2013). Academic staff involvement and openness to
diversity in international educational organisations: Is there a moderating effect of shared
language? Higher Education Quarterly, 67(2), 135-156.
Serrano, R., Tragant, E., & Llanes, Á. (2012). A longitudinal analysis of the effects of one year
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 112
abroad. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 68(2), 138-163.
Sheu, H. & Lent, R.W. (2007). Development and initial validation of the multicultural
counseling self-efficacy scale—racial diversity form. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Practice, Training, 44(1), 30-45.
Smith programs abroad. (2016). Smith College. Retrieved from http://www.smith.edu/
studyabroad/spa.php
Sotirovic, M. & McLeod, J.M. (2001). Values, communication behavior, and political
participation. Political Communication, 18, 273-300.
State Higher Education Executive Officers. (1987). A difference of degrees: State initiatives to
improve minority student achievement (Report and recommendations of the State Higher
Education Executive Officers Task Force on Minority Student Achievement). Denver,
CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers Association.
Staats, C. (2015). Understanding implicit bias. The Education Digest, 29-38.
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of
cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups.
Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 690–709.
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, 1–36.
Stevens, F.G., Plaut, V.C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 44(1), 116-133.
Stone, M.J. & Petrick, J.F. (2013). The educational benefits of travel experiences: A literature
review. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 731-744.
Study abroad: Our history. (2016). University of Delaware. Retrieved from
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 113
http://www1.udel.edu/global/studyabroad
Stroud, A.H. (2010). Who plans (not) to study abroad? An examination of U.S. student intent.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5), 491-507.
Strachan, J.C. & Owens, C.T. (2011). Learning civic identity outside of the classroom: Diversity
and campus associational life. Journal of Political Science Education, 7(4), 464-482.
Summers, J.J., Svinicki, M.D., Gorin, J.S., & Sullivan, T.A. (2002). Student feelings of
connection to the campus and openness to diversity and challenge at a large research
university: Evidence of progress? Innovative Higher Education, 27(1), 53-64.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Ed.) (2003). Handbook of mixed methods research in social and
behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, K.M. (2008). Diversity resistance in organizations. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Tillman, L.C. & Scheurich, J.J. (2013). Handbook of research on educational leadership for
equity and diversity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Triana, M. & Garcia, M.F. (2009). Valuing diversity: A group-value approach to understanding
the importance of organizational efforts to support diversity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30(7), 941-962.
Triandis, N.C., Hall, E.R., & Ewen, R.B. (1965). Member homogeneity and dyadic creativity.
Human Relations, 18(1), 33-54.
Tropp, L.R. & Bianchi, R.A. (2006). Valuing diversity and interest in intergroup contact. Journal
of Social Issues, 62(3). 533-551.
Twombly, S.B., Salisbury, M.H., Tumanut, S.D., & Klute, P. (2012). Study abroad in the new
global century: Renewing the promise, refining the purpose. ASHE Higher Education
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 114
Report, 38(4), 1-147.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2004). Changing
teaching practices: Using curriculum differentiation to respond to students’ diversity.
UNESCO Report, 1-109.
Urdang, E. (2010). Awareness of self-A critical tool. Social Work Education, 29(5), 523-538.
Usher, E.L. & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 89-101.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Ginkel, W.P., & Homan, A.C. (2013). Diversity mindsets and the
performance of diverse teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
121, 183-193.
Wanguri, D.M. (1996). Diversity, perceptions of equity, and communicative openness in the
workplace. International Journal of Business Communication, 33(4), 443-457.
Weiss, R.S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Whitt, E.J., Edison, M., Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T., & Nora, A. (2001). Influences of
students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third years of
college. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 172-204.
Who we are. (2016). Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE). Retrieved from
https://www.ciee.org/who/
Wigfield, A. & Cambria, J. (2015). Expectancy-value theory: Retrospective and prospective.
The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement Advances
in Motivation and Achievement, 16, 35-70.
STUDENT OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY 115
Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Willerton, J.P. & Beznosov, M. (2015). Internationalising the curriculum on campus – and
abroad: juxtaposing the lecture hall and study abroad. European Political Science, 15, 61-
72.
Wortman, T.I. (2002). Psychosocial effects of studying abroad: Openness to diversity. (Doctoral
dissertation). Penn State University, Pennsylvania.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Study abroad is a growing trend in higher education (Bollag, 2005
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
To be young, global, and Black: an evaluation of African-American college students’ participation in study abroad programs
PDF
Study abroad and the ethnoracial identity development of Latinx students
PDF
Factors impacting retention rates amongst underrepresented students: an evaluation study
PDF
Developing global competence in a Sino-US joint university: an evaluation study
PDF
First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study
PDF
Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study
PDF
The impact of diversity courses on students' critical thinking skills
PDF
Growth of intrapreneurialship in mature knowledge-centric firms
PDF
Judiciary employees engagement and motivation: the impact on employee and organizational success: an evaluation study
PDF
Advancing equity and inclusion in higher education: the role of the chief diversity officer and the institution in creating more diverse campus climates
PDF
Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study
PDF
Managerial coaching to increase diversity, build capacity, and improve nonprofit performance
PDF
Antecedent to acclimation: the mediating influence of acculturation on international student adaptation
PDF
Teacher awareness of culturally responsive pedagogy and minority student outcomes
PDF
An application of Clark and Estes gap analysis model to improve training transfer at a midsize pharmaceutical company
PDF
Perceptions of first-year tertiary students’ English language learning after six years of instruction in Japan: an evaluation study
PDF
A qualitative examination of the methods church leaders use to increase young adult attendance in Christian churches: an evaluation study
PDF
An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college
PDF
Leadership and the impact on organizational citizenship behaviors: an evaluation study
PDF
Implementing proactive safety strategies in place of reactive safety strategies at a manufacturing organization: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cole, Bryan
(author)
Core Title
Impact of study abroad on student openness to diversity: an evaluation study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
07/27/2018
Defense Date
05/08/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
diversity,global citizens,Globalization,Higher education,impact of study abroad,international education,OAI-PMH Harvest,openness,openness to diversity,student outcomes,Students,study abroad
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hirabayashi, Kimberly (
committee chair
), Campbell, Deanna (
committee member
), Chung, Ruth (
committee member
)
Creator Email
bryancol@usc.edu,cole.bryanc@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-37226
Unique identifier
UC11671822
Identifier
etd-ColeBryan-6542.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-37226 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ColeBryan-6542.pdf
Dmrecord
37226
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Cole, Bryan
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
global citizens
impact of study abroad
international education
openness
openness to diversity
student outcomes
study abroad