Search results

With the advent of the global economy and marketplace, cultural sensitivity and language proficiency have assumed new, higher levels of importance in business education. Consequently, business schools need to acclimate both faculty and students to the global environment. Study abroad is an effective way to accomplish internationalization of faculty and students; however, there are many challenges relating to study abroad that need to be resolved. The underlying rationale for study abroad is evolving, as are the anticipated outcomes for students studying abroad. Moreover, there is no single source of information about study abroad and best practices relating to study abroad. Formal assessment of study abroad programs is rarely undertaken in the belief that the value of study abroad is self-evident; therefore, assessment is not critical. Consequently, study abroad is a topic on which much more research is needed. There are great opportunities for scholars and practitioners in the field of study abroad to do research in the different aspects of study abroad and disseminate and publish the results. The educational opportunities are virtually unlimited, as the importance of study abroad as a response to training business and other students to be able to function effectively in the global economy increases.

This chapter highlights the growing body of international research into the benefits of residence abroad for foreign language students, surveying studies from the past 35 years originating in both the U.S.A. and the U.K. It examines some of the problematic issues confronting researchers in this area and shows how these issues have contributed to a paucity of studies in the area and led to a diversity in research design. It reports on longitudinal study, the first of its kind in the U.K., which examined the linguistic benefits of residence abroad for a cohort of modern language students from a leading university. This 4-year study used repeated measures proficiency testing, involving a C-test, a grammar test and a range of qualitative measures, to chart the progress made by students on 6- and 12-month study placements in Germany. Findings confirm substantial proficiency gains on both of the main measures but fail to confirm gender and length of residence abroad as predictors of progress. Results also reveal strong differential individual performance during residence abroad. The chapter concludes with recommendations for future research aimed at exploring this key finding further.

This chapter focuses on the University of Cincinnati (UC), named by the 2016 Princeton Review as one of the “Nation’s Best” institutions for undergraduate education (Robinette, T., 2015, August 4. UC continues streak of recognition as one of nation’s best universities. Retrieved from http://www.uc.edu/news/nr.aspx?id=22016), and their commitment to growing international experiential learning opportunities for its student population in accordance with strategic plans and focused administrative goals. One department identified by UC for strategic growth of international experiential learning opportunities is the Division of Experience-Based Learning and Career Education. An International Experiential Learning Committee (IELC) was formed to help study, crystallize, and move forward these university initiatives.

A study of community college students enrolled in a for-credit study abroad program in Costa Rica sought to identify the experiences that influence intercultural competency growth during study abroad trips and to learn how the experiences influence the development of global leadership competencies. The results led to a modified global leadership development expertise model for understanding the process of global leadership development in student populations. The study revealed a key link between antecedent characteristics of participants and their transformational ability during the study. The study also revealed that there are types of transformational experiences that, when experienced sequentially, can maximize transformational potential and the development of intercultural competencies.

Certain administrative structures and processes need to be in place on the home campus to provide high quality study abroad experiences for students. They provide the support needed to make study abroad programs successful and effective. To this end, they need to be based on criteria that ensure the best possible quality in these arrangements as they relate to stated program outcomes.

Recruiting students to study abroad is a difficult challenge for American colleges and universities. Study abroad advisors and directors of international programs are searching for better ways of marketing the overseas academic experience. Approximately 3% of U.S. students who pursue a bachelor’s degree study abroad at some point in their college career. In any given year, less than 1% (0.8%) of U.S. students take part in study abroad (Hayward, 2000, p. 9). American higher education falls far short of the Presidential Commission’s target of 10% by 2000 set in 1979 (Strength Through Wisdom, 1979). The typical college student who participates in study abroad is an undergraduate liberal arts major who spends one semester in a country in Western Europe. In 1999–2000, 63% of American students studying abroad were in Europe (Snapshot of Report on Study Abroad Programs, 2000, p. 1). Almost one fourth go to one country – Great Britain. Fifteen percent of study abroad students travel to Latin America, 6% to Asia and 3% to Africa (Hayward, 2000, p. 10). The small number of U.S. students (129,770) who experienced foreign study in 1998–1999 compares unfavorably with the much larger number of foreign students (490,933) who enrolled in U.S. institutions (Hesel & Green, 2000, p. 5). Even more disheartening is the fact that nearly 50% of students entering 4-year colleges say that they want to study abroad and that three out of four adults agree that students should study abroad (Hesel & Green, 2000, p. 1). When asked to choose which activity in college is most important to them, entering freshmen rank study abroad second only to internships (Hesel & Green, 2000, p. 3). There are obviously a number of barriers to student participation in foreign study.

Throughout the early 1980s, schools of business struggled with ways to internationalize their faculty, students and curriculum. In the face of an increasingly global economy, it was necessary for schools to meet this challenge. Various strategies were employed: infusion of global topics into the classes, creation of International Business departments, the implementation of the CIBER program (Center for International Business Education and Research) and faculty exchanges. Although the Kelley School of Business tried all of these, our most successful efforts to internationalize students has been by facilitating overseas experiences through organized study abroad programs.

From a traditional institutional perspective, the ultimate customer of the university is the student and perhaps his/her parents. From the perspective of a business school, however, the ultimate customer is the employer. Thus, a school’s goal, in particular a CIBER school, should be to develop and provide international programs that deliver expertise and experience to meet the needs of firms, not students. The students are the products, and the study abroad program is the means by which this product is developed and improved. Faculty are key players in the development and quality control of the student product.

Over the past fifteen years, U.S. study abroad enrollments have increased by 160%, with nearly 130,000 students earning credit abroad during the 1998–1999 academic year. The growth has been especially striking during the past five reporting years, as the number of participants has swelled by an astonishing 70% (Davis, 2000, p. 16). During the past fifteen years or so, our discussions about study abroad have come more and more to be dominated by this sort of self-congratulatory number-crunching: we’ve come to regard each successive annual increase in participation as a worthy achievement in itself, and much of what we do, and much about what we report to each other, focuses on our challenges and successes in pursuing this goal at our individual institutions, and on the national level. Thus, we identify the obstacles that stand in the way of greater student participation; we report about our institutional successes in administratively overcoming those obstacles; we commit ourselves to increasing the participation of African-American, Hispanic, disabled, natural science, business, math, engineering, and other “non-traditional” students; and we relish the gains we make in encouraging more of our students to study in “non-traditional” destinations in Africa, Asia, Latin America and elsewhere.

Cross-border student mobility represents a critical educational transition, especially for those students who choose to pursue a degree abroad as opposed to a short-term stay, and implies a complex adaptation process with regard to academic, sociocultural, and psychological factors. As a consequence of growing demand for international education and availability of resources and policies that encourage cross-border mobility, the number of international students worldwide is increasing continuously. Yet, little is known about the factors that motivate students to study abroad, and especially why some students choose to go whereas others to stay, given similar opportunities to study abroad. Accordingly, the purpose of the present chapter is to synthesize existing research on the decision-making process to study abroad, to outline important distinctions in types of student mobility and associated motivational implications, and to outline ways in which motivation theory can contribute to a better understanding of this process. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how motivation theories can help to address some of the open questions identified in prior research and thus contribute to a better understanding of the decision-making process to study in a foreign country.