Science and Engineering Study Abroad

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Science and Engineering Study Abroad An Assessment of Outcomes for Underrepresented Graduate Students and Recommendations for Program Design and Implementation
Physical Description:
1 online resource (331 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Kernaghan, Nicola J
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Curriculum and Instruction (CUI), Teaching and Learning
Committee Chair:
Jones, Linda C
Committee Members:
Miller, M David
Coady, Maria R
Russo, Sandra L

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
abroad -- engineering -- outcomes -- science -- study
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Curriculum and Instruction (CUI) thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
While there is widespread recognition of the need for students to gain global experience, research indicates that the majority of study abroad programs at U.S. colleges and universities focus on the liberal arts and foreign languages and few study abroad opportunities exist in the science and engineering disciplines. In the 2009-2010 academic year, college students from the life and physical science and engineering disciplines comprised just 11.4 % of study abroad participants, compared to 22.3% in the social sciences and 20.8% in business and management. In addition, numerous obstacles exist for science and engineering graduate students wanting to pursue an international experience and currently only 0.6% of study abroad participants are doctoral students. The purposes of this study were to develop and validate an assessment instrument for measuring students’ academic learning and personal growth outcomes and to use this tool and the Intercultural Development Inventory to investigate the self-reported academic learning, personal growth and intercultural development outcomes of graduate students who participated in short-term science and engineering-related study abroad programs at a large research university.  In addition, this study investigated which components of the implemented science and engineering-related study abroad programs enhanced and/or limited the impact of these programs on participant outcomes. This study used a mixed-methods approach and quantitative results indicate that graduate students who participated in science and engineering-related study abroad programs experienced significant changes in their academic learning and personal growth outcomes. Specifically, significant differences were found in students’ perceptions of the socio-cultural role of science and engineering, career perceptions, personal confidence and general global awareness. However, these students did not experience any significant changes in their intercultural development as a result of participation in a study abroad program. Detailed recommendations and best practices for program development, implementation and evaluation for graduate study abroad in the science and engineering disciplines have also been developed such as the inclusion of extensive networking opportunities and collaborative research or service-learning projects with host country counterparts. The results of this study indicate that appropriately designed graduate student study abroad experiences can provide unique opportunities to develop globally-minded scientists and engineers.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Nicola J Kernaghan.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local:
Adviser: Jones, Linda C.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-06-30

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID:
UFE0044833:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING STUDY ABROAD: AN ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES FOR UNDERREPRESENTED GRADUATE STUDENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION By NICOLA J. KERNAGHAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Nicola J. Kernaghan

PAGE 3

3 To my husband Brian for always believing we would reach the end of th is long road together To my Mum for being my best friend To my family and friends for all your support

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My doctoral experience has been a collective journey for all those in my life and I would never have accomplished this without yo ur unwavering support and patience. First, I thank my committee members for their time, encouragement and feedback. Linda Jones, my advisor and chair, provided me with the opportunity to explore my research interest s while always being available to listen and give advice. I am forever grateful for her reassurance when I lost my focus and for believing in me when I stopped believing in myself. I also offer my sincere thanks to my doctoral committee for their time and support. Thanks to Dr. Maria Coady in whose class I learned so much about intercultural communication and who graciously agreed to join my committee at the eleventh hour. Many thanks to Dr. David Miller who provided me with invaluable assistance on the methodological aspects of this research p roject and who has served as a sounding board for all my quantitative quandaries I must also extend my special personal gratitude to Dr. Sandra Russo, who served as the external member of my committee, and who has been my mentor in the International Cente r for the past eight years. I would never have completed this doctoral degree without her amazing support and friendship. Finally, I would like to thank all my family and friends Thanks to my pa rents for providing me with my first opportunities to travel and for opening my eyes to the wonders of our world. To my Mum, thank you for always being there to listen and encourage me on this forty five year journey! And to my husband, Brian, thanks for your love and humor that carried me through the toughest days Now we can celebrate!

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 17 Statement of Need ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 21 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 26 Definitions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 27 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 31 Dissertation Overview ................................ ................................ ............................. 31 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 33 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 33 Academic Learning Theory ................................ ................................ ............... 35 Experiential lea rning ................................ ................................ .................. 36 Transformative learning ................................ ................................ ............. 37 Personal Development Theory ................................ ................................ ......... 38 Identity development ................................ ................................ .................. 39 Intercultural development ................................ ................................ ........... 40 Holistic Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ........ 41 College Level Study Abroad in the United States ................................ ................... 42 History of Study Abroad in the United States ................................ ................... 42 Def initions of Study Abroad ................................ ................................ .............. 43 Rationale Why Study Abroad? ................................ ................................ ............. 46 Global Citizenship ................................ ................................ ............................ 47 Intercultural Competence ................................ ................................ ................. 49 Benefits of Study Abroad ................................ ................................ ........................ 53 Participation in, and Benefits of, Study Abroad for S cience and Engineering Majors ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 54 Participation and Benefits of Study Abroad for Minority Students .................... 56 Assessment of Study Abroad Participant Learning Outcomes ................................ 58 Academic Learning Outcomes ................................ ................................ ......... 59 Personal Growth Outcomes ................................ ................................ ............. 62 Intercultural Development Outcomes ................................ ............................... 65

PAGE 6

6 Participant Learning Outcomes for Science and Engineering Study Abroad Experiences ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 68 Assessment of Learner Outcomes for Life and Physical Sciences Study Abroad Programs ................................ ................................ .......................... 68 Assessment of Learner Outcomes for Engineering Study Abroad Programs ... 71 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 73 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 77 Methodological Framework ................................ ................................ ..................... 78 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 81 Study Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 82 Study Populations ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 84 Research Question 1 ................................ ................................ ........................ 84 Research Question 2 ................................ ................................ ........................ 84 Research Question 3 ................................ ................................ ........................ 85 Participant Recruitment ................................ ................................ .................... 85 Institutional Review Board Approval ................................ ................................ ....... 87 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 87 Research Question 1 ................................ ................................ ........................ 87 Part 1: Draft assessment instrument development ................................ .... 88 Part 2: Draft instrument pilot testing ................................ ........................... 91 Part 3: Expert review of pilot test results and assessment instrument revision ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 91 Research Question 2 ................................ ................................ ........................ 92 Research Question 2a ................................ ................................ ............... 9 2 Research Question 2b ................................ ................................ ............... 94 Research Question 3 ................................ ................................ ........................ 94 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 96 Research Question 1 ................................ ................................ ........................ 96 Research Question 2 ................................ ................................ ........................ 99 Research Question 2a ................................ ................................ ............... 99 Research Question 2b ................................ ................................ ............. 100 Research Question 3 ................................ ................................ ...................... 101 Subjectivity Statement ................................ ................................ .......................... 103 4 DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR AS SESSING ACADEMIC LEARNING AND PERSONAL GROWTH OUTCOMES OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING GRADUATE STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMS ................................ ................................ ............ 110 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 111 Importance of Study Abroad Experiences for College Science and Engineering Majors ................................ ................................ ..................... 111 Goals of College Level Study Abroad ................................ ............................. 113 Impacts of College Level Study Abroad Participation ................................ ..... 114 General student participants ................................ ................................ .... 114

PAGE 7

7 Science and engineering participants ................................ ...................... 116 Study Justification ................................ ................................ ................................ 117 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ............................ 119 Study Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 120 Study Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 122 Pilot Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 122 Validation and Testing Phase ................................ ................................ ......... 122 Pilot Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 123 Development of Draft Outcome Assessment Instrument ................................ 123 Literature review on outcomes assessment in study abroad .................... 123 Personal experience and expert consultations ................................ ......... 127 Focus group ................................ ................................ ............................. 128 Syllabus review ................................ ................................ ........................ 131 Pilot Testing of Draft Outcome Assessment Instrument ................................ 132 Expert Review of Pilot Test Data and Draft Outcome Assessment Instrument ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 133 Validation and Testing Phase ................................ ................................ ............... 134 Reliability Analysis of the Assessment Instrument ................................ ......... 135 Determining Validity of the Assessment Instrument ................................ ....... 136 Content validity ................................ ................................ ........................ 136 Construct validity ................................ ................................ ...................... 136 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 142 Validity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 144 Reliability ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 145 5 AN ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC LEARNING, PERSONAL GROWTH AND INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OUTCOM ES OF UNDERREPRESENTED LIFE AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING GRADUATE STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN A SHORT TERM STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 152 Purpose of Study and Research Questions ................................ .......................... 154 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ......................... 155 Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 157 Student Learning Outcomes for Study Abroad ................................ ............... 158 Academic learning outcomes ................................ ................................ ... 158 Personal growth outcomes ................................ ................................ ....... 159 Intercultural development outcomes ................................ ........................ 159 Science and Engineering Student Participation in Study Abroad ................... 160 Studen t Learning Outcomes for Science and Engineering Students .............. 161 Academic learning outcomes ................................ ................................ ... 161 Personal outcomes ................................ ................................ .................. 162 Intercultural development outcomes ................................ ........................ 162 Minority Student Participation in Study Abroad ................................ .............. 164 Student Learning Outcomes for Minority Students Participating in Study Abroad ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 165 Study Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 165

PAGE 8

8 Study Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 167 Part 1 SEAGEP Program Participants ................................ ......................... 167 Part 2 Comparison Group Participant ................................ .......................... 167 Data Collection Instruments ................................ ................................ ........... 168 Academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument 169 Intercul tural development inventory ................................ ......................... 169 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 170 Part 1 SEAGEP Program Participant Outcomes ................................ ......... 170 Part 2 Comparison Group Outcomes ................................ .......................... 171 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 171 Part 1 SEAGEP Program Participant Outcom es ................................ ......... 171 Academic STEM learning outcomes ................................ ........................ 172 Personal growth outcomes ................................ ................................ ....... 173 Intercultural development outcomes ................................ ........................ 174 Part 2 Comparison Group Outcomes ................................ .......................... 175 Academic STEM learning outcomes ................................ ........................ 175 Personal growth outcomes ................................ ................................ ....... 175 Intercultural development outcomes ................................ ........................ 176 Di scussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 176 Research Question 1 ................................ ................................ ...................... 176 Academic STEM learning outcomes ................................ ........................ 176 Personal growth outcomes ................................ ................................ ....... 178 Intercultural development outcomes ................................ ........................ 178 Comparison of outcomes by discipline ................................ ..................... 180 Comparison of outcomes by trip ................................ .............................. 180 Research Question 2 ................................ ................................ ...................... 183 Study Implicati ons ................................ ................................ ................................ 184 6 BEST PRACTICES FOR GRADUATE LEVEL STUDY ABROAD IN THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING DISCIPLINES ................................ .................... 199 Purpose of the Study and Research Question ................................ ...................... 199 Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 201 General Standards for College Level Study Abroad Programs ...................... 202 The IES Abroad Model Assessment Practice for Study Abroad Programs ................................ ................................ .............................. 203 The Forum on Education Abroad Standards of Good Practice for Education Abroad ................................ ................................ ................. 203 National Society for Experiential Education Standards for Practice ......... 204 Best Practices in College Level Study Abroad ................................ ............... 205 Program guidelines ................................ ................................ .................. 205 Best Practices for Science and Engineering Study Abroad Programs ........... 215 Study Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 217 Study Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ 218 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ............................... 218 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ 220 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 221

PAGE 9

9 Academic STEM learning Outcomes ................................ .............................. 222 Professional self efficacy in science and engineering .............................. 222 Global science communication ................................ ................................ 229 Socio cultural role of science and engineering ................................ ......... 232 Personal Growth Outcomes ................................ ................................ ........... 233 Career related perceptions ................................ ................................ ...... 233 General global awareness ................................ ................................ ....... 235 Intercultural Development ................................ ................................ ............... 236 Knowledge and understanding of other cultu res ................................ ...... 236 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ..................... 240 Academic STEM learning outcomes ................................ ........................ 240 Personal growth outcomes ................................ ................................ ....... 241 Intercultural development outcomes ................................ ........................ 242 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 242 Academic STEM learning ................................ ................................ ............... 242 Personal Growth ................................ ................................ ............................. 245 Intercultural Development ................................ ................................ ............... 247 Summary of Recommended Best Practices for Graduate Level Science and Engineering Study Abroad Programs ................................ ................................ 248 Program Development ................................ ................................ ................... 249 Curriculum ................................ ................................ ................................ 249 Logistics ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 249 Student preparation ................................ ................................ ................. 250 Personnel ................................ ................................ ................................ 250 Program Implementation ................................ ................................ ................ 250 Curriculum ................................ ................................ ................................ 250 Logistics ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 251 Cultural ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 251 Program Evaluation ................................ ................................ ........................ 252 7 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 253 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ......................... 254 Research Question 1 ................................ ................................ ............................ 255 Research Question 2 ................................ ................................ ............................ 257 Research Question 3 ................................ ................................ ............................ 261 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 263 Academic STEM learning Outcomes ................................ .............................. 264 Professional self efficacy in science and engineering .............................. 265 Global science communicat ion ................................ ................................ 266 Socio cultural role of science and engineering ................................ ......... 268 Personal Growth Outcomes ................................ ................................ ........... 269 Career related perceptions ................................ ................................ ...... 269 Personal confidence ................................ ................................ ................ 270 General global awareness ................................ ................................ ....... 271 Intercultural Development Outcomes ................................ ............................. 272 Implications for Practice ................................ ................................ ........................ 274

PAGE 10

10 Academic STEM l earning Outcomes ................................ .............................. 275 Personal Growth Outcomes ................................ ................................ ........... 277 Intercultural Development Outcomes ................................ ............................. 278 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 278 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ............................... 280 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 281 A PPENDIX A IRB PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 283 B INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ................................ ........................ 287 C ACADEMIC LEARNING AND PERSONAL GROWTH ASSES SMENT INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 290 D INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT INVENTORY ................................ .............. 293 E OBSERVATION PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ ............... 297 F SEAGEP SYLLABUS ................................ ................................ ............................ 299 G SEAGEP ITINERARIES ................................ ................................ ........................ 304 H SEAGEP STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS ................................ ... 316 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 318 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 331

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Alignment of research questions to research design ................................ ........ 106 3 2 SEAGEP science and engineering in the global context study abroad programs ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 108 4 1 Gender, ethnicity and academic discipline of study participants ....................... 147 4 2 List of survey items excluded from validation and reliabi lity testing phase based on expert review ................................ ................................ .................... 148 4 3 Academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument items by subscale ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 149 4 4 personal growth outcome scales and sub scales (n=65) ................................ .. 151 5 1 Demographics of student participants of the S EAGEP international program and the comparison group of under represented science and engineering graduate students ................................ ................................ ............................. 188 5 2 Overall means, standard errors and standard deviations of academic, personal and intercultural development scores for the study abroad participant group and the comparison group ................................ .................... 189 5 3 Means and standard deviations of academic, personal and intercultural deve lopment scores for engineering and life and physical science students who participated in the study abroad participant program ................................ 191 5 4 Means and standard deviations of academic, personal and i ntercultural development scores for students completing each study abroad program ....... 193 5 5 Paired t test comparisons of pre and post trip academic, personal and intercultural development scores for the study abroad participant group (alpha = 0.05) ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 195 5 6 Independent t tests of academic, personal and intercultural development scores for the study abroad participant group and compari son group (alpha = 0.05) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 196 5 7 Academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument items by subscale ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 197

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 ................................ ................................ ..... 75 2 2 Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. ................................ ............... 76 3 1 Student participation in University of Florida STEM study abroad programs in the 2008 2009 academic year ................................ ................................ .......... 105 5 1 Developmental Model of Intercultural Sen sitivity and IDI Assessment Scale ... 187

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosoph y SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING STUDY ABROAD: AN ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES FOR UNDERREPRESENTED GRADUATE STUDENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION By Nicola J. Kernaghan December 2012 Chair: Linda Cronin Jones Major: Curriculum and Instr uction While there is widespread recognition of the need for students to gain global experience, research indicates that the majority of study abroad programs at U.S. colleges and universities focus on the liberal arts and foreign languages and few study abroad opportunities exist in the science and engineering disciplines. In the 2009 2010 academic year, college students from the life and physical science and engineering disciplines comprised just 11.4 % of study abroad participants, compared to 22.3% in the social sciences and 20.8% in business and management. In addition, numerous obstacles exist for science and engineering graduate students wanting to pursue an international experience and currently only 0.6% of study abroad participants are doctoral st udents. The purposes of this study were to develop and validate an assessment academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes and to use this tool and the Intercultural Development Inventory to investigate the self r eported academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes of graduate students who participated in short term science and

PAGE 14

14 engineering related study abroad programs at a large research university. In addition, this study invest igated which components of the implemented science and engineering related study abroad programs enhanced and/or limited the impact of these programs on participant outcomes. This study used a mixed methods approach and quantitative results indicate that g raduate students who participated in science and engineering related study abroad programs experienced significant changes in their academic STEM learning and perceptio ns of the socio cultural role of science and engineering, career perceptions, personal confidence and general global awareness. However, these students did not experience any significant changes in their intercultural development as a result of participati on in a study abroad program. Detailed recommendations and best practices for program development, implementation and evaluation for graduate study abroad in the science and engineering disciplines include the incorporation of extensive networking opportun ities and collaborative research or service learning projects with host country counterparts. The results of this study indicate that appropriately designed graduate student study abroad experiences can provide unique opportunities to develop globally mind ed scientists and engineers.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In our increasingly globalized society, a college education should prepare students to live and work effectively with people from different backgrounds. Indeed, a collective concern for institutions of higher education is the creation of globally and culturally competent graduates (Smith & Schonfeld, 2000). This emphasis was recently reinforced by the International Education Summit on the Occasion of the G8, a gathering of 16 nations, which issued a stat ement that education must provide opportunities for students to study across international borders and should produce graduates who are globally competent and culturally fluent (Fischer, 2012). In response, more than one third of higher education instituti ons in the United States (U.S.) have now incorporated internationalization priorities into their mission statements, though there is wide variation in degrees of commitment (Siaya & Hayward, 2003; Stearns, 2009). In general, two basic purposes for interna tionalization of higher education are espoused: 1. To improve the knowledge and skills of American students, thus enabling them to function in an increasingly global society, and 2. Co lleges and universities have therefore adopted numerous i nitiatives to i nternationalize the higher education experience of students primarily as a result of the demand for an educated workforce that can remain competitive in an increasingly global economy (Lyman, 1 99 5; Johnston & Edelstein, 1993). Over the past 30 years, a variety of definitions of i nternationalization of higher education have emerged, describing it as (a) the process of integrating an international perspective into a college or university system, (b ) making campuses more

PAGE 16

16 internationally oriented, (c) infusing international material into the curriculum, and (d) adapting to an ever changing, diverse external environment that is becoming more globally focused (Bartell, 2003; De Wit, 2002; Hanson & Meyer son, 1995; Lambert, 1993; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981 ). More recently, internationalization of higher education dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post s 2004, p.11). The most frequently cited objective of efforts to internationalize higher education is the graduation of culturally competent, internationally knowledgeable, and/ or globally minded students ( Dolby, 2004; Knight, 19 97 ). Internationalization programs at institutions of higher education are typically multi faceted and involve ( a) the flow of international students and scholars, (b) faculty research and exchange, (c) internationalized curriculum, (d) internationalized c o curricular units and activities, and (e) global institutional linkages. However, one of the most established and visible of these approaches is the effort to encourage U.S. college students to participate in study abroad or international study opportunit ies as a component of their education. The potential benefits for college students who participate in study abroad programs are well documented (Dolby, 2004; Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005 ). For example, a large scale study conducted by th e Institute for the International Education of Students (IES) reported long term, positive impacts of study influencing issues such as career path, world view, and self confi dence of alumni (Dwyer & Peters, 2004). Meanwhile, others have documented gains in foreign language

PAGE 17

17 learning and cultural knowledge and an increased interest in interdisciplinary studies (Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005). Further, according to Dolby (2004), study abroad experiences provide students with the opportunity to critically examine their own national identity and associated traits and their role in the global context. A record number of U.S. college students are studying abroad today. According to the mo st recent Open Doors 2011 report published by the Institute of International and Cultural affairs, over 270,604 U.S. students received academic credit for courses and resea rch abroad in the 2009 2010 academic year (IIE, 2011). These figures represent a 100% increase in U.S student participation in study abroad over the past decade. And yet, the growing numbers of students who do study abroad represent a small percentage of the overall number of college students and are concentrated in disciplines such as foreign languages, liberal arts and business. Meanwhile, ongoing efforts amongst both educators and policy makers are attempting to increase not only the number of students who study abroad, but also their diversity, particularly in terms of ethnicity and discipline. It is clear that a great deal of work remains to be done if study abroad is to be integrated into higher education for students of all backgrounds and from all disciplines. Purpose Research indicate s that the majority of study abroad programs at U.S. colleges and universities focus on the liberal arts and foreign languages and very few study abroad opportunities exist in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. In fact, a ccording to the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program report (2005), students majoring in the sciences and

PAGE 18

18 engineering are among the most underrepresented groups on study abroad programs National statistics from t he most recent Institute of International Education Open Doors 2011 Report on International Educational Exchange (IIE, 2011) support these findings. This report is based on a survey of approximately 3,000 accredited U.S. institu tions and has complied data from over 900 colleges and universities whose students participate in study abroad programs. IIE has determined that, of all college students who studied abroad in the 2009 2010 academic year, only 20,253 (7.5 %) were life or phy sical science majors and only 10,554 (3.9%) were engineering majors. In total, students from the life and physical science and engineering disciplines comprised just 11.4 % of study abroad participants, compared to 22.3% in the social sciences and 20.8% in business and management. Furthermore, although this report does not specify the academic level of these students, the overall totals indicate that over 86% of students who studied abroad during that year were undergraduates and only 13.6% were graduate stu dents. The low national level study abroad participation percentage for students majoring in science and engineering disciplines parallels study abroad participation rates for students at the University of Florida (UF). In the 2007 2008 academic year at U F, 4.5% of study abroad students were physical or life science majors and 4.5% were engineering students. Further investigation has revealed that the majority of UF science and engineering majors participating in study abroad experiences (99% from physical and life science and 92% from engineering) were pursuing undergraduate degrees. Currently, there is little published research examining reasons for the lack of participation in study abroad by undergraduate or graduate students in the life and physical s ciences and engineering, nor have many studies documented how study

PAGE 19

19 abroad experiences benefit students from these disciplines who do participate. According to the Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE, 2003), a lack of appropriate programs i s not the only barrier to study abroad for college level science and engineering students. Another major obstacle is the lack of recognition of the value of study abroad experiences in the science and engineering disciplines by students, their families, an d science and engineering faculty. The CIEE report argues that study abroad professionals and faculty advocates must demonstrate the intrinsic value of and engineers (CIEE, 2003). Similarly, the Institu te on International Education (IIE) repo rt entitled Promoting Study Abroad in Science and Technology Fields has called on researchers to identify the impacts of international collaborations on science and engineering students ( IIE, 2009 ). This dissertatio n study was designed to address some of these gaps in our understanding of the potential benefits of, and challenges associated with, study abroad experiences in the science and engineering disciplines, with a particular focus on graduate students. In addi tion, this study focused on study abroad programs that specifically target ethnically underrepresented students. The rationale for choosing this particular study sample is explained below. In 2009 2010, only 7.9% of college level study abroad students were Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 6.4% were Hispanic or Latino/a, 4.7% were Black or African American, and 0.5% were American Indian or Alaska Native (IIE, 2011). The Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program report including African American and Hispanic American students, are significantly

PAGE 20

20 not only to raise the number of students studyi ng abroad but also to increase the Perhaps because of the low levels of participation in study abroad by students from underrepresented groups, few studies have investigated the impacts of these experiences on minority students. However, several reports have suggested potential benefits, including positive impacts on employment readiness, the expansion of job opportunities, increases in income potential and development of new career relevant skills (Ikeda, 2006; Picard, Bernardino & Ehigiator, 2009). Advocates of increasing minority participation in study abroad also claim that returned study abroad students get better grades and improve their chances of acceptance to graduate, medical and law school (Martinez, 2011). Ho wever, these assertions are generally unsubstantiated by empirical research and further research is needed to determine and document the amount and types of academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural competence resulting from the participati on of minority students in study abroad experiences. This study specifically addressed three research questions related to graduate student outcomes resulting from participation in life and physical science and engineering related study abroad programs: 1. H ow can researchers and practitioners effectively assess the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes of life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participate in science and engineering related study abroad programs? 2. What ar e the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for graduate science and engineering students who complete science and engineering related study abroad programs? To answer this question, the following sub questions were posed:

PAGE 21

21 a. What are the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for underrepresented graduate students in life and physical science and engineering who participate in science and engineering r elated study abroad experiences? b. Do the perceived academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes differ for underrepresented life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participate in study abroad experie nces compared to those who do not? 3. Which specific components of science and engineering related study abroad programs enhance and/or limit the impact of these programs on the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development of particip ants? The data generated in response to the research questions informed the identification of best practices for college/university study abroad experiences in life and physical science and engineering disciplines. Products include recommendations for prog ram design and implementation and suggestions regarding appropriate techniques and instruments for assessment of academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for life and physical science and engineering students participa ting in study abroad experiences. These recommendations can provide guidance to both college/university science and engineering faculty and study abroad program administrators as they attempt to increase levels of study abroad participation by students, es pecially graduate students, in the science and engineering disciplines. Statement of Need Education in science and engineering disciplines in the United States is viewed as and military superiority. In fact, great technological and scientific advances have occurred as a result of such global competition. For example, the development of military hardware

PAGE 22

22 in the early twentieth century and space technology of the 1960s were bot h the direct result of struggles for supremacy on the international stage (DeBoer, 1991). These calls for an increased focus on the STEM disciplines continue today as the United States strives to maintain its position as a world leader. For example, the Na tional Science Foundation (NSF), in the document titled Challenge Building a Stronger Foundation term prosperity and security that we remain a world leader in science and t American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation claims that ic Policy Council 2006, p.1). Sigma Xi (2007), a scientific research society, has also stated that success in the global economy requires the U.S. to help its scientists and engineers achieve global competence. Beyond these national politico economic argum ents, others contend that the internationalization of science and engineering education is a socio cultural imperative. For example, Stanley and Brickhouse (2001) argued that science education should adopt a multicultural approach and Guest, Livett and Sto ne (2006) suggested that science is an intrinsically international activity, since it is a human activity, and is thus impacted by culturally embedded values and attributes, such as ethics, religion, history and politics. Meanwhile, Carter (2005) argued th at science education must be considered in the context of increasing globalization and the associated reconfiguration of the social and cultural landscape.

PAGE 23

23 According to Parkinson (2007), the motivation for promoting international education relates to the range and scale of technological needs of mankind in the 21 st century and the associated improvements in quality of life that could be achieved. Students in engineering and the technical sciences should be prepared to tackle some of the most challenging pr oblems facing the world in the 21 st century, such as providing clean water, affordable health care, and energy efficient transportation to the majority of Meanwhile, others have s uggested that, rather than considering socio cultural factors, internationalization of science education c ould lead to positive outcomes in terms of global standardization of language and methodologies used in science disciplines (Charlton & Andras, 2006). Certainly, as researchers in STEM fields throughout the world tackle pressing global issues, and as scientists and engineers increasingly collaborate on international projects, a greater understanding of the role of the socio cultural aspects of these dis ciplines will be beneficial to all concerned. Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) from teams comprised of partners from different to confront the many challenges in this increasingly global society (Bement, 2005, p. 2). In response to this need, the NSF elevated their international division to form a new Office of International Science a The OISE supports programs designed to expand and enhance leading edge international research and education opportunities for U.S. scientists and engineers, especially at the early career stage. Their efforts include supporting planning visits and

PAGE 24

24 workshops that are expected to lead to international collaborative projects, providing international research opportunities for U.S. science and engineering students and early career scientists and engineers, and funding international partnerships. As explained previously, study abroad experiences can be a powerful tool for internationalizing higher education and the NSF indicates that international experiences ey are to acquire the skills needed to lead and participate in international teams and research discoveries (Bement, 2005, p. 3). Specific NSF grant programs that include opportunities for international study include the International Research Experiences for Students (IRES) program, East Asia and Pacific Summer Institutes for US Graduate Students (EAPSI), and Partnerships for International Research and Education (PIRE). OISE also co funds international programs with other NSF directorates including the Res earch Experience for Undergraduates program (REU), the Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP), the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program (IGERT), and the Graduate STEM Fellows in K 12 Education program (GK 12). In 2011, OISE provided support for almost 400 projects, with total funding exceeding $22 million and in the previous year, funding for a similar number of projects totaled more than $29 million. This demonstrates a significant increase in commitment to international act ivities when compared to the 2009 funding level of approximately $4 million and the 2008 funding level of just over $10 million. In 2010, the University of Florida received almost $ 7 million for two PIRE programs, both of which involve international study opportunities for graduate students in the science, social science and engineering disciplines. In addition, UF received

PAGE 25

25 supplemental NSF funding of $270,000 for the South East Alliance for Graduate Students and the Professoriate (SEAGEP) program to enabl e the development of several short term study abroad opportunities for minority graduate students in the science and engineering disciplines. With such a clear federal commitment to funding international study abroad experiences in science and engineering research examining the impacts of these experiences on participants could provide useful, needed, and timely information to faculty, administrators, and government agencies regarding best practices for science and engineering related study abroad program design implementation, and evaluation. Furthermore, there is strong support for such efforts from professional organizations, such as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), who argue that study abroad experiences can help student s develop the soft skills needed to function in multidisciplinary teams They contend that students should be able to communicate effectively and develop an understanding of the potential impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context (AB ET, 2000). Additionally, the American Chemistry Society (ACS, n.d.), claims that study abroad offers many benefits for students, including : Making them more attractive to graduate schools, particularly if they conduct research or learn another language wh ile overseas; Enhancing their laboratory skills and allowing them to learn the chemical sciences from an international perspective. However, as noted previously, currently, very few study abroad opportunities exist in the science and engineering discipline s

PAGE 26

26 Significance of the Study Given the fact that very few students in science and engineering currently participate in study abroad programs, and in the context of an increased emphasis on internationalization of higher education, it is important to conduc t a comprehensive assessment of the impact of college level study abroad programs on science and engineering student participants. Based on existing literature, the three most important categories of potential student outcomes include academic learning in the science and engineering disciplines (academic STEM learning) personal growth, and intercultural development. In addition, few published studies exist to provide guidance regarding how to design, implement, and evaluate effective science and engineeri ng related study abroad programs. A clear identification of student outcomes associated with participation in science and engineering related study abroad experiences can be useful to both funding agencies and institutions of higher education as they ende avor to increase the number and effectiveness of such international experiences. This information could also be used to justify student participation in these programs to both science and engineering faculty members and academic advisors. Information regar ding the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes resulting from participation in study abroad experiences can also provide guidance to faculty interested in developing and leading study abroad experiences for science and engineering graduate students. Furthermore, the identification of best practices and recommendations for the design, implementation, and evaluation of science and engineering related study abroad programs at the university level is of national signific ance, enhancing efforts to engage

PAGE 27

27 students from these traditionally underrepresented disciplines in overseas study across numerous campuses. Finally, in an effort to internationalize the campus, and as a component of on going institutional accreditation, the University of Florida has established an Internationalization Task Force. This task force, under the direction of the Provost, has intercultural competence into student learning The thre e student learning outcomes identified by this task force are that students will be able to: D emonstrate knowledge of global and intercultural conditions and interdependencies. T hink critically to interpret global and intercultural issue s. C ommunicate effectively with members of other cultures Initially, these student learning outcomes will focus on the undergraduate student population. However, they are well aligned with the current study and it is anticipated that the results presented in this dissertation will provide useful information to the task force as they continue their efforts to internationalize the graduate student experience at UF. Definitions In this section, I first provide the definitions for terms related directly to my s tudy sample, including science and engineering students. I then provide definitions for terms related to the treatment, including study abroad. The definition of science and engineering students used in this study encompasses the life and physical science s and engineering disciplines as defined by the Institute of International Education (IIE), the leading not for profit educational and

PAGE 28

28 cultural organization focused on international studies in higher education in the United States. The IIE has conducted an annual statistical survey of study abroad students since academic year 1985/86 and the most recent survey include s data from ories derived from the U.S. Department of Programs (CIP codes). This study, which focused on life and physical science and engineering students, follows the NCES clas sification, with one notable exception. Life and physical science disciplines (also referred to more generally as science disciplines) include those categorized in the biological and biomedical sciences (CIP code 26), physical sciences (CIP code 40), and science technologies/technicians (CIP code 41). However, the IIE definition of life and physical sciences does not currently include natural resources and conservation (CIP code 03). At the University of Florida, interdisciplinary ecology is housed in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and students studying in this field are eligible to participate in science and engineering related study abroad programs. Thus, in addition to the disciplines described above, the definition of life and physical sci ences in this study also includes natural resources and conservation. The engineering field of study includes general engineering (CIP code 14), engineering technologies/technicians (CIP code 15), construction trades (CIP code 46), mechanic and repair tech nologies/technicians (CIP code 47), precision production (CIP code 48), and transportation and materials (CIP code 49) (IIE, 201 1 ). As mentioned previously the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program (2005) reported significant u nderrepresentation on study abroad

PAGE 29

29 programs by both students majoring in the sciences and engineering and by students to refer to students from the science and engineer ing disciplines, which is the focus of this research. However, the students participating in this research study came from a program specifically target ing African American, Hispanic, Native American and Pacific Islander minority groups. I will use the ter According to Peterson, Engle, Kenney, Kreutzer, Noiting and Ogden (2007), individual student possesses and can demonstrate upon completion of a learning experience was participation in a study abroad program and student learning focused on the areas of academic STEM learning personal grow th and intercultural development outcomes. The Forum on Education Abroad (Bolen, 2007) defines study abroad as be as short as a few weeks and as long as a year in duration (Bolen, 2007). For the purposes of this study, I used the definition above to focus on for credit study abroad courses in the science and engineering disciplines offered by the University of Flor ida for graduate students. Also, in the context of this research, it is important to define the type of study abroad program under consideration. Engle and Engle (2003) have identified seven defining components of overseas programs, and using a combinatio n of these variables, they have created a classification of different types of study abroad experiences. In

PAGE 30

30 seful approach d a preliminary classification based on three program characteristics that are hypothesized to have the greatest impact on student learning: the nature of the clas sroom experience, the duration of study, and the language of instruction. Using this classification, I designated the study abroad programs in this research led, short weeks with stud ents traveling as a cohort primarily taught by U.S. faculty, and with the led, short student ac ademic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes resulting from participation in study abroad experiences since most existing science and engineering related study abroad programs are of relatively limited duration (generally th ree weeks or less). Also, the Forum on Education Abroad State of the Field 2009 document (Forum, 2010) reported that U.S. and overseas higher education institutions expect their primary participation growth for study abroad to be in short term programs. Th us, an assessment of the impacts of this type of program, especially for science and engineering students, is of particular relevance. In summary, the definition of study abroad used in this study specifically refers to University of Florida faculty led, short term programs. The range of durations for these programs was 10 to 14 days and the format included site visits and field trips in the host country, as defined by Bolen (2007) and Engle and Engle (2003). This research study

PAGE 31

31 did not involve other study abroad program types or programs offered by independent providers or U.S. colleges and universities other than the University of Florida Summary Study abroad experiences for undergraduate and graduate students in the science and engineering disciplines are potentially an important tool in support of efforts to internationalize these fields of study and could contribute to the development of scientists and engineers with globally relevant knowledge and skills. However, as is evident from numerous publishe d reports and studies students majoring in these disciplines are among the most underrepresented groups on study abroad programs. Furthermore, the body of existing research literature includes few studies documenting the impact of study abroad experiences on students (especially graduate students) in the life and physical sciences or engineering. For this reason, I chose to investigate the impact of study abroad experiences on science and engineering graduate student participants. The results of this resea rch can be used to provide funding agencies and faculty at other higher education institutions with a clearer understanding of the impacts of study abroad experiences on the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development of student p articipants. In addition, t he development of a best practices model for the design, implementation, and evaluation of science and engineering focused study abroad programs could help study abroad professionals and faculty develop more effective programs D issertation Overview This dissertation is presented in a hybrid format with the first three chapters following the traditional outline. This first chapter includes a statement of the problem

PAGE 32

32 this dissertation addresses and its significance to the field of science education. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical framework for this research study and provides a review of several categories of relevant literature, including the history and current state of the field in study abroad. It also includes a review of t he role of study abroad in the science and engineering disciplines and the assessment of outcomes associated with these methodological framework, research questions, study s etting and information about the study participants. This chapter also outlines the data collection and data analysis procedures for the three research questions. The next three chapters are written as separate articles. Chapter 4 addresses the first resea rch question and presents details regarding the development and evaluation of an instrument for assessing academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes for science and engineering graduate students who participate in study abroad programs. Chapter 5 then presents quantitative results of an assessment of academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes of science and engineering graduate students who participated in a short term study abroad program. Chapter 6 presents the study abroad program experiences and identifies best practices for the design and implementation of graduate level study abroad in the science and engineering disciplines. Finally, Chapter 7 presents an overvi ew of the dissertation study and provides further discussion and conclusions for the study as a whole.

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE To examine the background of college study abroad in the United States, this literature review provides a dis cussion of the research that is relevant to the current study. First, it presents an overview of the theoretical frameworks that have been applied in study abroad research and outlines the specific framework that I used for this dissertation project. Secon d, it provide s an overview of the definitions and history of study abroad at the college level. Next is an examination of the rationale and benefits of study abroad participation in general and specifically for students from the science and engineering dis ciplines and from minority groups. Finally, it presents a review the literature related to outcomes assessment for study abroad programs, with particular emphasis on science and engineering programs. This chapter also discusses how th e current research con tribute s to the bodies of literature on the assessment of outcomes for science and engineering study abroad programs. Theoretical Framework The development of a theoretical framework for research in the area of study abroad experiences has been quite limit ed and most work in the area has been practitioner based (Hoffa, 1993; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005). As with other study abroad research studies, I obtained direction for this study by examining related theories and concepts in other areas of educational r esearch, developmental learning, cognitive and educational psychology, experiential learning and intercultural development. Currently, study abroad researchers and practitioners conceptualize the field using three prominent theoretical frameworks; positiv ism, relativism and experiential

PAGE 34

34 constructivism (Vande Berg, Paige & Hemming Lou, 2012). Positivism, which initially served as the foundational theoretical framework for study abroad, is now waning in popularity as research has demonstrated that mere expos ure to different places, peoples and cultures does not necessarily lead to learning for all students. Relativism, based on the early work of educational psychologists such as Dewey and Piaget, is still popular as a theoretical framework for study abroad. I n the relativism framework, educators structure learning experiences, support the student learning process, and operate on the premise that immersion and social and physical interaction are the factors that facilitate learning. Most recently, and of greate st relevance to the current study, the experiential constructivism theoretical framework has been app lied to study abroad contexts. This framework emerged from the work of Kolb and Fry (1979) on experiential learning theory. They developed a cycle of learn ing that flows from concrete experience to reflective observation to abstract conceptualization to active experimentation and back to concrete experience. During study abroad experiences, educators work directly with students to facilitate their learning, provide frequent feedback, and actively involve students in the learning process. In the context of this study, I contend that academic STEM learning resulting from participation in these particular study abroad experiences is both experiential and transf ormative in nature. During the study abroad programs, students encountered real world examples/applications of the same concepts and skills they were first exposed to in classroom and/or laboratory experiences on their home campuses. At the same time, stud ents completing these study abroad programs often faced situations that were much more complex, challenging, and at times, even contradictory, when compared to

PAGE 35

35 the initial conceptions and beliefs generated as a result of their prior traditional coursework. When considering all of these factors, it makes sense to use an integrated theoretical framework when examining science and engineering focused study abroad programs. To be useful, this framework needs to incorporate and blend cognitive and psychosocial d evelopment theories from both general education and discipline specific perspectives. King and Baxter Magolda (2005) suggest that cognitive and psychosocial dimensions are, in fact, really parts of the same developmental process. In the following sections, I highlight the leading academic learning and personal growth theories that contribute to a holistic theoretical framework for study abroad. Academic Learning Theory At the center of the theoretical framework for intellectual development used in this st udy is the constructivist paradigm of learning developed by Jean Piaget, who suggested that individuals construct new knowledge from their o wn experiences (Piaget, 1967). education contexts, especially in the STEM disciplines, contends that humans generate knowledge and meaning as a result of interactions between their experiences and existing ideas. According to constructivism, students use different cognitive processes to construct their ow n unique understandings of material to be learned. Learning is an active, meaning making process and students continually strive to make sense of their experiences based on the influence of their own prior knowledge, experience, and attitudes. While the li terature on constructivist learning theory still tends to emphasize the

PAGE 36

36 role that shared experience plays in the construction of knowledge (i.e., social constructiv ism) has received greater attention (Richardson, 2003; Prawat & Floden, mediated learning provides the foundation for the theory of social constructivism and suggests cognitive development is a social process and th at learning requires interaction with others in order to modify/adapt prior knowledge to new situations and environments (Salomon & Perkins, 1998). Social constructivism extends traditional constructivism with an additional focus on the potential impact in teraction with other people and cultures can have on learning. Given this focus on the role of human awareness and interaction, the theory of social constructivism is an obvious fit for framing investigations of study abroad experiences Experiential lear ning One offshoot of constructivist learning theory that is particularly applicable to study abroad research is the concept of active or experiential learning. This theoretical paradigm is based on the work of John Dewey and has been widely embraced by res earchers in the areas of experiential and service learning. Dewey was a proponent of apprenticeship and the need for real world experience in education. In his work, School and Society ally living the experience (1902, p. 11). The essential elements of effective education practice identified by Dewey set the component of all study abroad programs. Accordin model, learning should be more than memorizing facts and formulas. It should enable students to develop a more complex conceptual understanding of a topic in the context of real life with real consequences. This type of a ctive learning requires learners to be

PAGE 37

37 actively engaged in the process of making their own observations, gathering facts and evidence, and engaging in their own reflective analyses of new information in the context of reality. Moreover, studies by the Nati onal Training Laboratory have determined that there is a positive correlation between the degree of active engagement used by instructors and the degree of retention of subject matter by college level learners (Permaul, 2009). Building on the work of Dewe He developed a cyclical model of learning, arguing that experience is translated through reflection into concrete concep ts, which are in turn used for active experimental and new experiences (Figure 2 1) Study abroad experiences can offer participants expanded opportunities for experiential learning in real world contexts and help them directly apply the abstract concepts and theoretical knowledge acquired in more traditional classroom settings. Transformative learning Transformative learning is another facet of constructivist learning theory that complements the experiential learning theory described above. Transformativ e learning learning is believed to be triggered by an unsettling or disorientating experi ence, creating dissonance in what the students are hearing, seeing and feeling which then causes them to re examine and question their existing knowledge and assumptions. transf

PAGE 38

38 from a situation of disorientation and disequilibrium through a period of questioning assumptions, to a stage characterized by integration of new and old assumptions, and th e resulting outcome is a change in frame of reference or worldview. In the context of this study, academic STEM learning had the potential to be both experiential and transformative in nature. At the initiation of this study, all participants held their ow n unique conceptions regarding targeted learning outcomes in areas including scientific knowledge and skills, professional self efficacy in science and engineering global science communication, and the socio cultural ro le of science and engineering. These experience and learning. During the study abroad programs, these students were exposed to new information in new contexts which then had to be reconciled and integrated with their existing knowl edge and conceptions. Personal Development Theory While the experiential constructivism theoretical framework is important to consider when researching study abroad programs, learning during these experiences can only occur if students are developmentally ready to receive and process the experiences productively (Brewer & Cunningham, 2009). In addition to the targeted academic learning goals of study abroad programs, there is a widely held assumption personal growth, accelerating their development along some continua of cognitive and/or affective development (Bolen, 2007). In terms of human development theory, several approaches offer potential frameworks for studying the impact of study abroad partic psychosocial and interpersonal development (Pascarella & Ternezini, 2005). However,

PAGE 39

39 ultural sensitivity. Identity development Education and Identity (1969) and subsequently revised in collaboration with Linda Reisser, offers a foundational framework for the personal growth perspective exa mined in this research study (Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993 ). Chickering and Reisser contended that there are seven vectors that provide an applicable framework for examining the personal development of college students of all genders, ages, ethnicities, an d backgrounds (Reisser, 1995). Specifically, the vectors are (a) developing competence, (b) managing emotions, (c) moving through autonomy toward interdependence, (d) developing mature interpersonal relationships, (e) establishing identity, (f) developing purpose, and (g) developing integrity. In a more recent publication, Chickering worked with Larry Braskamp to adapt these vectors of identity development to the adoption of a global perspective for personal and social responsibility (Chick ering & Braskamp, 2009). They contend that aged student needs to develop and internalize a global perspective into her enhancement of four of the original vector s (2009, p. 27). These include : moving through autonomy toward interdependence, establishing identity, developing purpose, and managing emotions. The ability of students to move through autonomy toward interdependence relates to the intercultural competen ce goal of study abroad when a student is expected to understand and communicate with people from different national, ethnic and cultural

PAGE 40

40 groups. In doing so, students learn the importance of compromise, reciprocity and community commitment, all of which C hickering and Braskamp (2009) argue can help move an individual toward a greater understanding and acceptance of interdependence. Study abroad may also play an important role in establishing identity e ranging experiences, knowledge and & Braskamp, 2009, p. 27). Similarly, developing purpose refers to make a difference. This is also a goal of m any study abroad programs and specifically constructs of global awareness and career perceptions. Finally, in terms of managing emotions, study abroad frequently creates opportunities for students to become more aware of their own emotions and develop the flexibility needed as they encounter real world issues. In this study, I examined students' emotional development with the personal growth sub construct, personal confidence. In addition to the four vectors selec ted by Chickering and Braskamp, I argue that and communicate effectively with others, is also of relevance in study abroad experiences, especially those focusing on sc ienc e and engineering disciplines. In fact, much of the research on personal growth in study abroad has largely focused on the development of intercultural skills and competencies. Intercultural development The theory of intercultural development is perha ps the best known and most widely applied theoretical framework of personal growth used in study abroad research. differences is vital to their general education (Mahoney & Schamber, 2004).

PAGE 41

41 Furthermore, the ability to communicate and negotiate among diverse cultures has been shown to correlate with success both in college and beyond (Banks, 2001). The well known Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), deve loped by Milton Bennett, acknowledges the variety of ways that individuals respond to cultural differences. This model (Figure 2 2) defines intercultural sensitivity from the perspective of personal development and the capacity of the individual to adapt t o cultural differences (Bennett, 1998). Bennett contends that individuals experience cultural differences in a series of predictable stages (Bennett, Bennett & Allen, 1999). In this model, the first three stages, denial of difference defense of difference and minimization of difference are identified as ethnocentric stages. In these stages, the individual values his/her own culture more highly than other cultures. The latter three stages, acceptance of difference adaptation to difference and integration of difference are defined as ethnorelative, whereby other cultures are viewed in an increasingly positive and non threatening light. The DMIS model charts an integration w ith another culture. However, progression through these stages is not fixed, but rather functions as a continuum of increasing ability to deal with cultural differences, p. 22). This theory of intercultural sensitivity forms the basis for the Intercultural Development Inventory, which I used as an assessment instrument in the current study. Details of the IDI are provided in a later section of this literature review. Holis tic Theoretical Framework Engle and Engle (2003) suggest that two broad types of study abroad programs are essentially distinct from each other: culture based programs and knowledge transfer

PAGE 42

42 programs. The latter programs, they claim, take form primarily in areas such as biological field study and scientific exchange and the study of technological applications, during which individuals may remain distinct or remote from their host culture. However, it has been determined that, for individuals who become succ essful in a diverse world, a large part of that success is due to their ability to communicate and negotiate among diverse cultures (Banks, 2001). It is my contention that science and engineering students are no different from any other type of student and that a successful study aboard program include s the development of new academic knowledge and skills and the exchange of information and ideas. The following section provides background information on study abroad as practiced in the U.S. and provides a context for the current study with an examination of the history and characteristics of study abroad programs in the United States. College Level Study Abroad in the United States History of Study Abroad in the United States Historically, study abroad find s its roots in the pursuit of high culture and the Grand Tour, which originated in 17 th century England as a component of a classical education. Expansion of this concept to the United States in the 19 th century resulted in wealthy families sending their y oung people to Europe to absorb and assimilate the culture. The beginnings of modern study abroad in the United States are traced to a University of Delaware program that sent a group of eight students to France during their junior year in 1923. The earlie st official college level study abroad program in the U.S. quickly followed, beginning in 1926 when 504 American students boarded a steamship that served as a floating university for the study of Japanese culture. Land based study abroad first appeared in the 1950s, when a handful of American college

PAGE 43

43 students participated in overseas programs (Baskin, 1965). The number of college and university study abroad programs and students steadily increased throughout the next few decades, though the focus was primar ily on language learning. In 1988, a repo rt by the Advisory Council for I nternational Educational Exchange, abroad participation rates and include students from majors bey ond the languages and area studies. This report advocated increasing college study abroad participation in the U.S. to 10% by 1995, expanding study abroad to include students from underrepresented majors and minority groups, extending study abroad experien ces to non traditional destination countries outside Western Europe, and institutionalizing study abroad within the mission of internationalizing colleges and universities. Today, such programs are an integral part of efforts to internationalize the educat ion experience of students at many colleges and universities in the U.S. According to the 2011 Open Doors Report by the IIE, a record 270,604 American college students participated in study abroad programs during 2009 2010, representing a 3.8% increase ove r the previous year and over a 150% increase over the past decade (IIE, 2011). Definitions of Study Abroad Study abroad, education abroad, overseas study, and international education are just a few of the terms that are frequently used, often interchangea bly, to describe the experience of a college student who completes a portion of his/her program of study outside the geographical boundaries of the United States. Some colleges and universities include all programs, whether for credit or not, under the umb

PAGE 44

44 concerned with students who study abroad for credit (IIE, 201 1 ; University of Wisconsin, 2010) Whichever term is selected, and for the purposes of this study, spectrum of vastly different overseas study options, ranging from inter session trips of a week to yearlong study at a foreign institution (Engle & Engle, 2003). A great deal of debate surrounds the strengths and weaknesses of these different program types, with short term programs lauded for providing opportunities for greate r numbers of students, while longer term programs claim to achieve more desirable outcomes (Chieffo & Griffiths, 200 4 ; Dwyer & Peters 2004; Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005). It is not the purpose of this project to address this debate, though it should be noted that it is ultimately not the length, but rather the characteristics and objectives of a study abroad program that contribute to student learning (Chieffo & Griffiths, 200 4 ). However, in the context of any research study, it is important to define the typ e of study abroad program under consideration. Engle and Engle (2003) identified seven defining components of overseas programs, including: (1) length of the program, (2) entry target language competence, (3) language used in course work, (4) context of ac ademic work, (5) types of student housing, (6) provisions for guided/structured cultural interaction, and (7) experiential learning and guided reflection on cultural experience. Using a combination of these variables, Engle and Engle (2003) created a class ification of different types of study abroad experiences, including the study tour and short term program types. The study tour is typically a program lasting less than two

PAGE 45

45 weeks, which includes academically relevant site visits and field trips, with instr uction entirely in English and limited cultural interactions. The short term program, according to Engle and Engle (2003), typically lasts 3 to 8 weeks, includes subject matter instruction in English, with some limited foreign language exposure and may inc lude homestays or accommodation with foreign students, which facilitate more cultural interactions than in the study tour format. More recently, however, Vande Berg, speaking on behalf of the Forum on 2010, p. 1). He suggest ed that the conventional approach for classifying programs based on duration and structure is not workable for research purpos es and outcomes assessment as these categories frequently overlap. Indeed, this is the case in the current study, where the programs examined could be classified as both study tour and short term according to the Engle and Engle (2003) approach. Rather, Va nde Berg propose d an approach to classification based on the level of cultural integration that focuses principally on student learning. H is system grades programs on a continuum in relation to the extent to which they provide students with structure and o pportunities to integrate with the host culture. He argues that this approach, which essentially de constructs programs into several common elements, enables measurement of outcomes and comparison across programs. However, Vande Berg suggest ed the need for further research to determine the program characteristics that have the most impact on student learning. In the meantime, he propose d a preliminary classification based on three program characteristics that he hypothesize d to have the greatest impact on

PAGE 46

46 s tudent learning: the nature of the classroom experience, duration of study, and language of instruction. In this context, the programs included in the cu rrent study were classified as faculty led short term, during which students studied in a cohort, were taught by both American and host country faculty, and used English as the primary language of instruction. Rationale Why Study Abroad? Many colleges and universities promote study abroad programs as opportunities for students to experience another count ry, acquire new knowledge and skills needed to become productive and successful members of the global community, broaden their worldview, and increase their intercultural awareness to promote cross cultural understanding ( Anderson et al., 2006; Black & Duh on, 2006 ). Underlying these claims is the need for a college education to prepare students for a future as inter culturally competent global citizens, with the skills and knowledge required to work in an increasingly globalized world. Indeed, the phenomeno n of globalization is frequently cited as being the driving force for the growing levels of interest and participation in study abroad (Lewin, 2009). With increased global economic competition and demands for increased global cooperation, the need for st udents to obtain extensive exposure to the perspectives and practices of other cultures has been deemed essential for the purposes of promoting global peace and prosperity, however one defines those terms. Globalization and the geopolitical realities of th e Post 9 11 world have driven home the need for U.S. college to define that term (Brewer & Cunningham, 2009). In terms of the pedagogy associated

PAGE 47

47 with education using th is globalized perspective, the concepts of global citizenship and intercultural awareness have become predominant in the higher education literature. Global Citizenship The concept of global or world citizenship is an historic one that has its roots in Gre ek and Roman philosophy and political theory of the early twentieth century. Global citizenship emerged as a concept in colleges and universities in the late 1990s, when it was incorporated into numerous mission statements and institutional goals (Schattle 200 7 ). However, despite the widespread use of this term and the fact that it is frequently invoked as the desired outcome of an internationalized education, there appears to be little consensus about the definition of global citizenship. While the terms citizenship and country, global citizenship obviously cannot be defined this way. Contemporary understandings of the concept of global citizenship encompass multiple concepts, such as awareness, responsibility, participation, cross cultural empathy, international mobility, and personal achievement. Some researchers, primarily those concerned with economics, are likely to adopt a fairly narrow definition of a global cit izen as an individual who can live and work effectively anywhere in the world (Noddings, 2005). Others, however, take a broader view, generating a more multifaceted definition of global citizenship. For example, Carter (2005) claims that global citizenship advocates value respect for fellow global citizens, regardless of race, religion or nationality. A recent review of the literature by Schattle (200 7 ) provides a sense of the complexity of this issue, suggesting that there are actually five overlapping cat egories of global citizenship:

PAGE 48

48 environmental protection; resolve global issues; Global Citizenship for Scientists and Engineers In science and engineering related fields, the development of a global perspective is deemed essential preparation for scientists and engineers who must understand science in a cultural context and who can succeed when collaborating and com peting with scientists from all over the world (Wainwright, Ram, Teodorescu & Tottenham, 2009). Further, according to Fass and Fraser (2009), study abroad experiences emulate the scientific process of constructing understanding about the natural world thro ugh observation, measurement, and testing. They contend that participation in a study abroad experience by science students results in the development of the international and intercultural competency skills indicative of global citizens and that these re al world experiences serve as useful preparation for future careers as globally minded scientists and engineers (Fass & Fraser, 2009). Not surprisingly, however, such complex definitions and vague expectations of global citizenship expressed by colleges an d universities have resulted in an ongoing debate about how this term is employed in the higher education context. Concerns include the level of intellectual legitimacy associated with the pursuit of global citizenship and whether the concept actually gene rates any new or distinct pedagogical

PAGE 49

49 approaches. Of more significance for this study is concern regarding how global citizenship can be reliably and accurately measured as a construct in order to ensure that educational programs, such as study abroad, act ually make a difference and contribute to the creation of global citizens. The development of the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors necessary to either compete successfully in the global marketplace or work toward finding and implementing solutio ns to problems of global significance are driving factors in the design of most contemporary science and engineering study abroad experiences (Schattle, 200 7 ). I dentif ying and assessing global citizenship outcomes for science and engineering study abroad p rogram participants can contribute new data and evidence to help resolve this ongoing debate regarding definitions and characteristics of the global citizenship construct. Intercultural Competence Globalization and the internationalization of higher educa tion have also prompted post secondary institutions to consider the development of intercultural competence as a desirable educational outcome. Milton Bennett (1998) defined intercultural competence as the ability to communicate effectively and appropriate ly in a variety of cultural contexts, requiring culturally sensitive knowledge, a motivated mindset, and appropriate skills. Intercultural competence has also been defined as the ability to ultural valu es (Fuller, 2007). Such multinational marketplace and scientists and engineers are also expected to acquire such skills (Samovar & Porter, 2000; DeWinter, 1997). Moreover, the American Council on Education (ACE) has expressed concern that, in the absence of intercultural

PAGE 50

50 competence, the U.S. will be at a competitive disadvantage, with students who are unlikely to succeed in the twenty first century (ACE, 1995). It is widely hel of intercultural sensitivity and many U.S. universities claim to value intercultural competence (Jenkins & Skelly, 2004). However, few institutions emphasize intercultural skills as an ant icipated outcome of internationalization and even fewer have designated methods for documenting or measuring intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2005). Thus, there is increasing pressure on institutions to evaluate the effectiveness of their international ization efforts. Deardorff (2005) argues that to provide a more thorough and non biased picture of outcomes, assessments must involve more than survey or self reporting instruments. Questions arising from the existing literature focus on the extent to whi ch different types of study abroad programs impact the intercultural development of students and whether different pedagogical approaches aid or hinder such development. Finding answers to these questions may assist with determining more accurately how use ful study abroad is for achieving certain learning outcomes, as well as for making meaningful improvements to existing international study programs. The current study used the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), which is a validated and widely used progress toward intercultural competency as a result of participation in a short term, faculty led study abroad experience Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) Based on Milton Bennett's Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS; Bennett, 1993), and constructed

PAGE 51

51 and tested by Dr. Mitchell R. Hammer and Dr. Milton J. Bennett, this assessment has been widely used since 1998 in both corporate and educational se ttings in the United difference and level of intercultural competence/sensitivity across a developmental continuum for individuals, groups and organizations. The IDI consist s of 50 Likert type items and 16 demographic questions. The wording and content of the items is based on actual statements made by people from many cultures throughout the world and reflect s a range of viewpoints toward cultural differences. Several phases of testing have proven the IDI to be a statistically reliable and valid measure of intercultural sensitivity. The first validation phase, involved the development of an initial 60 item IDI and qualitative interviewing of a culturally diverse sample of 40 individuals to assess content validity. Testing of this instrument with a sample of 228 subject s facilitated identification of six factors that generally align with the DMIS. The second phase of testing involved the addition of items and testing on a sampl e of 591 cultural ly diverse respondents. Overall, these various tests demonstrated that the IDI is a robust measure of the core orientations of the intercultural development continuum and that the assessment tool is generalizable across cultures. (Hammer Bennett & Wiseman 2003, Hammer, 20 11 ). More recently, comprehensive testing of the IDI across cultural groups with confirmatory factor analysis suggested the following seven scales: Denial (7 items, = .66), Defense (6 items, = .72), Reversal (9 items, = .78), Minimization (9 items, = .74), Acceptance (5 items, = .69), Adaptation (9 items, = .71), and Cultural Disengagement (5 items, = .79). The IDI provides several different assessment of an

PAGE 52

52 in Perceived Orientation (PO) score, computed using an unweighted formula, reflects where the individual or group places itself along the intercultural development continuum (P O, = .82). The Developmental Orientation score (DO, = .83) is computed using a weighted formula and identifies the main or primary orientation of the individual or group along the intercultural continuum. For the purposes of this study, I used the developme ntal orientation score, which is the perspective that an individual is most likely to use to bridge cultural differences and commonalities. Additional details on the IDI, including reliability and validity information are available on the IDI website (http ://idiinventory.com/) and in several associated publications (Hammer et al. 2003 ; Hammer, 2011). The IDI is frequently used in research regarding study abroad experiences, especially in the liberal arts and foreign language field s. For example, Anderson, Lawton, Rexeisen and Hubbard (2006) used this instrument to assess intercultural sensitivity of 23 undergraduate business students who participated in a four week, faculty led study abroad program in Europe. The researchers administered the IDI before and after the program and preliminary results indicated that short term programs can have a positive impact on the overall development of cross cultural sensitivity. The e et. al., 2006, p. 467). However, a comprehensive literature review revealed few studies of science and e ngineering study abroad that using the IDI to assess cultura l competence, despite the acknowledgment that intercultural competence is an important

PAGE 53

53 skill for scientists and engineer s (Guest et al., 2006; Beckman, Besterfield Sacre, Kovalcik, Mehalik, LaScola Needy, Reis, Schaefer & Shuman, 2007). Benefits of Study Abroad An examination of the literature on college level study abroad reveals that most overseas programs have several objectives. Typically these focus on academic learning, including the acquisition of new knowledge and skills; professional development b y making professional contacts and clarifying career goals; personal growth, with an emphasis on enhanced sense of personal identity, confidence and flexibility; and intercultural outcomes, including cultural sensitivity and improvement of language skills (Anderson, et al. 2006). Many research studies evaluat ing the impact of study abroad experiences on U.S. college students have found that participants do acquire global mindedness, grow intellectually, and develop personally (Hadis, 2005). A number of pro fessional organizations have also acknowledged and documented the benefits of college level study abroad experiences. The Association for International Educators, NAFSA, contends that an educational opportunity outside the United States can be among the mo st valuable tools for preparing a student to participate effectively in an increasingly interconnected international community that demands cross cultural skills and knowledge. They claim that studying in other countries and learning other languages provid e students with a better understanding of the many similarities we share with other cultures and facilitate an appreciation of our differences. The relationships that are formed between individuals from different countries as part of international educatio

PAGE 54

54 In terms of academic learning, there is evidence that study abroad can enhance the development of disciplina ry knowledge and skills. For example, most professionals working in study aboard and international education today embrace the notion that erg, 2007, p.392). A large scale study conducted by the Institute for the International Education of Students (IES) reported long term, positive and academic development influencing issues such as career path, worldview, and self confidence of alumni (Dwyer & Peters, 2004). Meanwhile, others have documented gains in foreign language learning and cultural knowledge and an increased interest in interdisciplinary studies re sulting from participation in study abroad experiences (Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005). Moreover, several studies have indicated that study abroad provides students with opportunities to critically examine their own national identity and associated traits and t heir role in the global context (Dolby, 2004). Participation in, and Benefits of, Study Abroad for Science and Engineering Majors National organizations and individual researchers have identified various motivations for internationalization of the science and engineering disciplines. As outlined in Chapter 1, these include promoting and maintaining national supremacy on the global stage, tackling some of the most challenging and intractable science based problems facing the world, and standardizing scientif ic research methodologies and procedures internationally. Study abroad offers one mechanism by which science and engineering students can acquire some of the globally relevant skills needed to address these concerns. For example, a study of the global pers pectives of students who

PAGE 55

55 participated in an NSF funded Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) reported a number of benefits for U.S. science and engineering students who visited another country and interacted with the local people. This study found t hat students completing international REU experiences had the opportunity to expand and share their knowledge, forge new relationships, learn about other cultures and languages, and learn different ways to solve and understand scientific problems. Student participants were also reported to have become more interested in both other cultures and learning another language as a result of their study abroad experiences (Guerrero, Labrador, & Perez, 2007). In a study of engineering students studying abroad by Had dad (1997), a longitudinal survey of alumni indicated that the study abroad experience played a graduation offers of employment and promotion. Meanwhile, the International Engineering Program (IEP) at the University of R hode Island, which received NSF funding for study abroad experiences through a Program in International Research and Education (PIRE) grant, reported increased placement rates for their IEP graduates. Furthermore, they reported that the majority of their I EP program graduates are employed by firms who work globally (Grandin, 2006). The Council on International Education Exchange (CIEE) has also examined study abroad for college level science and engineering students, and in particular, has investigated the strategies for change. Barriers identified include a lack of institutional commitment to study abroad and a lack of the recognition of the value of these experiences for students. Addition ally, the inflexibility of the science curricula required at many

PAGE 56

56 institutions makes it difficult to fit study abroad into already full schedules and raises concerns about the extra time to degree resulting from study abroad participation and the resulting negative impact on successful admission to highly competitive graduate programs. Further, a lack of awareness by both science and engineering students and faculty regarding the value of study abroad, coupled with a lack of language skills and foreign exp ertise of students and faculty, have resulted in limited interest in, and support of, study abroad among both groups. Other barriers include faculty perceptions that their work on study abroad programs is not recognized for promotion or tenure, the lack of science content background among most study abroad professionals, and the lack of existing partnerships between science faculty and study abroad professionals. Finally, there are financial concerns related to balancing exchange numbers and the loss of tui tion fees when students undertake programs that are not covered by reciprocity agreements. Strategies suggested to address these many barriers include : clearly documenting and demonstrating the intrinsic value of study abroad for science students and facu lty, adding science study abroad to institutional and departmental missions, providing more flexibility in the science curriculum to encourage study abroad participation, establishing partnerships between science faculty and study abroad professionals and acknowledging study abroad work in the faculty tenure and promotion process (CIEE, 2003). Participation and Benefits of Study Abroad for Minority Students Even as overall study abroad participation has increased, American students studying abroad have rem ained disproportionately White in comparison to the racial

PAGE 57

57 composition of college level students overall (Dessoff, 2006; IIE, 2011; Shih; 2009). Despite substantial efforts to increase the participation of minority students in study abroad, the gap between minority and majority students participating in these programs is actually widening (Dessoff, 2006; Salisbury, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2011; Shih, 2009). Many reasons are offered to explain the low levels of study abroad participation by African American, Hispanic/Latino(a), Asian American, Native American and other minority groups. Perhaps Marjorie Ganz, Director of the Study Abroad and International Exchange Program at Spelman College, offered one of the most widely accepted explanations when she cited th e four Fs; family, faculty, finances and fear (Pickard & Ganz, 2005). Others have expounded upon these ideas and cited additional obstacles and constraints faced by minority students, such as a lack of relevant study abroad programs and misconceptions abou t the value of study abroad (Brux & Fry, 2009). Although recent research has shed some light on the factors that influence the decision to study abroad (Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Salisbury et al., 20 10 ), a detailed understanding of the outcomes of participati on in study abroad by minority groups participation in study abroad by underrepresented minority students (p. 24). Perhaps because of the low levels of participation in study abroad by minority students, few studies have investigated the associated outcomes for these groups. However, several reports have suggested numerous potential benefit s for minority study abroad participants, including positive impacts on employment readiness, the expansion of job opportunities, increases in income potential and development of new career

PAGE 58

58 relevant skills (Ikeda, 2006; Picard, et al. 2009). Advocates als o claim that returned study abroad students get better grades and improve their chances of acceptance to graduate, medical and law school (Martinez, 2011). A recent study of 12 McNair scholars who participated in study abroad at the University of Delaware indicated that students cited benefits related to personal growth (maturity), academic focusing, and cultural learning. Interestingly, several students commented that the study abroad experience made them more open to new perspectives, including being more open to issues related to diversity (Gleason Chieffo & Griffiths 2005). Assessment of Study Abroad Participant Learning Outcomes The press for evidence to document student learning by policy makers, accreditation organizations, and the public has led t o a series of national initiatives for outcomes assessments on college campuses. Similarly, college faculty and administrators working with study abroad programs have recognized the need to become much more transparent about the objectives of these experie nces, the connection of study abroad to the broader college curriculum, and the assessment of student learning resulting from study abroad experiences (Brewer & Cunningham, 2009). Despite these demands, surprisingly little empirical research has been condu cted regarding the impact of different models of study abroad programs on student learning. Indeed, the entire field of education abroad has historically lacked extensive data documenting its impact on student learning (Bolen, 2007). In the Forum on Educat ion Abroad State of the Field Survey 2009 (FEA, 2010), only 41% of the institutions surveyed reported that they have clearly stated learning outcomes for each of their study abroad programs and less than half of the institutions surveyed indicated that the y

PAGE 59

59 have regularly scheduled evaluation procedures in place for each of their education abroad programs. According to Sutton, Miller and Rubin (2007), three categories of outcomes should be assessed for study abroad programs. They list these as knowledge and skills ( cognitive ) outcomes attitudinal ( affective ) outcomes and life choices. Other researchers have identified potential outcomes in terms of academic learning, personal growth, professional development and intercultural development (Ingraham & Peterso n, 2004; Deardorff, 200 6 ). For this study, three major categories of outcomes were examined: academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development. The academic STEM learning category encompasses the development of new knowledge and skills related to science and engineering, as well as the role of these disciplines in the global context. The personal growth category refers to aspects of individual maturity and self confidence and also includes aspects of professional development and global a wareness. Finally, the intercultural development outcome to communicate effectively and appropriately in a variety of cultural contexts, which requir es culturally sensitive knowledge, a motivated mindset, and appropriate s kills. Academic Learning Outcomes Academic learning o utcome assessments traditionally associated with study abroad experiences measure student knowledge and skills development in foreign language, global awareness and disciplinary specific understanding (E ngle & Engle, 2003; Deardorff, 2006; Mohajeri Norris & Dwyer, 2005). S ince most students who study abroad are liberal arts and foreign language majors, it is understandable that much of

PAGE 60

60 the existing research on study abroad impacts has focused on language acquisition and general global awareness (Dolby, 2004; Lambert, 1993). In terms of language acquisition, a study by Engle and Engle (2003) found that participation in a study abroad experience could have significant impacts on a students learning. In this study, 257 students on a semester long program completed the Test and post format. This test measures a in pre post test score s of between 25% and 42% from the beginning to the end of the semester. Another aspect of academic learning, global awareness, was investigated by Chieffo and Griffiths (2004), using a survey to examine student learning after they completed short term stu dy abroad experiences of at least four weeks in length. They assessed the global awareness of 1509 study abroad students in four sub categories: intercultural awareness, personal growth and development; awareness of global interdependence; and functional k nowledge of world geography and language. They concluded that short term programs, even as short as one month, are worthwhile educational endeavors that have significant self awareness. A few studies have examined aca demic gains beyond language acquisition and level of global awareness. In 2002, Hill and Woodland (2002) investigated the impact of order skills, such as analyzing, interpreting and

PAGE 61

61 540). This research study focused on 150 students who participated i n a semester long international field course to t hree destinations in Spain, France and Tunisia. Hill and examined four broad areas: preparatory lectures/seminars, field exercises, model assessment and dissertation applicabil ity. They concluded that participation in the critical thinking skills ( Hill & Woodland, 2002). Another study by Hadis (2005) surveyed 95 participants in study abroad p rograms from the College of New Jersey and Rowan University to assess their level of academic learning. This research study used a pre and post self reported academic learning, global mindedness, open min dedness independence, and international mobility as a result of the study abroad program. The findings indicated a statistically significant correlation between academic learning outcomes and increased levels of independence resulting from a study abroad experience. Finally, in a comprehensive study, Ingraham and Peterson (2004) examined student learning in study abroad experiences using a broad range of parameters. They qu develop a broad range of mechanisms to examine intellectual growth, personal growth, intercultural awareness, and professional development (Ingraham & Peterson, 2004, p 83). and post

PAGE 62

62 database ( Ingraham & Peterson, 2004, p. 83). A total of 1,104 students who studied abroad on over 40 different programs of varying lengths during the 1999 2000 academic year completed the pre and post surveys that included items related to both language learning and academic performance. Faculty observation s involved reports of the impact of their program on their students and secondary data sources enabled comparison s between students who had studied abroad with those who had not. (2004) findings indicated that study abroad experiences had a positive impact on all parameters of student learning and that the academic learning scores increased as program length increased. Furthermore, while the difference between the pre and post p rogram surveys was not significant for the language learning scores, statistical analysis did indicate a significant different between the and post study abroad scores for the academic learning measure. F aculty observations supported these findings, reporting th at students gained a significant amount of academic knowledge and some intellectual maturity while participating in the study abroad programs. Using secondary data analysis, Ingraham and Peterson (2004) also concluded that the grade p oint average (GPA) of students who study abroad is, on average, higher than that of non participants. Overall, they concluded that a significant correlation exists between study abroad participation and academic learning measures, such as knowledge and ski lls acquisition. Personal Growth Outcomes A review of studies examining the impact of study abroad participation on personal growth outcomes suggests that several of the most frequently assessed parameters include the development of personal identity and personal confidence, the perception and understanding of different cultures and the effect of the experience on career

PAGE 63

63 aspirations. For example, in 2004, Dolby examined the experiences of 26 American undergraduate students, representing a variety of majors who studied in Australia during the spring semester of 2001 (Dolby, 2004). She interviewed students before departure, during deployment, and several months after they returned to the U.S. pact of the study abroad experience on their concept of national identity. She found that the most significant outcome for study abroad students was the development of a great er understanding of their own identity as Americans. In fact, this aspect of thei r personal growth was greater than their development of understanding of other cultures. This research illustrates that while the study abroad experience can affect the development ral competence may be unaffected. In the study by Ingraham and Peterson (2004) mentioned above in the academic learning section, findings indicated a significant difference in personal growth between pre and post trip surveys for 1,104 students who parti cipated in study abroad programs. The personal growth construct included items related to self reliance, independence, problem solving and leadership skills, open mindedness and personal on the personal growth construct increased gradually as the length of the study abroad sojourn increased in much the same way as it did for the academic learning construct. Conversely, these researchers did not find a statistically significant impact of st udy abroad participation on the professional development construct that examined a

PAGE 64

64 Meanwhile, Drews, Meyer and Peregrine (1996) examined student learning on the affective dimension, investigating the effects of study abroad on parti conceptualization of other national groups. This study included 94 college students, of whom 36 had studied abroad for at least one semester and 23 were planning to and later did study abroad for at least one semester. The remaining 35 students ha d not previously studied abroad and were not planning to do so, and these formed the control association writing task, a semantic differential task and a combination exerci se. The researchers collected data from students on two occasions, once at the beginning of fall semester and again at the end of spring semester. The ir findings indicated that those of other national groups compared to those who did not study abroad, realizing that members of other nations have pleasant and unpleasant attributes similar to those of members of their own nationality. The Institute for International Education (IIE) exa mined the impact of study abroad participation on student career aspirations in a large study that surveyed more than 17,000 alumni of their study abroad programs (Norris & Gillespie, 2009). A goal of the study was to explore the long term impact of studyi choices and alumni were asked to respond to a series of ten career related questions. Their responses indicate that the majority of these alumni believe their study abroad experience had nabled them to gain skills that inf luenced their career paths and increased their interest in an international career. The IIE concluded that the study abroad experience had affected the career choices of nearly two thirds of respondents

PAGE 65

65 and that half of the respondents pursued careers with global aspects (Norris & Gillespie, 2009). Intercultural Development Outcomes As mentioned earlier, Bennett (1998) defined intercultural competence as the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in a variety of cultural contexts, requiring c ulturally sensitive knowledge, a motivated mindset, and appropriate skills. differences, as described in the DMIS (Hammer, et al. 2003). Several studies have documen ted gains in cultural knowledge, cultural sensitivity, and interpersonal maturity resulting from completion of study abroad experiences. For example, a study of the development of a global perspective by 14 American undergraduate students during a semester at sea used interviews, analysis of student journals, and participant observations conducted at the beginning and end of the voyage Findings of this study revealed that, after three months, students developed significantly greater cross cultural understa nding and increased awareness of, and interest in world events (McCabe, 1994). Meanwhile, in a comparison study of 154 students who participated in a one month long exchange program in Japan and 112 control students who did not travel abroad, Stitsworth (2 001) used the California Psychology Inventory to demonstrate that the study abroad experience significantly increased individual flexibility and independence. Kitsantas (2004) examined the broader impact of study abroad programs on cultura for participating in study abroad play i n the development of these outcomes. Two hundred and thirty two undergraduate students completed a series of pre and post trip

PAGE 66

66 assessments, includi ng the Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) (Kelley & Meyers, 1995), Study Abroad Goals Scale (SAGS) (Opper, Teichler & Carlson, 1990) and the Global Perspective Survey (Hanvey, 19 8 2). Results indicated that study abroad programs significantly enha cultural skills and global understanding, which help ed prepare them to function in a multicultural world and promote international understanding. Medina Lopez Portillo (2004) found mixed results regarding the impact of two language rel ated study abroad development. This study sample consisted of 28 students, with 18 enrolled in a seven week long program and 10 in a 16 week program. The students completed the Intercultural Developme nt Inve ntory (IDI) developed by Hammer, Bennett and Wiseman (2003) both pre trip and post trip. F indings of this study indicated that less than one third (31%) of the students in the seven week program advanced to the next stage in the DMIS, while two thir ds (67%) of the students in the 16 week program move d forward one stage in the model. The author concluded that students develop greater levels of intercultural sensitivity on longer study abroad programs (Medina Lopez Portillo, 2004 ) In a more recent stu dy Anderson et al. (2006) assessed the extent to which a short term, faculty competence. They administered the IDI to 23 students before they traveled abroad and then four weeks after they returned to the U.S. Their results found no significant difference between the pre and post trip IDI scores for students who participated in the four week study abroad experience.

PAGE 67

67 Conversely, Paige, Cohen and Shively (2004) found that 86 college students who spe nt a semester abroad in various French and Spanish speaking countries showed significant improvements in cultural sensitivity on the IDI. Finally, in a study of 187 students Engel and Engel (2004) found that the majority (52%) of students in a semester lo ng study abroad program demonstrated significant gains on the IDI and that students in a yearlong program showed even greater gains. In general, assessments of the impact of study abroad programs on intercultural competence are often inconclusive, limited in their level of applicability, and even contradictory in nature. For example, some researchers have reported that study abroad programs produce gains in intercultural competency (Anderson et al., 2006; Paige et al., 2004), while others found no significa nt effects (Dolby, 2004; Medina Lopez Portillo, 2004). Based on the existing body of research literature, there appears be no significant correlation between the length of a program or the level of exposure to a foreign language and the development of inte rcultural competence. Two programs studied (Anderson et al. 2006 and Medina Lopez Portillo 2004 ) were short term in nature, while the others (Dolby 2004 and Paige et al. 2004 ) involved semester long deployments. Anderson et al. and Dolby both investiga ted programs in which students studied in English speaking countries, while Paige et al. and Medina Lopez Portillo looked at students who studied in programs with a foreign language component. Limitations of many of these studies include the facts that th ey generally utilize small sample sizes and the demographics of study abroad programs are heavily weighted toward white females. Furthermore, in most studies, the students were undergraduates originating from a single U.S. institution and all were completi ng the

PAGE 68

68 same study abroad program as a cohort. Unfortunately, the general lack of information economic status, and prior international experience make it difficult to identify generalized recommendati ons or conclusions from analysis of this body of literature. Additional studies, which address these many limitations, are needed in order to fill existing gaps in the research. Participant Learning Outcomes for Science and Engineering Study Abroad Experie nces Although a moderate amount of research evidence is available to document the general ly positive impacts of study abroad experiences on students, few studies have investigated the academic, personal, and/or or intercultural competence outcomes resultin g from science and engineering focused study abroad experiences. While the impacts of study abroad participation on students majoring in the life and physical sciences and engineering have not been extensively researched, it is clear from studies of educat ion abroad programs in other disciplines that these experiences can be intercultural development. Assessment of Learner Outcomes for Life and Physical Sciences Study Abro ad Programs A wide ranging literature search located a few studies focusing on science et al. (2006) surveyed students and faculty about their reasons for studying abroad and the perceived va lue of their international experiences. Their study included a single survey of first and third year students in both biology and physics, polling approximately 80 students in each of the first year classes and 20 in each of the third year classes. They al so surveyed 35 faculty members in the science disciplines. The authors reported that science students

PAGE 69

69 are historically underrepresented in study abroad programs and those science students who do participate usually complete study abroad experiences in non science subject areas. Their student survey results indicated that the majority of students identify cost as the greatest impediment to their participation in study abroad programs. In this same study, other concerns students cited included a perception t hat a study abroad experience would interfere with their ability to finish their degrees in a timely manner, that they would have to leave family and friends, and that they would have difficulty with a foreign language while overseas. The authors concluded that students were not well informed about the opportunities for study abroad or associated costs and opportunities to obtain financial support for participation in these programs. They suggested that faculty should emphasize the advantages of participati on in an exchange program, both in terms of academia and personal growth. Interestingly, the faculty survey results indicated that almost all faculty members had a previous international experience and there was strong agreement that these international ex periences motivated (82%) and stimulated interest (88%) in their own academic careers. However, these same faculty members did not indicate a strong level of support for a mandatory international exchange experience for their own undergraduate students. Th is study by Guest et al. (2006) revealed some interesting concerns that may potentially impact the participation of science students in study abroad programs. However, additional research is needed to develop a more comprehensive understanding of this issu e. reported changes in intercultural knowledge and competence associated with three separate

PAGE 70

70 undergraduate science experiences, including two study abroad experiences. They employed pre and post domestic undergraduate biology research program (UBRP), an international semester at sea program (SAS) or a biomedical research abroad program (BRAVO). The surveys also assessed reported learning and cultural gains resulting from these experiences. In total, 32 students completed the surveys; 9 from the BRAVO program, 6 SAS students and 17 from UBRP. Results of this study indicated that students in the BRAVO and SA S programs were highly motivated by the international scope of their programs and expressed a et al., 2009, p. 311). In terms of academic gains, the SAS stu dents reported comparable or greater gains on three of 21 items (becoming part of a learning community, skill in oral presentations and self confidence). Meanwhile, BRAVO students reported comparable or higher gains in nine areas (clarifying career goals, skill in interpretation of results, tolerance for obstacles faced in the research process, readiness for more demanding research, understanding the need for supporting evidence, skill in science writing, self confidence, learning to work independently and becoming part of a learning community). An assessment of personal growth indicated that the BRAVO students had changed the most, had the highest levels of self confidence and had the most increased awareness of global issues. A more recent study by Lumkes, Hallett and Vallade (2012) examined the knowledge and attitudinal outcomes of 15 agricultural students participating in a two part course entitled China: Globalization, Agriculture and Environment. The first part of

PAGE 71

71 the course was in the classroom and the second part was a 16 day study abroad course in China. Using a pre post questionnaire, the researchers found that the study abroad environmental issues or their underst anding of the general nature of the global economy. However, these same students demonstrated profoundly altered cultural awareness and global awareness as a result of the study abroad experience. Thus, the most tangible learning outcomes resulting from th is experience were not in the realms of globalization, agriculture or the environment, but instead were associated with the cultural and personal development of participants. Assessment of Learner Outcomes for Engineering Study Abroad Programs Surprising ly, despite the relatively low numbers of engineering students participating in study abroad opportunities, there have been more studies investigating these programs and their associated outcomes than in the life and physical sciences. In his remarks to th e National Academy of Engineering, Wulf (2004), a former assistant director of the National Science Foundation, contended that engineers must learn to engineers mu st understand other cultures, be able to speak other languages and communicate with people from other disciplines as well as other countries. An early assessment of a study abroad program in engineering at Kettering University reported increases in studen and broader technical understanding of their field (Nasr, Berry, Taylor, Webster, Echempati & Chandran, 2002). This study assessed the learning outcomes of undergraduate students who studied abroad in one progra m in England or one of two programs offered in Germany. Assessments included reviews of student portfolios

PAGE 72

72 (containing assignments, reports, and projects) and the results of a student competency matrix (end of course outcomes based survey). Students also w rote an essay documenting the usefulness and contribution of the course to their professional growth. Nasr et al. (2002) concluded that more comprehensive assessment and evaluation of programs would make study abroad programs a more convincing option for e ngineering faculty and would benefit students by developing more useful study abroad options. In 2007, Parkinson reported the results of a survey of U.S engineering study abroad programs designed to understand the types of programs on offer, the challenges associated with these programs, and best practices associated with these programs. This review of 25 programs revealed a variety of program types from short term field trips to dual degree programs during which students obtain two degrees, one from the ho me university and one from the abroad university. Challenges identified included issues related to recruiting students and scaling up programs to serve larger numbers of students, recruiting faculty, recruiting parental support, and assessment of learning outcomes. Recommended b est practices included the need to have a suite of integrated programs, with a clear set of desired outcomes and proactive recruitment of students. Parkinson recommended that each program be led by several faculty members who are rew arded for their efforts financially and/or with professional recognition, including via the tenure and promotion system. Regarding students, he argued that students in these programs must be prepared before they go abroad and should be familiar with other countries and cultures if they are to remain competitive in the global engineering community. At the institutional level, Parkinson also identified crucial elements of support for study abroad, including the need for long term commitment by college

PAGE 73

7 3 leaders hip and the establishment of an integrated approach coordinated by a centralized office to take advantage of any university infrastructure already in place. Finally, Strauss and Terenzini (2007) conducted a study of the effects of and out of class experiences on their analytical and group skills. They surveyed 4 198 graduating engineering students on 39 U.S. campuses to identify the student activities and experiences that contributed to their development of analytical and group sk ills. Statistical analysis indicated that the study abroad experience did not exert a significant effect on the development of these skills for graduating engineering majors. However very few students who completed the survey had participated in internatio nal study experiences and the authors suggested this might have biased the results of this research in relation to the impact of study abroad. Summary The general lack of existing student outcomes assessment research data in study abroad contexts is compou nded by the fact that few such programs currently exist for science and engineering students and issues associated with a lack of consensus between faculty and administrators regarding the goals of study abroad programs. And yet, there is a clearly establi shed rationale for students to participate in study abroad and acquire the knowledge, skills, and perspectives they will need for careers in science and engineering in the global environment. Grandin (2006) suggests that engineers, and one would also assum e scientists, need to be equipped with innovative technical skills and knowledge, as well as personal and communication skills, to be competitive in the global scenario. He suggests that study abroad can provide such experience for engineering students. Fu rthermore, it is clear from the few studies that have been conducted, that science and engineering students do indeed develop some of these

PAGE 74

74 desirable skills and traits as a direct result of their participation in a study abroad program (e.g. Bender et al. 2009; DiBiasio & Mello, 2004). However, these studies do not provide a comprehensive picture of the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes of science and engineering students participating in study abroad experiences and, in particular, they do not address issues of intercultural competence or participation by graduate students. Addressing this research gap is necessary if we want to advocate with faculty and program administrators for increased participation of science and engineering studen ts, especially minority and graduate students, in study abroad. Based on the documented need for additional research in the specific areas discussed in this review of the literature, this research study aimed to investigate some specific questions regardi ng the academic STEM learning and personal growth of underrepresented science and engineering graduate students participating in study abroad programs. In order to do so, I developed a comprehensive outcomes assessment instrument to investigate the academi c STEM learning and personal growth of science and engineering students who participate in study abroad programs. Additionally, this study examined the intercultural development of underrepresented science and engineering graduate students participating in study abroad using the pre existing IDI. Last but not least, an examination of the extent that actual implementation of selected science and engineering related study abroad the context within which to develop recommendations for future design and delivery of these courses.

PAGE 75

75 Figure 2 1 [Adapted from Kolb, D., & Fry, R. 1979. Experiential learning theory and experience in liberal arts edu cation: New directions for experiential learning. San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass. ]

PAGE 76

76 Ethnocentric Stages Ethnorelative Stages Figure 2 2. Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity [Adapted from Bennett, M. J. 1993. Toward ethnore lativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21 71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Stage 1 Denial of D ifference Stage 2 Defense of Difference Stage 3 Minimizatio n of Difference Stage 4 Acceptance of Difference Stage 5 Adaptation to Difference Stage 6 Integration of Difference

PAGE 77

77 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The primary purpose of this research study was to examine the academic STEM learning personal growth, and intercultural development outcomes of current graduate students who participated in a series of science and engineering related study abroad experiences at the University of Florida and compare their outcome s with an equivalent group of non study abroad graduate students at the same institution. In the process, it was necessary to develop and validate a new instrument for the assessment of academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes for use specifical ly with participants completing graduate level science and engineering study abroad programs. A second purpose of this study focused on determining which components of the actual study abroad experiences enhanced and/or limited the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth, and intercultural development outcomes of study abroad participants. Finally, based on these findings and an extensive review of the literature, I identified best practices and recommendations for the successful design, impl ementation and evaluation of study abroad programs in the science and engineering disciplines. Although study abroad experiences focusing on the liberal arts and foreign languages have been examined extensively (Cheiffo & Griffiths, 2004; Dolby, 2004; Eng le & Engle 2003; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004), few investigations of science and engineering related study abroad experiences have been conducted. Thus, the intention of this study was to provide new insight into the impacts of science and engineering relat e d study abroad programs on participants and offer guidance regarding strategies

PAGE 78

78 and best practices for the development, implementation and evaluation of more effective science and engineering related study abroad programs. The first part of this chapter research questions, study setting, study population and recruitment strategies, and institutional review board approval. The second part elucidates the methods I used to collect the data related to each researc h question. The final part of this chapter describes the quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods I used to document the academic STEM learning personal growth and interc ultural development outcomes of graduate students participating in selected science and engineering related study abroad programs. This last section of the chapter also details the development and validation procedures used to create the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcome assessment instrument used this study. Me thodological Framework A constructivist approach to the analysis of study abroad experiences must deal with the role of individual consciousness and experience as students create their own ism is about human therefore need methods that can capture the individual meaning making at the core of their approach. This study used a mixed methods approach wit h a combination of quantitative assignments and study abroad program implementation observations that aligned with the over arching experiential constructivist theoretical fram ework. The quantitative survey instruments were used to determine the nature and extent of changes in

PAGE 79

79 targeted outcomes resulting from participation in the study abroad experiences, while the qualitative analyses of written student reflections and on site observations provided additional supporting evidence and potential explanations regarding the factors influencing participant outcomes. A particular challenge for studying the impact of study abroad experiences on participants is the inherent belief that students will naturally increase in maturity during the course of their participation in an international experience. As a result, I needed to develop a research design that provided as much control as possible for factors posing threats to internal validi ty. Thus, I used a pre and post trip evaluation design and selected an equivalent post trip comparison group of non study abroad participants. This study was completed in four stages, with the development and validation of the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcome assessment instrument for science and engineering study abroad participants as the first stage. This stage included a preliminary focus group interview with students prior to their participation in the science and engineering study abroad programs, a review of the current literature and personal consultations with international education and evaluation experts. These sources collectively provided gui dance for the initial development of the assessment instrument. Implementation of the draft assessment instrument in a pilot study, together with a review of the data generated by several experts in the field, provided the opportunity to further test and r efine the assessment instrument before it was officially used for data collection. Reliability and validation of the assessment instrument were further examined in conjunction with the next stage of the study.

PAGE 80

80 The second stage of the study used the assessm ent instrument developed during stage one to pre and post reported academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes related to their science and engineering study abroad experiences. A second existing survey instrume nt, the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), developed by Milton Bennett (1993) was used to assess the impact of of intercultural development. In this stage, I als o compared the post trip academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes of life and physical science and engineering study abroad participants with those of an equivalent group of science and engineering graduate students of similar demographic and educational backgrounds, who did not participate in the study abroad programs. post trip reflective writing assignments and on site observations of the actual implementation of the science and engineering related study abroad programs studied. As a required component of the syllabus for each study abroad course, students submitted a reflective writing assignment at the end of their study abroad pr ograms in which they discussed their personal perceptions of the trip, including their perceived learning outcomes. I conducted observations and generated field notes during the implementation of four different activities on each science and engineering re lated study abroad program: 1) during the pre departure orientation; 2) during visits to scientific institutions (universities and/or government research facilities); 3) during visits to private sector science and engineering facilities; and 4) during sche duled cultural activities.

PAGE 81

81 In stage four of the study I used all of the data generated during stages two and three to identify best practices for study abroad experiences in the science and engineering disciplines. These include recommendations for progra m design and implementation and suggestions regarding appropriate techniques and instruments for assessing the academic STEM learning personal growth, and intercultural development outcomes for students (both undergraduate and graduate) who participate in science and engineering related study abroad experiences. Research Questions As discussed in the previous section, this research study had four distinct stages and the first three stages directly aligned with the following research questions (Table 3 1): 1. How can researchers and practitioners effectively assess the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes of life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participate in science and engineering related study abroad programs? 2. What are the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for graduate science and engineering students who complete science and engineering related study abroad programs? To answer this question, the following s ub questions were posed: a. What are the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for underrepresented graduate students in life and physical science and engineering who participate in science and engineeri ng related study abroad experiences? b. Do the perceived academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes differ for underrepresented life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participate in study abroad ex periences compared to those who do not? 3. Which specific components of science and engineering related study abroad programs enhance and/or limit the impact of these programs on the academic STEM learning personal, and intercultural development of participa nts?

PAGE 82

82 Study Setting This study was conducted at the University of Florida in conjunction with four UF sponsored science and engineering study abroad programs. Historically, annual participation in study abroad programs at UF has totaled less than 100 life a nd physical science students and fewer than 100 engineering students per year. In addition, the majority of science and engineering students who complete study abroad programs at UF do not complete science and engineering related programs. In 2008 2009, 77 UF students participated in five science and engineering related study abroad programs (Figure 3 1). Sixty five of these students were undergraduates and 10 were graduate students. Thirty six students were from the physical or life sciences, 24 were from engineering, and five were from agriculture. The remaining students were from business and management (two undergraduates), social sciences (five undergraduates) and other non declared majors (three undergraduates and two graduate students). In 2011, the South East Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate program (SEAGEP) funded by the National Science Foundation Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (NSF AGEP), developed four new study abroad opportunities specifically target ing underrepresented science and engineering graduate students. This series of new international study programs was designed to meet the need for global experience at the graduate level. The SEAGEP comprehensive international experiences provide students w ith opportunities to develop global competencies that give them a competitive edge in their preparation for, and pursuit of, academic careers. The programs studied were between 10 and 12 days in length and, during their time in country, students had the op portunity to visit science and engineering educational and research facilities, meet with researchers, faculty and

PAGE 83

83 students at their host institutions, and participate in organized cultural activities (Table 3 2). The development of the assessment instrum ent for self reported academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes of science and engineering study abroad participants occurred on the UF campus prior to implementation of these new SEAG E P international programs. Initial pilot testing of this instr ument took place in conjunction with the first SEAG E P science and engineering study abroad program to Chile in March 2011. Administration of a refined version of this assessment instrument as well as the intercultural development inventory (IDI) occurred o n the UF campus before and after the three subsequent study abroad programs to China, South Africa and Brazil in spring and summer 2011. The assessments followed a pre/post format for each program and were administered approximately one week prior to depa rture on the study abroad program and again approximately two weeks after return to the U.S. Data for the comparison group were collected on the UF campus during fall 2011. These students also completed the assessment instrument for self reported academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes and the IDI assessment. The analysis of program artifacts, including syllabi and students reflective writing assignments, also took place on the UF campus following each study abroad program. Finally, I completed on site observations of program implementation on multiple three different countries (China, South Africa and Brazil) with three different groups of students in May June and July, 2011.

PAGE 84

84 Study Populations A total of 76 graduate life and physical science and engineering students participated in this study. The SEAGEP program specifically serves minority students in the STEM disciplines and thus, the students in this study were also from underrepresented minority groups. However, as mentioned earlier, it is not the explicit purpose of this research study to investigate the impacts of study abroad participation on minority students. Rather, this group served as a conve nience sample and was selected based on their participation in the study abroad programs, and not on their minority status. The following sections present the different study samples used to address each of the research questions: Research Question 1 How can researchers and practitioners effectively assess the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes of life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participate in science and engineering related study abroad programs? Particip ants in the initial instrument development phase of the research study (stage 1) were enrolled in the UF science and engineering study abroad program completed in March 2011. Pa rticipants in the subsequent instrument validation and reliability testing phase (stage 2) were the same as the study sample used for research question 2, detailed below. Research Question 2 What are the self reported academic STEM learning personal grow th and intercultural development outcomes for graduate science and engineering students who complete science and engineering related study abroad programs?

PAGE 85

85 For the assessment of academic STEM learning personal growth, and intercultural development in rel ation to science and engineering study abroad programs, four distinct groups of students were recruited, three of which included study abroad programs: a. UF in China, May 2011, research study participants; n = 15 b. UF in South Africa, June 2011, research study participants; n = 9 c. UF in Brazil, July 2011, research study participants; n = 9 These three groups of 33 total students formed the study sample for the examination of study abroad participant outcomes outlined in research question 2a. The fourth group consisted of 32 underrepresented graduate life and physical science and engineering students who did not participate in any of the study abroad programs. I recruited these stude nts to provide a comparison group for the study and they, together with the 33 study abroad participants, formed the study sample used to investigate research question 2b. Research Question 3 Which specific components of science and engineering related st udy abroad programs enhance and/or limit the impact of these programs on the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development of participants? I conducted onsite observations of the three study abroad programs to China, South Africa a trip reflective writing assignments to address research question 3. Therefore, the 33 participants of these three study abroad programs formed the study samp le for this phase of the study. Participant Recruitment I received initial permission to conduct this research study from the lead faculty working with the SEAGEP program at UF. In addition, the SEAGEP faculty director

PAGE 86

86 gave me permission to make direct contact with graduate students enrolled in the study abroad programs, and the SEAGEP affiliated students who did not participate in the programs but were therefore eligible to join the study comparison group. Initially, I solicited all study abroad participants via email, explaining the purpose of the research and email (Appendix B ). A short face to face meeting with the study abroad participants at the beginning of each separate pre departure orientation session followed this ini tial contact. During this meeting, I provided an overview of the research study and asked students to indicate their willingness to participate in the study by signing and submitting the informed consent forms. For UF in Chile, 11 underrepresented science and engineering graduate students were enrolled in the program and all agreed to participate in the study. For UF in China, UF in South Africa, and UF in Brazil, all 35 science and engineering students enrolled in the programs initially agreed to particip ate in the research study and completed the informed consent forms. However, one student subsequently elected not to participate in the study and I excluded another student based on the demographic information collected. Thus, the total number of study abr oad participants in the research study was 33. For the comparison group, I asked study abroad program participants to assist with recruitment by identifying a counterpart in their discipline with similar demographics (ethnicity and gender). This selective recruitment approach ensured that the comparison group matched the group that participated in the study abroad program as closely as possible. Following identification of potential comparison group members by the study

PAGE 87

87 abroad program participants, I contac ted each candidate via email to confirm his/her willingness to participate in the study and ask ed them to sign and return the informed consent form and complete the assessments electronically. The resulting 32 comparison group students were also all gradua te students pursuing doctoral degrees in science or engineering. Institutional Review Board Approval I obtained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval prior to the initiation of this study (Appendix A ). This included approval to conduct an initial focus group meeting and administer the new academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument and the existing IDI in pre and post trip formats. In addition, the IRB approved the administration of these assessment instruments to the comparison gr oup of non study abroad graduate students. Furthermore, I received approval to conduct on site observations of program implementation and to review student generated reflective writing assignments. Signed permission was obtained from each student before pa rticipation in any data collection phase of the study. I provided participants with copies of their completed informed consent forms to keep for future reference and kept original consent forms in a locked filing cabinet. Data Collection In this section, I provide details about the data collection activities for each of the three research questions. These data collection activities occurred between February and November 2011. Research Question 1 How can researchers and practitioners effectively assess the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes of life and physical science and

PAGE 88

88 engineering graduate students who participate in science and engineering related study abroad programs? Initial development of the assessment instrument for academic STE M learning and personal growth outcomes involved four components: 1 ) a review of the current literature on study abroad outcomes, 2 ) a student focus group, 3 ) a review of the study abroad syllabi for each program implemented and 4 ) personal consultations w ith international education and evaluation experts Information from all of these components was then used to develop a draft version of the assessment instrument. Next, pilot testing of the first draft of this instrument occurred in conjunction with the UF in Chile program in March 2011. Following pilot testing, expert reviews of the pilot test results provided guidance for the revision of the assessment instrument before use in later stages of the study. The following sections provide detailed informatio n about each of the four components involved in the development of the assessment instrument for academic and personal growth outcomes. Part 1: Draft a ssessment instrument d evelopment Literature review The lack of a pre existing, valid and reliable instru ment for assessing perceived student academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes resulting from participation in science and engineering study abroad programs necessitated the development of a new tool for use in this study. I obtained initial guid ance from a review of the literature describing several existing survey instruments developed for the general assessment of outcomes reported by students completing non science and engineering related study abroad and international experiences. The full li terature review that informed the development of the assessment instrument is available in Chapter 2.

PAGE 89

89 Student focus group A preliminary focus group interview helped me identify potential items for inclusion in the assessment instrument for academic STEM l earning and personal growth outcomes. I conducted this focus group in February 2011 with six graduate students enrolled the UF in Chile study abroad program. The focus group convened approximately four weeks before trip departure. I asked students the foll owing five questions in order to develop a clearer understanding of perceived expectations and anticipated outcomes associated with their upcoming study abroad experience : 1. Why did you decide to participate in a study abroad program? 2. Why did you choose to p articipate in a science and engineering focused study abroad program? 3. What are your expectations for this study abroad program to Chile? 4. What do you hope to gain personally and professionally as a result of your participation in the study abroad program? 5. D o you consider international activities to be an important component in science and engineering education overall? Syllabus review deciding/identifying the goals, objectives or competencies the institution or program the three SEAGEP international programs and incorporated their specific stated objectives into t he study abroad assessment tool I developed. Specific objecti ves in the syllabus for the SEAG E P science and engineering study abroad experiences included: to learn about the history, culture and traditions of the host country to develop an understanding of the differences in STEM education and research cultures be tween the U.S. and the host country to investigate one of the four research topics below with an assigned team: o Science and Technology

PAGE 90

90 o Science Communications o Technology Transfer o Education to network with students, faculty, researchers and government agencies abroad to present an oral research presentation in the host country Expert consultation Beyond reliance upon existing literature regarding the objectives and outcomes of college level study abroad programs, development of the new assessment in strument also drew upon the experience and advice of three individuals with expertise in this area. Conversations with faculty members who have multiple years of experience as science educators, study abroad program leaders and international educators prov ided significant input into the development of items for inclusion in the assessment instrument These experts collectively noted that previous study abroad participants they personally worked with developed both academically and personally as a result of their participation in an international program. Specific outcomes cited by these experts included the fact that study abroad participants: 1. sometimes change their majors and areas of research focus as a result of the experience 2. develop persistent network s and lasting ties with scientists from their host countries and conduct on going collaborative research These experts all acknowledged that evidence of these program impacts was primarily anecdotal in nature and all of them also acknowledged the need for a more formal, valid and reliable assessment instrument for documenting the academic STEM learning and personal growth impacts of study abroad experiences on participants. Following the completion of these four components outlined above, I used the data a nd information collected to develop a draft assessment instrument containing 53 items.

PAGE 91

91 I conducted pilot testing of this draft instrument for assessing the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes on the UF in Chile program as described below. P art 2: Draft i nstrument p ilot t esting Pilot testing of the draft assessment instrument occurred in March 2011 in conjunction with the UF in Chile study abroad program. This pilot test provided an opportuni ty to: 1. review the academic STEM learning and person al growth outcome assessment instrument for feasibility of use and clarity/quality/appropriateness of individual items 2. identify potential issues related to administration or completion of the assessme nt During this phase, students completed the electro nic assessment instrument (Zoomerang) online approximately one week prior to their study abroad program departure and again approximately two weeks after their return to the U.S. Pilot test participants were the 11 science and engineering graduate students enrolled in the UF in Chile study abroad program. The students completed the draft assessment instrument and their responses were analyzed in the expert review phase, as described below. Part 3: Expert r eview of p ilot t est r esults and a ssessment instrume nt r evision Two experts in evaluation and assessment methodology and survey design, science education and international education reviewed results of the pilot test of the draft assessment instrument They examined each item and the student responses on th e pilot test to determine if the data collected provided useful data for the assessment of academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes. This feedback provided guidance for revision of th e outcome assessment instrument, including elimination/revisio n of individual items to enhance clarity and student understanding.

PAGE 92

92 Research Question 2 What are the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for graduate science and engineering students who complete sc ience and engineering related study abroad programs? The study design facilitated the investigation of academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for participants in the study abroad programs, and the investigation of h ow these outcomes compared with a group of non study abroad students. The following sections provide details for the data collection procedures for each of the sub questions: Research Q uestion 2a What are the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for underrepresented graduate students in life and physical science and engineering who participate in science and engineering related study abroad experiences? I used two quantitative assessment instruments t o determine the pre and post trip academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes of the study sample. Comparisons of completed pre and post trip assessments were then used to determine changes in these targeted outcomes re sulting from participation in study abroad experiences. The following sections provide detailed information about the two data collection instruments and the procedures for each. Academic STEM learning and p ersonal g rowth a ssessment instrument The instrum ent used to assess the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes of study participants was developed in the first stage of this research study as described above. This 45 item assessment instrument included 20 items designed to assess elf perceived gains in STEM related academic knowledge/skills, 17 items designed to assess their self perceived levels of personal growth and 8 demographic

PAGE 93

93 items designed to provide useful background data regarding study participants (Appendix C ). Intercu ltural D evelopment I nventory The second assessment instrument used to document the intercultural development outcomes of study participants was the commercially available Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). Based on Milton Bennett's Developmental M odel of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS; Bennett, 1993), and constructed and tested by Dr. Mitchell R. Hammer and Dr. Milton J. Bennett, this assessment has been widely used since 1998 in both corporate and educational settings in the United States, Europe toward cultural difference and commonality and is a statistically reliable, valid measure of intercultu ral sensitivity (Hammer, 2011). Prior to conducting this study, I completed the Qualified Administrat or training seminar with IDI LLC Additional background information about the development and validation of this instrument is available in Chapter 2 and Appendix D Data c ollection p rocedures Participants completed both pre trip assessments following t he pre departure orientation for each study abroad program, which occurred approximately two weeks prior to departure. Participants then completed the two post trip assessments approximately two weeks after their return to the U.S. However, in some cases p ost trip assessments were not completed until up to four weeks after program completion, as not all students returned immediately to the U.S after finishing their study abroad experiences. Both assessment instruments were administered in an electronic for mat and I sent the appropriate links to each student individually via email, with the request to complete

PAGE 94

94 both pre assessments and both post assessments within one week of receipt of my email. Initially I asked students to fill out their names on each surv ey to facilitate the comparison of pre and post trip responses. However, as described in the IRB, I participant anonymity. Research Q uestion 2b Do the perceived academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes differ for underrepresented life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participate in study abroad experiences compared to those who do not? The comparison group o f 32 science and engineering graduate students who did not participate in a study abroad program completed the same two assessment instruments as the study abroad participants using the same electronic format. However, since there was no need to compute ga in scores for this comparison group, students in the comparison group only completed each instrument once during the fall of 2011. Research Question 3 Which specific components of science and engineering related study abroad programs enhance and/or limi t the impact of these programs on the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development of participants? As mentioned in Chapter 2, the over arching theoretical framework guiding this study was experiential constructivism, defined as a theory of learning where humans construct meaning from current knowledge structures and experiences. According to meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practic es being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed and

PAGE 95

95 the experience and asks how participants construct meaning of the event. However, previous studies have indicated that there is often a lack of connection between stated goals for study abroad programs and the actual educational experience as perceived by program participants (Skelly, 2009). I decided that it woul d therefore be important to observe and document the actual implementation of these programs to determine which specific components of the study abroad experience enhanced and/or limited the The p rogram observation component of this study provided an opportunity to examine three alternate deliveries of the same syllabus by several different faculty members in three different international settings (China, South Africa and Brazil : Appendix F ). In th is stage of the study, I examined the implementation of the program making processes during four specific activities for each study abroad course: pre departure orientation; research facility visit; commercial facility visit and cultural activity. These observation sessions lasted between one to two hours and I recorded detailed field notes for each session. As much as possible, I assumed the role of non participant observer during these activities and refrained from int eracting with the students, faculty or guest speakers (Appendix E Observation Protocol). writing assignments following completion of each study abroad program. These en abled how the study abroad experience contributed to their personal learning and growth.

PAGE 96

96 Data Analysis Research Question 1 How can researchers and practitioners effect ively assess the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes for life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participate in science and engineering related study abroad programs? Initial data collected during the literature rev iew, focus group session, syllabus review and personal consultation with international education and evaluation experts was used to formulate a draft of the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcome assessment instrument used in this study. A revi ew of existing study abroad outcome assessment instruments and a comparison of different assessment instrument formats helped guide decisions related to my own instrument design, content and format as well as procedures for an alyzing completed assessments. Reliability analysis and validation of the academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument was conducted using data from both the 33 study abroad program participants and the 32 comparison group students who completed the instrument. The following sections provide detailed information about the reliability analysis and validation procedures for the academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument. Reliability. I determined internal consistency reliability of the academic S TEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument using the coefficient. This reliability analysis provides information regarding the extent to which ility coefficient measures internal consistency within an instrument and is based on average inter item correlations. A total sample of 65 students completed the academic STEM

PAGE 97

97 learning and personal growth assessment (33 participants and 32 comparison group members ) for the reliability analysis For purposes of this study, I considered all 7 as acceptable. In addition to calculating the internal consistency reliability of the entire instrument, internal reliability values for individual academic STEM learning and personal growth scales and for associated sub scales within each of these constructs were also computed. Validity. I used a three stage process involving a blend of expert advice and qualitative research methods to do cument the content, and construct validity of the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcome assessment instrument. Content validity Content validity, which assesses the extent to which an instrument covers the full range of meaning for a measure d concept, was determined first. Activities conducted to establish content validity included: Review by three experts in the fields of science education and international education and study abroad; Review of the peer reviewed literature to ensure that the concepts included in the instrument are consistent with desired/reported outcomes for other study abroad programs. An iterative process involving item development, review by experts, pilot testing, additional expert review and item revisions/deletions/ad ditions and implementation helped to ensure the appropriate assessment of targeted concepts. During this process, several items initially included in the instrument were modified, re ordered or removed. See Chapter 4 for a more thorough description of the instrument revision process. Construct validity Construct validity is the extent to which a scale measures or assesses the concepts it was designed to measure. In this study, construct validity was established using three different data sources:

PAGE 98

98 1. a revie w of the literature describing similar outcome measures used in evaluations of the impact of study abroad programs on participants, 2. statistical analysis of pre and post test data 3. an examination of the alignment between the content of a selection of stu reflective writing assignments and the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcome construct scores on their completed post trip assessment instruments Literature review As described above in the data collection section for research questio n one, development of individual items and grouping of items into constructs and sub constructs was based on a review of the literature regarding targeted academic learning and personal growth outcomes assessed using similar survey type instruments in eval uations of other study abroad programs. Statistical analysis of pre and post test data Parametric testing of completed pre and post academic STEM learning and personal growth outcome assessments for study abroad participants was used to determine if the constructs and sub constructs measured change in the concepts as designed. The specific statistical analysis used are described in Chapter 5. Analysis of reflective writing and assessment instrument response alignment Finally, in terms of construct valid ity, I reviewed a selected sample of the experiences and discuss their own perceptions regarding what they learned and how they grew as a result of participation in the study abroad program. Six writing assignments were selected for review: three for students who had the highest scores on the academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment and three for students who scored the lowest on the quantitative assessment. The wr iting assignments were coded using a priori codes that aligned with the concepts and sub scales assessed on

PAGE 99

99 the instrument. These coded writing segments were then scores on the academic STEM learning and personal growth post tri p assessments. Research Question 2 What are the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for graduate science and engineering students who complete science and engineering related study abroad programs? For analysis of the IDI, 31 pre and post trip scores were collected f rom the study abroad participant group and 30 IDI scores were collected from the comparison group. Both the IDI and the academic STEM learning and personal growth instruments use s Likert type items to ascertain changes in perceived outcomes resulting from participation in a study abroad experience. All of these data sets were analyzed using multivariate statistical analyses with SPSS software to determine changes in self reported academic STEM learning personal growth, and intercultural development outcomes after participation in the science and engineering study abroad programs and in comparison with non study abroad groups. Statistical analyses included paired t tests to compare the pre and post trip scores of study abroad students, independent t tests study abroad participant scores, and ANOVAs to investigate specific trips (China, South Africa and Brazil) on the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes. Additional details regarding the statistical analyses are presented in Chapter 5. The following sections provide details regarding the data analysis procedures used for each of the sub questions: Research Q uestion 2a What are the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for underrepresented graduate students in

PAGE 100

100 life and physical scienc e and engineering who participate in science and engineering related study abroad experiences? Descriptive statistics (means, standard errors and standard deviations) for completed pre and post trip assessment instruments completed by the 35 study abroad participants were calculated for each of the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural outcome constructs and sub constructs. Mean scores were calculated by averaging of all responses for a particular construct and for each sub construct. M ean scores were also computed for the responses by discipline and trip on each construct and sub construct. Inferential statistics in the form of paired t tests were used to determine the significance of changes in pre and post trip scores on both the ac ademic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument and the IDI. In all cases, a one (science or engineering) and their participation in a particular trip (Ch ina, South Africa or Brazil) on the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes. Research Q uestion 2b Do the perceived academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes differ for underreprese nted life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participate in study abroad experiences compared to those who do not? To answer this question, descriptive statistics (means, standard errors and standard deviations) were calculated on the complete instrument, constructs, and sub constructs of the academic STEM learning and personal growth and IDI assessments completed by the 32 students in the comparison group. Inferential statistics

PAGE 101

101 (independent sample t tests) were used to determine t he significance of differences in academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development post trip scores of study abroad participants and scores on that same instrument for students in the comparison group. In all cases a 95 % confidence lev determine if differences between scores of the two groups were significant. Research Q uestion 3 Which specific components of science and engineering related study abroad programs enhance and/or limit the impact of these programs on the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development of participants? The field notes generated during observations of four different study abroad trip reflective writing assignments w ere materials researchers collect from the world they are studying; they are the particulars s as a method for condensing and summarizing the raw text data from both of my qualitative data sources and for establishing links between the research objectives and the summary findings emerging from analysis of the raw data. trip reflect ive writing assignments and field notes of program observations served as the primary data sources for examination of the how the actual academic STEM learning personal growth a nd intercultural development outcomes. During the analysis phase I initially familiarized myself with the raw data by reading each set of observation field notes and each writing assignment twice, during which I recorded preliminary summary notes. Text seg ments containing meaning units were identified and initial codes for each type of meaning unit were assigned. Subsequently, I

PAGE 102

102 combined these codes into pre determined categories linked to my research study goals and the study abroad programs stated course objectives. The categories of interest identified in this study specifically related to the larger constructs of academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development. Sub categories within these constructs included: Academic STEM learnin g o Skills/disciplinary knowledge o Language/communication skills o Socio cultural aspects of science Personal Growth o Career goals o Confidence/maturity o Global awareness Intercultural Development o Understanding and appreciation of own culture o Knowledge and understa nding of other cultures Once categories within constructs were identified and raw data w ere coded to align with these categories, I then compared the occurrence and frequency of nts and my own program observations field notes. These qualitative data sources were then academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument and the IDI. All of these analyses focused on the exten t to which actual program implementation enhanced or limited the academic STEM learning personal growth or intercultural development outcomes of participants. In particular, I identified the extent to which various programmatic components provided opportu nities for students to engage in activities that promoted each of the outcomes of interest. This analysis facilitated the identification of best practices for the design, implementation, and evalua tion of science and engineering related study abroad

PAGE 103

103 progra ms by highlighting specific program components that provide the most effective strategies for achieving desired outcomes. Subjectivity Statement I was born in Northern Ireland at the beginning of what we euphemistically childhood memories contain images of violence and unrest. Fortunately, I also lived in a country with an excellent educational system, which enabled me to escape into books and eventually to college. During my early years in school, I was fortunate to have several teachers who stimulated my interest in learning by engaging me in an interactive learning process. One teacher in particular, Mrs. Wyness, in geography, had a huge impact on me, encouraging me to explore the world and learn more about its physical and biological systems as well as its people and their cultures. As a direct result of her influence and that of my parents, who, while not college graduates themselves, always encouraged my academic endeavors, I became the first person in my family to go to college. Initially, I studied geography, before going Throughout my teen years I had opportunities to travel and took advantages of opportunities these experiences offered to make first hand o bservations of other regions, systems, and peoples that I was learning about in the classroom. During these years, I leapt at every opportunity to explore a new part of the world. Trips to Europe, Asia, Australia, and the United States furthered my educati on through experience. During my undergraduate studies, my degree program required several fieldtrips to overseas destinations, which further reinforced my belief that first hand observation and experience is a critical component in science education.

PAGE 104

104 In m y position at the University of Florida International Center, I have heard many student accounts of the life changing impact of their study abroad experiences. However, I have also become aware of how lucky I was to have many opportunities to travel and st udy science in foreign contexts. In particular, I noticed that science and engineering students were significantly underrepresented in study abroad programs and began to investigate opportunities to create new programs for these disciplines. In 2005, I par ticipated in a two week study abroad program that took pre service science and social study teachers to Costa Rica and I co led a four week program for science and engineering graduate students to South Africa in 2009. In both cases, I observed that studen ts were highly engaged in their international experience and subsequent feedback indicated that the students felt the experience was both academically and personally rewarding. For example, three dissertation chapters, two manuscript publications and sever al on going research collaborations were directly attributed to the South African trip by the students completing this program. As a result of these specific experiences, and in the context of the increased funding opportunities for the development and imp lementation of science and engineering related study abroad programs and the existing lack of research documenting actual learning outcomes for science and engineering students participating in study abroad, I decided to focus this study on those issues.

PAGE 105

105 Figure 3 1. Student participation in University of Florida STEM study abroad programs in the 2008 2009 academic year

PAGE 106

106 Table 3 1. Alignment of research questions to research design Research Stages Research Question Partici pant Criteria No. of Participants Data Sources Stage 1 How can researchers and practitioners effectively assess the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes for life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participate in scie nce and engineering related study abroad programs? Life and physical science and engineering graduate students enrolled in the UF in Chile study abroad program n = 11 Literature review Focus group Study abroad syllabus Expert consultations Pre and post tr ip participant responses on the assessment for academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes Stage 2 What are the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for graduate science and engineering stud ents who complete science and engineering related study abroad programs? Life and physical science and engineering graduate students enrolled in the UF in Brazil, China and South Africa study abroad programs Life and physical science and engineering gradu ate students who did not participate in the study abroad programs n = 33 n = 32 Pre and post trip participant responses on the assessment for academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes Pre and post trip participant responses on the IDI Participant responses on a single administration of the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes assessment and on the IDI

PAGE 107

107 Table 3 1. Continued Research Stages Research Question Participant Criteria No. of Participants Data Sources Stage 3 Which specific components of science and engineering related study abroad programs enhance and/or limit the impact of science these programs on the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development of participants? Participants from a p rior stage of the research n = 33 Program observations of the UF in Brazil, UF in China and UF in South Africa study abroad programs Participant post trip reflective writing assignments

PAGE 108

108 Table 3 2. SEAGEP science and engineering in the global context study abroad programs Program Dates Locations Visit Highlights UF in Chile March 4 14, 2011 Santiago & Valparaiso Pontifica Universidad Catolica de Chile in Santiago and Valparaiso Federico Santa Mara Technical University in Valparaiso U.S. Embassy S cience, Technology and Health Section Energy Biotechnology Center Colbun Hydroelectric power plant La Farfana landfill and biogas facility Winery industry visit Cultural tour of Santiago at Isla Negra Vis it to mountain resort and craft market UF in China May 6 18, 2011 Beijing, Tianjin & Shanghai Tsinghua University Beijing University of Science and Technology China Agricultural University Bullet train to Tianjin Noodle factory Suzhou Industrial P ark Silk factory Cultural tour of Forbidden City Theatre and opera performances Tianjin cultural street market Cultural tour of Great Wall, Imperial Tombs, Summer Palace and Olympic Park Cultural tour of Master of Nets Garden and Ancient Canal in S uzhou Cultural tour of Shanghai & China Expo

PAGE 109

109 Table 3 2. Continued Program Dates Locations Site Visits UF in South Africa June 10 22, 2011 Johannesburg, Pretoria, Polokwane, Phaloborwa & Nelspruit University of Pretoria Tshwane University of Technol ogy Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Innovation Hub in Pretoria Pretoria Zoo research facilities USDA Offices at U.S. Embassy Visit to Ministry of Agriculture research sites Meeting with South Africa National Parks social scientist Cul tural tour of SOWETO in Johannesburg Tour of Cullinan Diamond Mine Game drives in Krugar National Park UF in Brazil July 23 August 2, 2011 Sao Paulo, Nazare Paulista, Piracicaba & Campinas University of Sao Paulo University of Campinas Instituto d e Pesquisas Ecologicas (Ecological Institute) UNICA (Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association) FAPESP (Foundation for Research Support of Sao Paulo) ETH Bioengergia CTC Center for Sugarcane Technology Visit to sugar and ethanol plant Visit to Bovespa (Sao Paulo stock exchange) Visit to Atlantic rainforest park at Jureia Cultural tour of Sao Paulo downtown Soccer game in Sao Paulo

PAGE 110

110 CHAPTER 4 DEVELOPMENT AND VALI DATION OF AN INSTRUM ENT FOR ASSESSING ACADEMIC LEARNING AN D PERSONAL GROWTH OU TCOMES OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING GRADUATE STUDENTS PARTICIPATI NG IN STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMS During the 20 th century, many U.S. colleges and universities established both short and long term study abroad programs and these experiences have become an increasingly im portant mechanism for the internationalization of college students. By 2000, the Institute of International Education reported that approximately 154,168 college and university students have participated in study abroad programs, and that number increased significantly in the first decade of this century, with a record number of 270,604 U.S. college students studying abroad during the 2009/2010 academic year (IIE, 2011). However, historically, participants in college study abroad programs have largely been students majoring in liberal arts and business studies with limited participation by students majoring in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. In 2009/2010, only 34,908 STEM majors participated in college study abroad progra ms and the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program Report (2005) declared that students majoring in the sciences and engineering are among the most underrepresented groups in college study abroad programs (IIE, 2011). As these num bers clearly illustrate, in the U.S. very few science and engineering majors participate in international learning experiences during their college careers (IIE, 2009). I contend that study abroad experiences for undergraduate and graduate students majorin g in the science and engineering disciplines are a critically important tool for supporting and promoting the internationalization of these fields of study. I further argue that providing science and engineering majors with early/pre career study abroad

PAGE 111

111 ex periences in their fields can significantly contribute to the development of scientists and engineers who are equipped with globally relevant habits of mind, knowledge, and skills. To date, however, few published studies exist to provide concrete guidance regarding strategies and best practices for the design and implementation of effective science and engineering related college study abroad programs. Similarly, very few studies focusing on appropriate and valid methods for assessing the academic STEM lear ning and personal growth outcomes of science and engineering students participating in college/university level study abroad programs exist in the literature. Background Importance of Study Abroad Experiences for College Science and Engineering Majors The importance of developing a globally competent cadre of scientists and engineers has been articulated in several recent government publications, such as absolutely essen term prosperity and security that we remain a Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) from 2004 to 2010, declared confront the many challenges in this increasingly global society (Bement, 2005, p. 2). Furthermore, the Domestic Policy Council, in American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation p.1). Sigma Xi (2007), a scientific research society, has also stated that success in the

PAGE 112

112 global economy requires the U.S. to help its scientists and engineers achieve global competence. In 2006, the National Science Foundation (NSF) convened a working group of scientific rese archers, science educators, and science and engineering based industry representatives to discuss and develop a plan for addressing the challenge of assuring a globally competent U.S. science and engineering workforce. This group identified a list of core basic education and training they typically receive in their chosen scientific disciplines. These included general professional competences, such as communication and social skil ls, cognitive skills, creativity and ingenuity, and the ability to work in teams or to unite individuals possessing diverse skills to a common purpose (Sigma Xi, 2007). The specific global competencies for scientists and engineers identified were: The know ledge, ability, and predisposition to frame scientific questions and seek answers with people who have perspectives different than their own; The ability to work with scientists and engineers from other countries and to understand their social and intellec tual approaches to science and discovery and how they approach or bound problems differently; The motivation to pursue knowledge in different contexts and cultures; The ability to work in the dense networks that are evolving around the globe to share exper iments, equipment, and results. Downey, Lucena, Moskal, Parkhurst, Bigley, Hays, Jesiek, Kelly, Miller, Ruff, Lehr, and Nichols knowledge, ability, and predisposition to work effecti vely with people who define understand the social and cultural contexts in which they will work in the future and, consequently, institutions of higher education must create environments where global

PAGE 113

113 engagement and international collaboration in science and engineering are an integral component of both teaching and research. Study abroad experiences offer one mechanism by which science and engineering students can acqu ire some of the globally relevant skills needed to address these concerns. Goals of C ollege L evel S tudy A broad Many colleges and universities promote study abroad programs as opportunities for students to experience another country, acquire new knowledge and skills needed to become productive and successful members of the global community, broaden their worldview, and increase their intercultural awareness to promote cross cultural understanding ( Anderson et al., 2006; Black & Duhon, 2006 ). An examination of the literature on the general goals of college level study abroad reveals that most overseas programs have several objectives for participants. Typically, these focus on academic STEM learning in a particular content area, including the acquisition of n ew knowledge and skills; professional development in the form of facilitating professional contacts and clarifying career goals; personal growth, with an emphasis on an enhanced sense of personal identity, confidence and flexibility; and intercultural outc omes, including cultural sensitivity and improvement of language skills (Anderson, Lawton, Rexeisen & Hubbard, 2006). There is a widely held expectation that study abroad experiences campus learning, with opportunities to gain with nuances of first 2005 p.xi ). In the science and engineering disciplines, objectives for study abroad participants include the development of global competence, acquisition of new knowledge and skills

PAGE 114

114 and the understanding needed to tackle global issues and protect national interests (DeBoer, 1991; Parkinson 2007). Some researchers have furthe r suggested that in an era of increasing globalization, study abroad offers science and engineering students the opportunity to develop specific skills to enable them to work across borders and in multi cultural and multi national teams (Charlton & Andras, 2006; Guest, Livett & Stone, able to function in such a global environment and for what we need to prepare them that, as an intrinsically international activity that is culturally neutral, there is no value added by completion of a study abroad experience by science and engineering majors.(DeWinter, 1997 ; Van Eyck, Van Toll, Wattiaux & Ferrick, 2012). Impacts of C ollege L evel S tudy A broad P articipation The following discussion examines the reported impacts of study abroad participation on several groups of students, including research on the general student body and on science and engineering majors in particular. General student participants In terms of academic STEM learning there is evidence that college level study abroad experiences enhance the development of disciplinary knowledge and skills. For example, most professionals working in study abroad and inte rnational education today scale study conducted by the Institute for the Internatio nal Education of Students (IES) reported long

PAGE 115

115 professional, and academic development, influencing issues such as career path, worldview, and self confidence of alumni (Dwyer & Peters, 2004). Me anwhile, others have documented gains in foreign language learning and cultural knowledge and an increased interest in interdisciplinary studies resulting from participation in study abroad experiences (Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005). Many colleges and universi ties also promote study abroad programs as opportunities for students to experience another country, broaden their worldview, increase their intercultural awareness, and enhance their personal growth and social adjustment ( Anderson et al., 2006; Black & Du hon, 2006; McLeod & Wainright, 2009 ). Further, according to Dolby (2004), study abroad experiences provide students with the opportunity to examine their own national identity and associated traits and their role in the global context. Many research studi es evaluating the impact of study abroad experiences on U.S. college students also report that participants acquire global mindedness, develop enhanced levels of global awareness, grow intellectually, and develop personally (Cheiffo & Griffiths, 2004; Had is, 2005). Evidence now exists to substantiate the argument that study abroad can be a powerful learning and personal specific learning, and general views regarding the va lue of education abroad (Paige, Cohen, & Shively, 2004). In fact, some studies even suggest that study abroad experiences can be more effective than classroom learning for culturally mediated outcomes such as international business environments (Peppas, 20 05). However, most studies documenting outcomes for study abroad participants focus on programs that are discipline general, rather than

PAGE 116

116 discipline specific and the students are most often from traditional study abroad disciplines, such as foreign language s, humanities, and business studies. Science and engineering participants Anecdotal evidence suggests that participation in science and engineering related study abroad programs directly contributes to the development of the knowledge, skills and behaviors of a globally competent scientist or engineer. In turn, study abroad faculty and administrators assume that the knowledge and skills acquired by students on international programs will have a direct impact on the career paths of these individuals (IIE, 20 09). However, there have been very few empirical investigations of the benefits of study abroad in the science and engineering disciplines. One study of the global perspectives of students who participated in NSF funded Research Experiences for Undergradua tes (REU) reported multiple outcomes when U.S. STEM students visited another country and interacted with the local people (Guerrero, Labrador, & Perez, 2007). This same study found that students completing REUs had the opportunity to expand and share their knowledge, forge new relationships, learn about other cultures and languages, and learn different ways to solve and understand problems. As a result of their study abroad experiences, these students were also reported to have become more interested in oth er cultures and in learning another language (Guerrero et al., 2007). In a study of engineering students studying abroad by Haddad (1997), a longitudinal survey of alumni indicated that the study abroad experience played a positive role in their post grad uation offers of employment and promotions. Meanwhile, the International Engineering Program (IEP) at the University of Rhode Island, which has also received funding from the NSF through a Program in International Research

PAGE 117

117 and Education (PIRE) grant, repor ted increased placement rates for IEP graduates. Furthermore, they reported that firms who work globally employ the great majority of their IEP prog ram graduates (Grandin, 2006). A more recent study by Bender, Wright and Lopatto (2009) investigated science reported changes in intercultural knowledge and competence associated with three undergraduate science related study abroad experiences. They reported reported learning and cultural concepts, such as increased levels of self confidence, enhanced communication skills, clarification of career goals, readiness for and understanding of scientific research and increases in ability to work independently and as part of a learning community. Study Justification Despite evide nce documenting the benefits of college level study abroad experiences, a recent investigation by IIE and the Association of International academic achievement or personal d evelopment outcomes of their study abroad alumni and even fewer measure intercultural competence (15%) or career related outcomes (10%) (Durrant & Dorius, 2007). Meanwhile, college faculty and administrators working with study abroad programs acknowledge a n increasing need to assess the effectiveness of their programs, document student outcomes resulting from these experiences, and connect study abroad experiences to the broader college curriculum (Bolen, 200 7 ; Brewer & Cunningham, 2009). In 2002, an articl e in the Chronicle of Higher Education abroad assessment are essential in order to demonstrate the benefit of study abroad p rograms

PAGE 118

118 (Gillespe, 2002). At the same time, Engle and Engle (2003) argued that college level orient their focus from an appraisal of the sheer numbers of students participating in international education to the In the science and engineering disciplines, the fact that few study abroad programs currently exist for students and the lack of consensus regarding the goals of such programs also contributes to the ge neral lack of academic and personal outcomes assessment research data. Yet, clear emerging evidence exists to support the hypothesis that students participating in college level study abroad experiences can acquire the knowledge, skills, and perspectives t hey need to succeed in global science and engineering related careers. The Institute of International Education clearly articulated this need in their recent publication, Promoting Study Abroad in Science and Technology Fields (IIE, 2009). Their recommend ations included the need for studies to identify the underlying motives identify the impacts of these experiences on the careers of scientists and engineers, and investi gations linking the characteristics of global competence to professional competence and the development of science and engineering knowledge, skills and monitoring, assessment and evaluation tools to compare the impact of international instrument developed in this study can be used to address these needs and facilitate the identification of perceive d student outcomes, both personal and academic,

PAGE 119

119 associated with study abroad experiences in the science and engineering disciplines. This instrument can also be useful to faculty and administrators interested in creating and comparing the relative effectiv eness of different types of science and engineering related study abroad experiences and examining the positive impacts of these programs on science and engineering student participants. Purpose of the Study This study was designed to develop a valid, re liable, and easy to use research based instrument for the assessment of the impacts of college level short term study abroad experiences on science and engineering graduate students. The instrument developed in this study can provide university and college administrators, science and engineering faculty, government funding agencies, and students and their families with a clearer understanding of the academic and personal benefits associated with participation in these programs. The electronic survey type as sessment instrument developed in this study was tailored to the unique needs, interests, and desired learning outcomes of students majoring in science and engineering disciplines. As part of the evaluation process, the assessment instrument was administere d to study abroad participants as well as a comparable group of science and engineering graduate these international experiences. Finally, in addition to documenting the a cademic STEM learning and personal growth impacts of study abroad experiences on science and engineering majors in general, this instrument can be used to highlight differences in the relative impact of study abroad experiences on different types of studen ts. These differences include: life and physical science students versus engineering students, students with differing levels of prior international travel experience, students from

PAGE 120

120 different ethnic and racial backgrounds, and students with and without pre existing The broader target audience for the resulting outcome assessment instrument is college level students majoring in the science and engineering disciplines (both undergraduate and gradua te level) and the faculty and administrators who develop and implement study abroad programs for these students. In particular, I anticipate that the development of a valid and reliable research based instrument for assessing the academic STEM learning and personal growth impact of science and engineering related study abroad programs will be of broad applicability for many universities and colleges as they attempt to internationalize their curricula and programs and expand study abroad offerings beyond the fields of liberal arts and business. Study Sample This study was conducted at the University of Florida, in conjunction with the South East Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (SEAGEP). The SEAGEP program is a comprehensive professional development program funded by the National Science Foundation to increase minority representation among science technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) faculty. The SEAGEP program is an alliance between three universities in the southeastern U.S. an d is open to, and provides support for, all STEM graduate students from underrepresented ethnic minority groups at the University of Florida University of South Carolina and Clemson University During 2011, SEAGEP implemented a series of new international initiatives for these graduate students to address the need for global experience at the graduate level. These comprehensive international experiences provided students with

PAGE 121

121 opportunities to develop global competencies that would give them a competitive e dge in their preparation for and pursuit of academic careers. These programs were approximately 12 days in length and during their time in country, students had the opportunity to visit science and engineering educational and research facilities, meet with researchers, faculty and students at the host institutions, and participate in organized cultural activities. Students completing four of these international SEAGEP programs participated in this study: a. 2011 b. c. d. Forty six SEAGEP affiliated students enrolled in these four study abro ad programs in 2011, with 11 visiting Chile, 15 visiting China, and 10 visiting South Africa and Brazil respectively. I invited students to participate in the research study via email, as described in the participant recruitment section of Chapter 3. Initi ally, all students agreed to complete the pre trip and post trip Academic STEM learning and Professional Growth Outcome Assessment and signed the informed consent forms at the pre departure orientation sessions for each trip. However, one student subsequen tly elected not to participate in the research study and i decided to exclude another student based on the demographic information collected. Thus, the total number of study abroad participants in the research study was 44. In addition, I recruited a compa rison group of 32 minority science and engineering graduate students to participate in this study. These students did not participate in the SEAGEP international programs. Study abroad participants assisted with recruitment of the comparison group, identif ying a counterpart in their discipline with similar

PAGE 122

122 demographics (ethnicity and gender). This selective recruitment approach ensured that the comparison group matched the group that participated in the study abroad program as closely as possible. The demog raphic data for all research study participants is available in Table 4 1. Study Design This study utilized a two phase design, with the UF in Chile program students participating in the pilot phase of assessment instrument development and the UF in China, Brazil and South Africa students and the comparison group students participating in the final validation and testing phase of the research study. Pilot Phase The initial development of the assessment instrument involved a review of the current literature on study abroad outcomes, personal consultations with international education and evaluation experts, a student focus group and a review of the study abroad syllabus for the SEAGEP programs. The testing of this draft instrument occurred in conjunction with the UF in Chile program in March 2011. Of the 11 students enrolled in this program, three were male and eight were female. Eight students were studying engineering, while three were life and physical science students. In terms of ethnicity, there were fiv e Black/African/African American and six Hispanic/Latino/Spanish students. Finally, following pilot testing, expert reviews of the data collected provided guidance for the refinement of the assessment instrument. Validation and Testing Phase Reliability a nalyses and validation of the assessment instrument developed and refined during the pilot phase of the study involved a total of 65 students from the UF in China, Brazil and South Africa programs as well as students in the comparison group.

PAGE 123

123 This study sam ple was comprised of 29 male and 36 female students, with 30 from engineering and 35 from the life and physical science disciplines. There were 34 Black/African/African American students, 30 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish students, and 1 American Indian or Alaska used to establish the internal consistency reliability of the instrument. I examined reflective writing assignment s for the study abroad program. Pilot Phase Development of Draft Outcome Assessment Instrument The lack of a pre existing, validated survey instrument for assessing perceived student academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes resulting from part icipation in science and engineering study abroad programs necessitated the development of a new instrument for use in this study. A review of the current literature pertaining to outcomes assessment for study abroad programs provided initial guidance for the development of the new instrument. This was supplemented by the personal experience of the researcher, information gathered in a focus group with six students engineering in (Appendix F) Literature review on outcomes assessment in study abroad A review of study abroad survey instruments and the comparison of survey types by Durrant and Dorius (2007) provided a useful perspectiv e on the current instruments used for evaluation of student learning outcomes and provided background information for decisions related to the type of instrument to use and related analyses of data for this study. They found that advantages of web based su rvey instruments included a

PAGE 124

124 reduction in respondent completion time, increased response accuracy and ease of administration and analysis. The biggest drawbacks of web based surveys related to lower response rates when compared to paper surveys. However, Du rrant and Dorius also determined that paper surveys are less useful for large scale assessment projects and do not facilitate statistical analysis and widespread dissemination of results as well as web based surveys. Thus, Durrant and Dorius (2007) selecte d web based surveys as their instrument of choice and I elected to do the same for this study. In the United States, the regional accrediting agencies for institutions of higher education have developed guidelines for demonstrating student learning throug h academic assessment. Immetman and Schneider (1998) contended that similar domains of knowledge acquisition (cognitive), attitudes and values (affective) and skills (behavioral) acquisition are appropriate for the assessment of study abroad programs. They proposed a focus group methodology rather than surveys to explore student learning in study abroad programs with reference to these domains of educational objectives. In the current study, while I have elected to develop a quantitative assessment instrume nt, I did draw upon the overall framework for assessing different domains of learning proposed by Immetman and Schneider and used several of their suggested questions for the focus group to guide the development of the study abroad assessment instrument fo r science and engineering. With regard to the content of specific items on the assessment instrument, I also reviewed several relevant research studies for guidance. A broad assessment the impact of study abroad experiences on student learning was conduct ed by Michigan State University (MSU) in the summer of 2000 (Ingraham & Peterson, 2004). This study

PAGE 125

125 included a self reported measurement of participant intellectual and personal growth as well as intercultural awareness. While not specifically focused on t he STEM disciplines, the researchers utilized a 33 item pre departure and post study abroad survey instrument as a method of data collection. These Likert scale items and several open ended questions addressed aspects of perceived academic development and personal growth and intercultural awareness. Several items from this survey were included in the preliminary version of the study abroad assessment instrument I developed for use with science and engineering graduate students. Similarly, a large scale asse ssment of student attitudes after participation in a short term study abroad program at the University of Delaware examined the development global awareness using a pre test, post test instrument (Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004). These researchers measured glob al awareness in four different categories, including personal growth and development, intercultural awareness, awareness of global interdependence, and functional knowledge of world geography and language. Given the science and engineering focus of this st udy, I only focused on two of these categories of global awareness when examining the cognitive and affective impacts of the study abroad experience: personal growth and development and general global awareness. More recently, Braskamp, Braskamp and Merril l (2009) investigated global learning and development of undergraduate students completing study abroad experiences. Their pretest posttest design utilized the Global Perspective Inventory from a semester long study abroad program. The GPI measures three major developmental domains:

PAGE 126

126 cognitive (epistemological, awareness, knowledge), intrapersonal (identity, attitudes, emotion) and interpersonal (behavior, skills and social responsibility). The results of this study suggested that study abroad participation can promote global learning and development in all three domains. Given the documented effectiveness of this instrument, selected items from the GPI that were particularly appropriate for use with science a nd engineering related study abroad experiences were incorporated into the preliminary academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument. As mentioned earlier, little research has been conducted to document participant outc omes specific to science and engineering related study abroad experiences. However, in 2009, Bender, Wright and Lopatto conducted a study to examine University reported changes in intercultural knowledge and competence associ ated with three undergraduate science related study abroad experiences. This study also used a survey at the beginning and conclusion of the study abroad experiences and was adapted from the Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE) and another s urvey developed at Grinnell College to assess student learning outcomes resulting from participation in study abroad programs. Our trip expectations for their international experience as well as their perceiv ed post trip learning gains, thus some items from the University of Arizona study abroad survey were adapted for use in our academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument. When developing items for the assessment instrument I also examin ed targeted outcomes identified for engineering baccalaureate graduates by the Accreditation Board

PAGE 127

127 for Engineering and Technology (ABET, 200 0 ). These target outcomes include a set of six professional skills, of which three pertain directly to study abroad experiences: the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context; an ability to communicate effectively; knowledge of contemporary issues. Items focusing on these three outcomes were also included in our draft assessment instrument. Personal experience and expert consultations Beyond reliance upon existing literature to determine the objectives and targeted learning outcomes of study abroad experiences, development of a new outcome assessment instrument specifically focused on science and engineering related study abroad experiences was also informed by the direct real world experience and advice of several college level study abroad experts. This author used her own pers onal experience, both as a trained scientist and as a participant and facilitator of previous study abroad programs, to guide the selection of concepts and development of individual items for the assessment instrument. In addition, three faculty members wi th multiple years of experience as science educators, study abroad program leaders, and international educators provided significant input regarding the format and content of the assessment instrument. They collectively noted that previous study abroad par ticipants they have personally worked with developed both academically and personally as a result of their participation in an international program. Specifically, these experts noted that some students completing study abroad programs have changed their m ajors and areas of research focus, developed long term collaborative networks with scientists

PAGE 128

128 from their host countries, and conducted on going collaborative research as a result of their study abroad experience s. Since most of this supporting evidence is anecdotal in nature, all of these experts also acknowledged the need for a science and engineering focused outcome assessment instrument to document the type and extent of academic STEM learning and personal growth impacts of study abroad experiences on pa rticipants. Focus g roup To provide guidance for the development of the assessment instrument I conducted a preliminary focus group interview to document student expectations prior to their participation in a science and engineering related study abroad program. This focus group was conducted at UF in February 2011 and consisted of six graduate Global Sci Students were asked the following series of questions in order to develop a cleare r understanding of their expectations and anticipated outcomes for the study abroad experience: 1. Why did you decide to participate in a study abroad program? 2. Why did you choose to participate in a science and engineering focused study abroad program? 3. What a re your expectations for this study abroad program to Chile? 4. What do you hope to gain personally and professionally as a result of your participation in the study abroad program? 5. Do you consider international activities to be an important component in scie nce and engineering education overall?

PAGE 129

129 The student responses to the five questions were analyzed to provide guidance for the development of questions for both the academic STEM learning and personal growth aspects of the assessment instrument. Academic exp ectations Students mentioned that they decided to participate in the program for several academic reasons, including an interest in the topic of the program and/or the geographic region, and a desire to observe real world applications in their various dis ciplines and understand their research in the global context. In response to question one, all six students indicated their interest in academic STEM learning with responses such as: I am interested to see projects on Energy (in Chile) and how my discipli ne is being applied. This is an opportunity to learn from oth er researchers in other regions. I am interested in Latin American countries and hope to con duct future research in Brazil. I do research on streams and rivers and am interested in the environme ntal impacts in South America I want to see how Chile are addressing the issue of arsenic remedia tion. I am interested in Latin America generally an d hope to do research in Brazil. In response to the second question, one student indicated that he would ha ve been interested in the study abroad program; even if the content focus was not science and engineering. However, three of the six students indicated that the science and engineering focus and the NSF backing were important factors in their decision to p while

PAGE 130

130 wa s the most important draw for him. In response to the third question, two students indicated that they hoped to make contacts with researchers in Chile and learn more about the specific content topics of focus on the trip. Four of the six students indicat ed that they were hoping to observe the educational and research systems of another country and understand how science and engineering are applied in that country. They also hoped to develop a better understanding of how their own area of research applied in other contexts and learn about the technology and skills used by their peers overseas. The following are quotes from students illustrating their expectations in relation to the academic impact of the study abroad program As a future professor, I think it is important to think bigger, think globally, but that is hard to conceive as a graduate student I hope to observe how research is conducted in a foreign country I hope to compare the education systems To see applications of science and how my resea rch might fit there Finally, in response to question four, one student indicated that he hoped to learn new skills and techniques and observe how research is approached differently in Chile. Personal expectations The majority of the students mentioned th eir desire to learn more about other cultures and interact with local people during their visit, though this was not a predominant expectation for the group. The following direct quotes rience: I really like to travel and learn about different cultures I am looking forward to ex periencing the culture in Chile

PAGE 131

131 I am excited to wake up s omewhere new and see new things All the students indicated that they valued the opportunity to particip ate in an international opportunity, which would not only help them develop an understanding of the destination country and culture, but would also enable them to empathize with the international students they work with here in the U.S. For example, one st udent expressed the expectation that she would develop a better understanding of international students here in the U.S. I want to go and see other cultures and understand international students better to imp rove my relationships with them Syllabus r evie w p.1). To this end, I reviewed the program syllabus for the SEAGEP international progr ams targeted for study and items focusing on specific stated syllabus objectives that were directly linked to academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes were incorporated into the assessment instrument (Appendix F) Objectives pertaining to the st udy abroad experience, as outlined in the course syllabus were: to learn about the history, culture and traditions of the host country; to develop an understanding of the differences in STEM education and research cultures between the U.S. and the host co untry; to investigate one of the four research topics below with an assigned team: o Science and Technology o Science Communications o Technology Transfer o Education;

PAGE 132

132 to network with students, faculty, researchers and government agencies abroad; and to prese nt an oral research presentation in the host country. Following the completion of these four components outlined above, I used the data and information collected to develop a draft assessment instrument containing 53 items. This first dra ft included five s ections: student expectations for academic STEM learning student expectations for personal growth, program outcomes for academic STEM learning program outcomes for personal growth, and demographic information. The academic STEM learning and personal grow th sections consisted of nine and 11 questions respectively. The program outcomes section consisted of 14 items designed to assess academic STEM learning and 11 questions designed to assess personal growth. The final section included seven items to gather demographic information for each student respondent. Using this first draft of the assessment instrument, I conducted pilot testing on the UF in Chile program as described below. Pilot Testing of Draft Outcome Assessment Instrument I pilot tested the outc ome assessment instrument in March 2011 with the 11 science and engineering graduate students enrolled in the Global Pilot testing provided an opportunity to determine the clarity, ease of use, appropriatene ss, and feasibility of the overall assessment instrument, as well as the clarity, quality, and usefulness of each individual item. As part of the pilot test process, Chile study abroad participants completed the assessment instrument approximately one week prior to their departure and approximately two weeks after their return to the U.S. Following completion by the students, the pre and post test scores on each item were analyzed and compared to determine whether the

PAGE 133

133 item measured change as a result of the ir participation in the program. In the process of this analysis, the expectation items were determined to be inappropriate for a pre post design and were eliminated from this stage of the analysis. The pre and post trip scores for program outcome items fo r academic STEM learning and personal growth were review ed by two experts in survey design and international science education to select and edit the items for inclusion in the assessment instrument. For both the academic STEM learning and personal growth section, six new items were added, based on the eliminated expectation items and student response s to open ended question s on the original draft instrument Expert Review of Pilot Test Data and Draft Outcome Assessment Instrument Three experts one in eva luation and assessment methodology and survey design, one in science education and one in international education reviewed the student responses on the pre and post draft assessment used in the pilot study. This feedback provided guidance for modification of the entire instrument and revision of individual items. The following section provides details of how I modified the draft assessment instrument based on comments received during the expert review. in other countries is not as were determined to be confusing to participants based on the variability of responses on the pre and post trip assessments. The diversity of responses provided on these items clearly indicated that some students misinterpreted the phrasing of these items and answered them as if they were written in the affirmative instead of the negative. Due to the fact that these negatively worded items clearly

PAGE 134

134 confused some participants, these items were excluded from the analysis of reliability and validity and have been deleted from the final version of the assessment instrument. Additionally, six items were identified as difficult to ans wer due to their vagueness the U.S. positively om the validity and reliability analysis and have been deleted from the final version of the assessment instrument The items that were excluded from the validity and reliability analysis and from the final version of the assessment instrument based on exp ert review are presented in Table 4 2. Thus, out of an original set of 37 items, I excluded six academic STEM learning and two personal growth outcome items from the validity and reliability analysis. In addition, one item originally coded as an academic outcome item was reviewed and recoded as a personal outcome item. I practicing my discipline in a different country their ability to work in another country, and wa s thus more appropriate in the career perceptions sub construct. Validation and Testing Phase The final version of the study abroad outcome assessment instrument consisted of 14 academic STEM learning items and 15 personal growth items (Table 4 3). Thirty three science and engineering graduate students completing SEAGEP study abroad programs in China, South Africa and Brazil participated in the validation and testing phase for the revised assessment instrument. In addition, a comparison group of 32 science and engineering graduate students who did not complete these study abroad

PAGE 135

135 experiences also participated Thus, a total of 65 students served as the study sample for this phase of the study. Students participating in study abroad experiences completed the pre trip version of the assessment instrument approximately one week prior to their departure and they completed the post trip version approximately two weeks after their return to the U.S. The comparison group students only completed the assessment once, during the 2011 fall semester. The following sections of this paper provide details of the validity and reliability analys e s of the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes assessment instrument. Reliability Analysis of the Assessment Instrumen t Internal consistency reliability of the assessment instrument was measured using trip assessment instrument responses for the study abroad participant group and the one time r esponses from the comparison group. This provided a total of 65 completed Internal r eliability analysis gives an idea of the extent to which items in the same scale are related to each other. The pha reliability coefficient measures internal consistency of an instrument and is based on average inter item correlations. For purposes of this study all reliability coefficient values above 0. 7 were considered acceptable. Internal reliability was determ ined for the two constructs ( academic STEM learning and personal growth) and for the each associated sub scale As indicated in Table 4 4 internal consistency reliability for both the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcome scales was high (Cro and .884 respectively). Internal consistency reliabilities for the sub scales were somewhat lower, ranging from .620 to .860 The reliability for four of the six sub

PAGE 136

136 constructs were above .70 and were thus considered acceptable. Howeve r, the reliability for the professional self efficacy in science and engineering and the g lobal s cience c ommunication were .695 and .620 respectively. Determining Validity of the Assessment Instrument I used a two part process involving a blend of expert advice and qualitative methods to assess the validity of the study abroad assessment instrument Validity was assessed in terms of both content and construct validity. Content validity Content validity, which assesses the extent to which the system covers the full range of meaning for the measured concept in a particular context was the first type of validation completed Activities designed to establish content validity included: Review of the assessment instrument by experts in the fields of science edu cation and internati onal education and study abroad Review of peer reviewed literature to ensure that the concepts and items included in the assessment instrument were consistent with targeted outcomes for study abroad programs and the fields of science an d engineering in general. An iterative process, involving item development, review by experts, pilot testing, additional expert review and item revisions/deletions/additions and implementation helped to ensure the appropriate assessment of targeted concep ts. During this process, several items initially included in the instrument were mo dified, re ordered or removed. Construct validity Construct validity is the extent to which a scale measures or assesses the concepts it was designed to measure. In this stu dy, construct validity of the assessment instrument was established using three different data sources: a review of the literature describing similar outcome measures used in evaluations of the impact of study abroad programs on participants

PAGE 137

137 statistical analysis of pre and post test data reflective writing assignments and the on the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcome construct scores on their completed post t rip assessment instruments Literature review As described above in the data collection section for research question one, development of individual items and grouping of items into constructs and sub constructs was based on a review of the literature re garding targeted academic learning and personal growth outcomes assessed using similar survey type instruments in evaluations of other study abroad programs. Statistical analysis of pre and post test data Parametric testing of completed outcome assessmen and post trip academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes on the China, Brazil and South Africa programs were used to determine if the constructs and sub constructs measured change in the concepts as d esigned. Inferential statistics, in the form of paired t tests determined the significance of changes in pre trip and post trip scores In all cases a 95% confidence level was used ( perceptions were significan t. For the academic STEM learning and personal growth constructs, there were significant differences in scores between both the pre trip and post trip assessments For the overall academic STEM learning construct the results were t (32)= 2.954, p =0.006 a nd for the overall personal growth construct results were t (32)= 3.958, p =0. 000. There were also significant differences between pre trip and post trip scores for four of the six sub constructs: socio cultural role of science and engineering sub constru ct [ t (32)= 4.079, p =0.000]; personal confidence [ t (32)= 2.357, p =0.025]; career

PAGE 138

138 perceptions [ t (32)= 3.233, p =0.003]; and global awareness [ t (32)= 3.996, p = 0.000]. There was not a significant difference in the pre post scores the pre trip and post tr ip assessments for the professional self efficacy in science and engineering [t(32)= 1.343, p =0.189] or global science communication [ t (32)= 1.954, p = 0.059] sub constructs both of which had low levels of reliability These significant differences betw een the pre and post test scores on the two primary constructs and four of the six sub constructs suggest that the assessment tool academic STEM learning and personal growth as a result of participation in study abroad programs. Analysis of reflective writing and assessment instrument response alignment. Finally, in terms of construct validity, I reviewed a selected sample of the in which they were prompted to reflect upon their experiences and discuss their own perceptions regarding what they learned and how they grew as a result of participation in the study abroad program. Six writing assignments were selected for review: three for students who had the highest scores on the ac ademic STEM learning and personal growth and three for students who scored the lowest on the post trip assessment. The writing assignments were coded using a priori codes that aligned with the concepts and sub scales assessed by the instrument These coded academic STEM learning and personal growth quantitative assessments. For reporting purposes, samples of student statements included below are coded according to the trip and individual, with the three highest scoring being Brazil 1, China 1 and China 2 and the three lowest being South Africa 1, South Africa 2 and Brazil 2.

PAGE 139

139 All six students whose reflective writing assignments were reviewed mentioned both academic STEM learning and pers onal growth outcomes in their reflective writing assignments. The following selected statements validate that the student responses on the assessment instrument accurately reflected the academic STEM learning and personal growth reported by the se students in their own reflective writing. (High) Brazil 1: The experience of meeting a new country, a new culture, new friends, and new learning experiences is something that will mark your life forever, it definitely has marked my life in ways I will never forge t (High) China 1: I have had the chance to experience the culture, and see some research pr ojects that are being undertake (Low) S Africa 1: I f I were to select criteria to evaluate my learning process on this trip, they would be: educational experien ce, cultural ex perience and social interaction All six writing samples mentioned the impact of their respective trips in terms of learning about science and engineering research in other countries, and several expressed surprise at how advanced research facilities were in the host countries. For example, (High) China 1: I believe that the facilities and people necessary for doi ng serious research are present (Low) S Africa 2: I am now informed about the type of research conducted in the Republi c of South Africa and the capacity to conduct r esearch at several institutions (High ) China 2: Biomedical engineering, specifically bone and tissue eng ineering, is quite big in China. Three students also made observations about the nature of education in the host countries (High) China 1: One of my secondary interests is engineering education, a field that is rapidly growing in the United States but is non existent in China

PAGE 140

140 according to Dr. Zhang. I believe some great collaboration and exchange of ideas c ould be found there. (Low) S Africa 2: science and the educational system (Low) Brazil 2: After visiting several educational institutions that include, University of Sao Paulo, Institute of P esquisas Ecologicas (IPE), and University of Campinas, there was a disproportionate amount of African Brazilian students attending these schools Three of the students mentioned the challenges and rewards associated with science communication. For example, ( High ) Brazil 1 : I had the opportunity to interact with other students from different academic areas, where we learned we shared similar interests despite our varied backgrounds (Low) S Africa 2 : T hey were some of the only people I met during my trip th at understood what I study without me having to explain it (Low) Brazil 2: The greatest challenge of my study abroad trip to Brazil was fully interacting wit h all students who participated. Four students indicated that their study abroad programs offered opportunities to network with and learn from other scientists and engineers, which potentially informed their future career decisions (High) China 1: I feel that overall, the trip was a great experience and I hope it might lead to some future collaborati on (Low) S Africa 1: W e had excellent opportunities to make connections (High) Brazil 1: I feel that I gained knowledge I would not otherwise ever learned about, and therefore I became more mature as a young scientist (Low) S Africa 2: I now have a b etter sense of what type of research I want to pursue in the future and can now add the Republic of South Africa to my list places I would like to conduct a postdoc activi ties on the study abroad program. For example,

PAGE 141

141 (High) Brazil 1: B rings you an effective cultural experience, and one that opens your eyes to see the world with a broadened perspective (Low) S Africa 2: The people of the Republic of South Africa were very welcoming and kindly answered our questions and ignored our ignorance about their country (High) China 2: I wanted something to challenge my thoughts, my ideas, and my worldview. And on this day of May 15th 2011, I can say with no reservations, that my w orldview has changed. Despite the fact that some areas of focus in their reflective writing assignments assessment instrument, there were notable differences in the reflections of high and low scorers in other areas. These results suggest that the outcome assessment instrument and its sub perceived learning resulting from participation in study abroad experiences and pro vide evidence for the validity of the instrument. For example, the three students with the highest scores on the post trip assessment instrument all discussed their trips in positive terms and indicated that it had met their academic STEM learning and pers onal growth expectations, as illustrated in the following reflective writing excerpts: (High) Brazil 1: A fter this experience, I accomplished a big part of what I desired (High) China 1: After spending these days in Beijing and arriving in Shanghai, the e xpectations that I had coming into this trip were certainly met. (High) China 2: The new friendships I formed with both the Chinese students and my SEAGEP colleagues is something that I will always cherish Conversely, the three students with lower scores on the post trip outcome assessment included more negative comments about their study abroad experience in their reflective writing assignments. Two of these students indicated that the trip did not

PAGE 142

142 live up to their expectations and they perceived to have learn ed little or nothing on their programs. (Low) S Africa 1: M y educational expectations were not met (Low) S Africa 2: I am not really sure what I was supposed to learn on this trip, so I am unable to come up with a way to evaluate what I learned. H onestly I am not sure that I learned anything Interestingly, both these students participated in the South Africa program and had the two lowest post trip scores of the entire 33 student sample on the post trip assessment. The student with the next lowest score participated in the Brazil program, and although he had some criticisms about the program, he indicated that the trip did meet his overall expectations. Discussion The importance of college level study abroad experiences is recognized in the intern ational education literature as a way to prepare students for the global workforce who have the appropriate disciplinary, communication and cultural skills. With the mounting emphasis on global competency in the science and engineering fields, and with the increasing emphasis on study abroad experiences for students in these disciplines, the need for both effective and appropriate instruments for documenting the impacts of these programs on participants is also growing. Thus, the key focus of this study was to develop a valid and reliable academic STEM learning and personal growth outcome assessment instrument specifically for use with graduate students completing science and engineering related study abroad programs. The following sections summarize the spe cific types of study abroad related academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes that can be measured using the outcome assessment instrument I developed.

PAGE 143

143 Academic STEM learning outcomes This section of the assessment instrument focuses on student used in other countries and the value they personally attach to scientific knowledge communication and the socio cultural role of science and engineering in other countries. If students are to become globally competent scientists and engineers, it is important that they understand the nature of science and engineering as it is practiced in other countries, the modes of scientific communication used in other countries, and the role these disciplines play in other societies and cultural contexts. Such understanding can help students develop collaborative professional relationships with scientists and engineer s overseas and help them work effectively with others to address science based issues of global significance. For study abroad to be an effective method for the development of a more complete and accurate understanding of science and engineering outside th e U.S., it is essential to have appropriate instruments for topics. Personal growth outcomes This construct explores the impact of the study abroad experience on student confidence in a perform as global scientists and/ or engineers and their levels of interest in a globally levels of self confidence in relation to traveling and living in other countries and cultures

PAGE 144

144 and their general kn owledge about international issues and current events. Such interest and openness to pursue opportunities to live and work in other countries, or at least on multi natio nal and multi cultural teams. Beyond the determination of the appropriate outcomes for assessment, the foundation of any measurement instrument is the determination of its validity and reliability. This study examined questions of content and construct val idity and examined questions of internal consistency reliability. Validity There was agreement between the experts in all aspects of the content validity of using the evaluation instrument in science and engineering study abroad contexts In general, the e xperts thought that the instrument did address all of the appropriate targeted outcomes for science and engineering related study abroad programs. Reviews of the draft assessment instrument by individual experts did identify inconsistencies among some item s, particularly those using negative wording or those without a clearly defined most desirable response. Based on this input, I modified and/or excluded these items from subsequent analys e s of test reliability and validity. One of the recommendations for i mprovement of future versions of this how science and engineering research is conducted in the host countries and the extent of funding and equipment for this research, es pecially compared to the U.S. In addition, the assessment instrument could be modified to meet the needs of particular study abroad programs with the addition of items that relate to specific objectives of a particular program or course.

PAGE 145

145 With regard to con struct validity, the assessment instrument aligned well with the most commonly cited outcomes of study abroad experiences in the published literature on study abroad assessment. These outcomes include the development of both academic, or cognitive, and per sonal, or affective, constructs. Specifically, the assessment instrument developed in this study documents the impact of study abroad experiences on several different aspects of a student s career development, personal confidence, global awareness and comm unication. trip and post assignments, suggest that this instrument is measuring appropriate constructs f or science and engineering related study abroad programs. Those students with higher post trip scores on the assessment instrument generally recorded the more positive comments in their reflective assignments and indicated that the trip met with their over all expectations. Conversely, students with lower scores on the post trip assessment all had strong criticisms of their study abroad programs, indicating that the study abroad experience did not live up to their expectations. Reliability ha reliability coefficients calculated for the assessment instrument indicated good internal consistency for both scales and all sub scales. These relatively high internal consistency results indicate that the assessment instrument can be used to reliably assesses the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes of science and engineering graduate students participating in study abroad experiences. One potential area for future improvement would be the addition of items to some of the smaller sub sca les. For example, the sub scale for global awareness is

PAGE 146

146 benefit from the addition of other items to assess the impact of study abroad f global awareness, as was revealed in their reflective writing assignments. In conclusion, the results of the analyses indicate that it possible to assess self reported changes in academic STEM learning and personal growth using a Likert type electronic outcome assessment instrument. T his type of assessment may provide valuable outcomes data for a variety of science and engineering related study abroad programs at both the graduate and undergraduate levels and therefore merits further research.

PAGE 147

147 Table 4 1 Gender, ethnicity and academic discipline of study participants Participants Discipline Ethnicity Sex Chile n=11 8 Engineering 3 Life & Physical Science 5 Black/African/African American 6 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish 3 Male 8 Female China n=15 12 Engineer ing 3 Life & Physical Science 8 Black/African/African American 7 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish 8 Male 7 Female South Africa n=9 3 Engineering 6 Life & Physical Science 4 Black/African/African American 4 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish 1 American Indian or Alaskan Nat ive 2 Male 7 Female Brazil n=9 4 Engineering 5 Life & Physical Science 5 Black/African/African American 4 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish 6 Male 3 Female Total Study Abroad n=44 27 Engineering 17 Life & Physical Science 22 Black/African/African American 21 His panic/Latino/Spanish 1 American Indian or Alaskan Native 1 9 Male 2 5 Female Comparison Group n=32 11 Engineering 21 Life & Physical Science 15 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish 17 Black/African/African American 14 Male 18 Female

PAGE 148

148 Table 4 2. List of survey items e xcluded from validation and reliability testing phase based on expert review Construct Items Academic Learning I think STEM education in other countries is not as advanced as it is in the U.S. I think that technology transfer in science/engineering occu rs differently in other countries compared to the U.S. Science policy is the same around the world I think research in science/engineering is more advanced in the U.S. than in other countries I think commercial opportunities in science/engineering in ot her countries are similar to those in the U.S. I think that science/engineering research in other countries is similar to the U.S. Personal Growth Career opportunities in other countries are not interesting to me I believe that people from other count ries view the U.S. positively

PAGE 149

149 Table 4 3. Academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument items by subscale Academic STEM learning Outcomes Scales Professional self efficacy in science and engineering I believe that I can learn new knowledge from scientis ts/engineers in other countries I am aware of scientific/engineering research o pportunities in other countries I value research conducted by scientists/engineers in other countries I believe that I can learn new skills from scient ists/engineers in other countries Global Science Communication I think science/engineering are communicated using similar methods in other countries I believe that English is the most important language in the communication of science/engineering I am comfortable giving an academic presentation in an international setting I think it is important for scientists/engineers to speak more than one language I am comfortable discussing my research with people from other countries Socio Cultural Role of Science/ Engineering It is important to understand the perspectives of people from other countries have regarding science/engineering I feel I can apply my research in global settings My discipline has an important role to play in solving global probl ems I have a clear understanding about the role of science and engineering in other countries I have a clear understanding about the role of science/engineering in other countries

PAGE 150

150 Table 4 3. Continued Personal Growth Outcomes Scales Career related p erceptions I feel prepared to work on a multinational research project I am interested in working on a multinational project I am interested in working as a scientist/engineer in another country I feel confident about practicing my discipline in a diff erent country I am competent to work as a scientist/engineer in other countries I aspire to work in another country Personal Confidence I am prepared to live in another country I am confident that I can take care of myself in a new situation I hav e the ability to make a difference in the world I am confident that I can deal efficiently with unexpected events I am confident in my abilities as a scientist/engineer I am a self sufficient person General Global Awareness I am knowledgeable about international issues I am familiar with current events in China/South Africa/Brazil I am familiar with current events in other countries

PAGE 151

151 Table 4 4. academic STEM learning and personal growth outcome scale s and sub scales (n=65) Scale Sub scale Items alpha Academic Learning Outcomes 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,11,12, 13,15,17,18 .849 Professional self efficacy in science and engineering 1, 2, 5, 18 .695 Global Science Communication 3,6,7,9,17 .620 Socio Cultural role of Science & Engineering 8,11,12,13,15 .723 Personal Growth Outcomes 19,22,23,24,25,27,28,29, 30,31,32,33,34,35,37 .884 Personal confidence 24,27,29,30,33,34 .802 Career Perceptions 19,23,25,28,31,37, .826 Global Awareness 22,32,35 .860

PAGE 152

152 CHAPTER 5 AN ASSESSMENT OF ACA DEMIC LEARNING, PERS ONAL GROWTH AND INTERCULTURAL DEVELO PMENT OUTCOMES OF UN DERREPRESENTED LIFE AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING GRAD UATE STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN A SHORT TERM STUDY ABROAD PR OGRAM Accor ding to the National Association of International Educators (NAFSA, 2003), tools for preparing a student to participate effectively in an increasingly interconnected, inte rnational community that demands cross record number of U.S. college student s studied abroad in 2009/2010. However, of the 270,604 U.S. college students studying abroad during the 2009/2010 academic year, only 20,95 3 or less than 10% were life or physical science, students and only 10,554 were eng ineering students (IIE, 2011). The Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program Report (2005) declared that students majoring in the sciences and engin eering are among the most underrepresented groups on study abroad programs. Similarly, the Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE), a non profit, non governmental organization that promotes international education recognized that science and engineering college students are not only underrepresented on study abroad programs, but also that unique barriers limit opportunities for study abroad participation for students in these disciplines (CIEE, 2003). A second traditionally underrepresented group in study abroad programs is minority students. In 2009 2010, only 7.9% of college level study abroad students were Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 6.4% were Hispanic or Latino/a, 4.7% were Black or African American, and 0.5% were A merican Indian or Alaska Native (IIE, 2011). The Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program

PAGE 153

153 American and Hispanic American students, are significantly underrepres colleges and universities must make new efforts not only to raise the number of According to the CIEE, lack of appropriate programs is not the only bar rier to study abroad for science and engineering students. Another major obstacle is the lack of recognition of the value of study abroad experiences in the science and engineering disciplines by students, their families, and faculty in science and enginee ring colleges and departments. The CIEE argues that study abroad professionals and faculty advocates must demonstrate the intrinsic value of study abroad as a significant aspect te on International Education (IIE) report titled Promoting Study Abroad in Science and Technology Fields calls on researchers to identify the impacts of international collaborations on science and engineering students (IIE, 2009). Finally, the majority of existing college level study abroad programs are at the undergraduate level, with few opportunities for participation by graduate students. In 2009/2010, only 36,802 of the 270,604 study abroad participants were graduate students, and of those, only 1,624 were pursuing doctoral degrees (IIE, 2011). In 2011, the University of Florida South East Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (SEAGEP) developed and implemented a series of four short term study abroad experiences for underrepresented gr aduate students in the science and engineering disciplines. The National Science Foundation (NSF), which supports the goal of developing a globally engaged scientific workforce, provided funding for this

PAGE 154

154 program. This program provided an opportunity to inv estigate the impacts of participation in international experiences on the academic STEM learning personal growth, and intercultural development of underrepresented science and engineering graduate students. Purpose of Study and Research Questions Document ing the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development of science and engineering graduate students who engage in study abroad programs is clearly of considerable importance. In addition, measuring and documenting the actual outcomes resulting from participation in study abroad experiences completed by underrepresented graduate students in science and engineering disciplines address es a significant gap in the current literature. Researching the impacts of study abroad participation on underrepresented science and engineering graduate students can also provide both higher education institutions and national agencies, such as the NSF, with a clearer understanding of the benefits associated with these programs for specific, underrepresent ed groups. It is my belief that this knowledge can be used to develop models for new and improved study abroad experiences specifically targeting college students in the science and engineering disciplines. The purpose of this study was twofold. First, I e xamined the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth, and intercultural development outcomes of underrepresented science and engineering graduate students who participated in UF SEAGEP study abroad programs. Secondly, I examined how the learni ng outcomes of SEAGEP study abroad students differed from those of comparable minority science and engineering graduate students who did not participate in an international program.

PAGE 155

155 Theoretical Framework The development of a theoretical framework guiding research in the area of study abroad experiences has been quite limited and most work in the area has been practitioner based (Hoffa, 1993; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005). However, given the interdisciplinary nature of study abroad experiences, one can buil d on other existing theories of academic learning and personal development. The theoretical framework used in this study builds on related theories and concepts in several areas of educational research, developmental learning, psychology, experiential lear ning, and intercultural development. Currently, study abroad researchers and practitioners use three prominent theoretical frameworks: positivism, relativism and experiential constructivism (Vande Berg, Paige & Hemming Lou, 2012). Positivism, which served as the foundational theoretical framework for study abroad, is now waning in popularity as research has demonstrated that mere exposure to different places, peoples and cultures does not necessarily lead to learning for all students. Relativism, based on the early work of psychologists such as Dewey and Piaget, is still popular as a theoretical framework for study abroad. In this approach, the educator structures the experience, supports the student learning process, and operates on the premise that immers ion and interaction will facilitate learning. Most recently, and of relevance to the current study, the experiential theory has emerged as a popular framework guiding study abroad e fforts. Kolb (1979) developed a cycle of learning consisting of four phases: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation, which then cycles back to concrete experience. When using this framework for st udy abroad experiences,

PAGE 156

156 the educator works directly with students to facilitate their learning, providing frequent feedback and actively involving students in the learning process. In the context of the current study, I perceive academic STEM learning and personal growth as both experiential and transformative in nature. During study abroad, students encounter real world examples of the ideas and knowledge during the study abroad program that they first came across in the classroom and/or laboratory. At the same time students on study abroad programs face situations that are much more complex than, and even contradict and challenge, their classroom generated understandings and pre existing beliefs. The role of the faculty is crucial to provide support as the student navigates these new experiences. Transformative learning is another approach in the constructivist school of thought that, in many ways, is complementary to the experiential learning theory outlined above. e in the frame of reference or the structures of Transformative learning occurs in response to a disorientating experience, creating dissonance in what students are heari ng, seeing and feeling, which then causes them to re examine their existing knowledge and assumptions. According to Brewer and (2009, p. 10). In this theoretical framework, stu dents move from a situation of disorientation and disequilibrium through a period of questioning assumptions to a stage characterized by integrati on of new and old assumptions. The resulting outcome of this process is a change in frame of reference or worl dview.

PAGE 157

157 While the theoretical frameworks of constructivism and experiential learning are of vital importance when researching study abroad programs, learning can only occur if students are developmentally ready to process their experiences productively (Bre wer & Cunningham, 2009). In terms of human development theory, several approaches offer potential frameworks for studying the impact of study abroad participation on psychosocial and interpersonal development (Pascarella & Ternezini, 2005). Of particular i nterest is the theory of intercultural development, which is perhaps the best known and most widely applied theoretical framework of personal growth used in study understanding of cultural differences is vital to their general education (Mahoney & Schamber, 2004). In summary, successful study aboard programs should include a focus on the development of new academic knowledge and skills as well as the exchange of information and ide as across cultures. These kinds of experiences involve aspects of both experiential and transformative learning and personal growth, including intercultural communication. Thus, the comprehensive theoretical framework used in this study was based on the ex periential constructivist approach while incorporating aspects of other cognitive and personal development theories. Literature Review According to Van Hoof and Verbeeten (2005), the most common benefit of (p. 43). They claim that study abroad experiences help students understand the world in which they live while also helping them understand how they fit into that world. In addition, study abroad advocates often cite the contribution of international experiences

PAGE 158

158 to the development of job skills that are increasingly required for employees to think and act using a global perspective (IIE, 2009). Student Learning Outcomes for Study Abroad Many colleges and universities promote study abroad programs as opportunities for students to experience another country, acquire new knowledge and skills needed to become productive and successful members of the global community, broaden their worldview, and increase their intercultura l awareness to promote cross cultural understanding ( Anderson et al., 2006; Black & Duhon, 2006 ). Underlying these claims is the need for a college education to prepare students for a future as inter culturally competent global citizens, with the skills an d knowledge required to work in an increasingly globalized world. Indeed, researchers frequently cite the phenomenon of globalization as being the driving force for the growing interest and participation in study abroad (Lewin, 2009). Research on study a broad indicates that there are numerous potential benefits for participants across cognitive, affective and interpersonal dimensions (Carlson, 1990; McKeown, 200 6 ; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). Study abroad researchers have also found that study abroad participation can be particularly influential in improving international awareness, intercultural competency, and foreign language skills (Anderson et al. 200 6 ; Black & Duhon, 2006; Lewin, 2009; Savicki, 2008). Academic learning outcomes In terms of aca demic learning, there is evidence that study abroad can enhance the development of disciplinary knowledge and skills (Hadis, 2005; Immelman & Schneier, 1998; McKeown, 2006). For example, most professionals working in study abroad and international educatio n today embrace the notion that study ab road can

PAGE 159

159 scale study conducted by the Institute for the International Education of Studen ts (IES) reported long term, positive impacts of influencing issues such as career path, worldview, and self confidence of alumni (Dwyer & Peters, 2004). Meanwhile, others have doc umented gains in foreign language learning and cultural knowledge as well as an increased interest in interdisciplinary studies resulting from participation study abroad experiences (Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005). Personal growth outcomes Many colleges and uni versities promote study abroad programs as opportunities for students to broaden their worldview and increase their intercultural awareness (Anderson et al. 2006). In a study at Oregon State University 97% of study abroad participants reported that their experience was worth the cost with the largest benefits being broadening their cultural perspective, enriching their personal life and enriching their academic experience (King & Young, 1994). Moreover, several studies have indicated that study abroad prov ides students opportunities to examine their own national identity and associated traits and their role in the global context (Dolby, 2004). Intercultural development outcomes Other studies have documented gains in the development of cultural knowledge, cu ltural sensitivity, and interpersonal maturity of study abroad participants (Engel & Engel, 2004; Kitsantas, 2004; McCabe, 1994). For example, Chieffo and Griffiths (2004) found significant changes in intercultural awareness, functional knowledge, global i nterdependence, and personal growth and development for students who participated

PAGE 160

160 in sho rt term study abroad programs. They concluded that short term study abroad personal liv undergraduate business students who participated in a four week, faculty led study abroad program in Europe also found that short term programs can have a positive impact on the overall dev elopment of cross cultural sensitivity (Anderson et al., 2006). (Anderson et a l., 2006, p. 467). Science and Engineering Student Participation in Study Abroad As discussed earlier in this paper, participation in study abroad by students in the science and engineering disciplines is relatively low when compared to the social sciences business and the humanities. Yet, study abroad offers one potential mechanism for students in these disciplines to acquire globally relevant skills required for future careers that specifically focus on addressing critical science based issues of nation al and international impor tance (Grandin, 2006; Guerrero et al. 2007; Haddad, 1997). However, numerous obstacles exist for science and engineering students interested in completing an international experience as part of their college education. These incl ude fitting the study abroad opportunity into a generally crowded and rigid curriculum and a lack of motivation and support on behalf of some faculty and administrators who believe that scientific concepts are culturally neutral and best studied in U.S. in stitutions (Shih, 2009; Van Eyck, Van To ll, Wattiaux & Ferrick, 2012). Graduate level science and engineering students interested in study abroad

PAGE 161

161 experiences face additional obstacles such as mentors who are reluctant to allow graduate students to leave th e lab and a lack of funding for such experiences. Student Learning Outcomes for Science and Engineering Students Despite the availability of research evidence documenting the general positive impacts of study abroad experiences on students, very few studie s have been conducted to investigate the academic, personal or intercultural learning outcomes for students in science and engineering disciplines. However, below I review those few papers that have investigated these outcomes for science and engineering s tudents. Academic learning outcomes A wide ranging literature search located a few studies focusing on the academic learning outcomes of science and engineering students participating in international programs. Bender, Wright and Lopatto (2009) investigate reported changes associated with three undergraduate science experiences: a domestic undergraduate biology research program (UBRP), a semester at sea program (SAS), and a biomedical research abroad program (BRAVO). Results indicated that s tudents in the BRAVO and SAS programs were highly motivated by the international scope of their programs and reported comparable or greater gains on certain academic constructs than domestic program participants. These constructs included becoming part of a learning community, skill in oral presentations, skill in science writing and skill in interpretation of results (Bender et al., 2009, p. 311). However, a more recent study by Lumkes, Hallett and Vallade (2012) which examined the impact of a study abroa d course on agriculture and environment globalization in China, reported a lack of evidence of academic outcomes resulting from the international experience. This research study found that the study abroad

PAGE 162

162 ledge of Chinese agriculture and environmental issues and their understanding of the general nature of the global self awareness and outlook on global political issues. The most tangible learning outcomes reported were not in the academic realms of globalization, agriculture or the environment, but rather focused more on the cultural and personal development of the students. Personal outcomes In addition to the findings of increased self awareness and global awareness by Lumkes et al. (2012) mentioned above, a few other studies of science and engineering related study abroad experiences have investigated these personal outcomes. An early assessment of a study abroad program in engineering at Kettering University reported Chandran, 2002), and Guerrero et al. (2007) reported that U.S. computer science and engineering students participating in an intern 10). Bender et al. (2009) also found that students on a biomedical research abroad program experienced significant personal gr owth, indicated by increases in their levels of self confidence and increased awareness of global issues. Intercultural development outcomes The intercultural development inventory (IDI), which is based on Milton Bennett's Developmental Model of Intercultu ral Sensitivity (DMIS; Bennett, 1993), is used frequently in research regarding general study abroad experiences. This assessment

PAGE 163

163 competence/sensitivity across a dev elopmental continuum for individuals, groups and organizations (Figure 5 1). The first three stages, denial of difference, defense of difference and minimization of difference are identified as ethnocentric stages. In these stages, the individual values hi s/her own culture more highly than other cultures. The latter three stages, acceptance of difference, adaptation to difference, and integration of difference are ethnorelative, with other cultures viewed in an increasingly positive and non threatening ligh track progression from denial and defense, through minimization, adaptation, and integration with another culture. However, the IDI has not often been used to assess intercultural developm ent resulting from participation in science and engineering related study abroad experiences. This is despite the acknowledgment that intercultural competence is an important skill for scientists and engineers (Beckman et al. 2007; Guest et al., 2006). In tercultural competence gains were investigated by Bender et al., (2009) and they reported that students on an international biomedical program exhibited greater increases compared with students on domestic biology or semester at sea programs. In their stud y, students demonstrated enhanced global awareness and, as participants in an immersion experience, they reported greater understanding of their host country cultures, with a tendency to form stronger relationships with individuals in that country. Similar ly, Pedersen (2010) reported that students on a semester long psychology course in England experienced significant changes in their intercultural development, as measured by the IDI.

PAGE 164

164 Minority Student Participation in Study Abroad Even as overall college le vel study abroad participation has increased, American students studying ab road remain disproportionately W hite in comparison to the racial composition of college level students overall (Dessoff, 2006; IIE, 2011; Shih; 2009). Despite substantial efforts to increase the participation of ethnic minority students in study abroad, the gap between ethnic minority and majority students participating in these programs is actually widening (Dessoff, 2006; Salisbury, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 201 0 ; Shih, 2009). Many re asons have been cited to explain the low levels of study abroad participation by African American, Hispanic/Latino(a), Asian American, Native American and other minority groups. Marjorie Ganz, Director of the Study Abroad and International Exchange Program at Spelman College, offered one of the most widely accepted explanations for this phenomenon when she cited barriers she refers to as the four Fs : family, faculty, finances and fear (Pickard & Ganz, 2005). Others have expounded upon these ideas and cited additional obstacles and constraints, including a lack of culturally relevant study abroad programs and minority student misconceptions about the value of study abroad (Brux & Fry, 20 10 ). Although recent research has shed some light on the factors influen cing minority student decisions to study abroad (Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Salisbury et al., 20 10 ), a detailed understanding of the impact of participation in study abroad experiences on present study increase levels of minority student participation (p. 24).

PAGE 165

165 Student Learning Outcomes for Minority Students Participating in Study Abroad Few studies h ave investigated the impacts of study abroad experiences on minority students, perhaps because their levels of participation in these programs are so low. However, several reports suggest numerous potential benefits for minority students, including positiv e impacts on employment readiness, the expansion of job opportunities; increases in income potential and development of new career relevant skills (Ikeda, 2006; Picard, Bernardino & Ehigiator, 2009). Advocates also claim that, after completing study abroad experiences, minority students get better grades and improve their chances of acceptance to graduate, medical and law school (Martinez, 2011). However, these assertions are generally unsubstantiated by empirical research. While not an explicit objective o f this study, the findings for the SEAGEP science and engineering graduate students may provide data to enhance our understanding of the benefits of study abroad participation for ethnic minorities. Study Design This study was conducted at the University of Florida (UF), in conjunction with the National Science Foundation funded South East Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (SEAGEP). This program is a collaboration between three universities: UF, Clemson University, and the University of South Carolina (USC) and provides a comprehensive professional development program designed to increase minority representation among science technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) faculty. During 2011, SEAGEP implemented a series of new internat ional initiatives for their graduate students to address the need for global experience at the graduate level. These comprehensive international experiences were designed to provide students with opportunities to develop global competencies that would give

PAGE 166

166 them a competitive edge in their preparation for, and pursuit of academic careers. programs were investigated in this study: UF in China (May, 2011); UF in South Africa (J une, 2011); and UF in Brazil (July, 2011). A specific science and/or engineering topic formed the basis of each program with related visits to science and engineering educational and research facilities, private sector facilities and manufacturing sites, g overnment agencies, and museums as well as organized cultural activities. Each program was approximately 12 days in length and visited several cities and/or provinces in the host country. The UF in China program focused on manufacturing and transportation engineering in the cities of Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai. The UF in South Africa program focused on natural resources and water conservation and included visits to Johannesburg, Pretoria rural areas of Limpopo province as well as a visit to Kruger Natio nal Park. The UF in Brazil program focused on biofuels, agriculture and natural resources and included time in three cities : Sao Paulo, Campinas, and Piracicaba as well as an overnight stay at a rural ecological research institute near Nazare Paulista and a day trip to Jureia Natural Park on the Atlantic coast. While traveling on all three trips, students had opportunities to meet with researchers, faculty and students at host institutions, talk with government representatives and participate in group prese ntations and discussions about various aspects of the trip. A particular challenge for assessment of study abroad experiences is the inherent belief that students will increase in maturity during their participation. As a result, it was necessary to impl ement a research design that provided control for issues of internal validity. To minimize these validity threats, a pre trip and post trip design, with a

PAGE 167

16 7 comparison group of non study abroad participants was used. This two part design facilitated the docu mentation of academic STEM learning personal growth, and intercultural development outcomes of students participating in the SEAGEP study abroad programs (Part 1), and the investigation of how these targeted outcomes differed between equivalent groups of students who did and did not participate in a study abroad program (Part 2). Study Sample Part 1 SEAGEP P rogram P articipants The original study sample consisted of 35 SEAGEP affiliated graduate students enrolled in study abroad programs in 2011, with 15 visiting China and 10 visiting South Africa and Brazil respectively. All of these the students were pursuing doctoral degrees in science or engineering and all met NSF criteria for classification as underrepresented minorities in these disciplines. Some s tudents did not complete both pre and post trip assessments, thus the final study sample consisted of 33 students with complete data for the academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument and 31 students for the IDI. The final study sampl e included 1 6 male and 1 7 female students, with 18 from engineering, and 15 from the life and physical science disciplines. There were 17 Black/African/African American students, 15 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish students, and 1 American Indian or Alaskan Native. Part 2 Comparison G roup P articipant To address the second purpose of the study, an additional 32 underrepresented science and engineering graduate students served as a comparison group. SEAGEP participants assisted with recruitment of the comparison gro up by identifying counterparts in their respective disciplines with similar demographics (ethnicity and

PAGE 168

168 gender). This selective recruitment approach ensured that the comparison group matched the study abroad program group as closely as possible (Table 5 1) Thirty two comparison group participants completed the academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment and 30 completed the IDI. The comparison group included 14 male and 18 female students, with 11 from engineering, and 21 from the life and physic al science disciplines. There were 17 Black/African/African American students and 15 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish students. Data Collection Instruments Two quantitative instruments were administered electronically to measure academic STEM learning personal gr owth and intercultural development of student participants before and after completion of a study abroad experience. The first reported perceptions of their own academic STEM learni ng and personal growth outcomes. The second assessment instrument, used to measure intercultural development was the commercially available Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). Both assessment instruments are described in more detail below. Study ab road participants completed both pre trip assessments immediately following the pre departure orientation for each program approximately two weeks prior to departure. Students completed the same two post trip assessments approximately two weeks after their return to the U.S. However, in some cases, post trip assessments were not completed until up to four weeks after program completion, as not all students returned immediately to the U.S. Students in the comparison group completed the same two assessments d uring the fall of 2011.

PAGE 169

169 Academic STEM learning and p ersonal g rowth a ssessment i nstrument As mentioned in Chapter 2 and in the literature review above, very few studies have assessed academic and personal outcomes of science and engineering students partic ipating in study abroad programs. Thus, a new assessment instrument for these targeted outcomes was developed as part of this study. The three part assessment instrument includes 29 statements with a 5 point Likert type response scale and 9 demographic ite ms. The first 14 items focus on academic STEM learning outcomes with three sub constructs: professional self efficacy (4 items), global science communication (5 items), and the socio cultural role of science/engineering (5 items). The second section contai ns 15 items focus ing personal growth outcomes with three additional constructs: career related perceptions (6 items), personal confidence (6 items), and general global awareness (3 items). The third section contains nine demographic and personal background questions including name, age, sex, race, nationality, previous general travel experience, previous travel experiences to the specific study abroad site country, languages spoken, and levels of fluency. Details regarding the development and validation of this assessment instrument are provided in Chapter 4. Intercultural d evelopment i nventory orientation toward cultural difference and commonality. The IDI consists of 16 dem ographic information items and 50 Likert type items and has been shown to be a statistically reliable and valid measure of intercultural sensitivity in many contexts The IDI includes items based on actual statements made by people from many cultures throu ghout the world. The wording and content of the items reflect a range of viewpoints toward cultural differences. For example, one item asks respondents to indicate their

PAGE 170

170 misunderstan ding due to cultural differences in gesturing or eye contact details regarding the IDI, including reliability and validity information, are available on the IDI website (http://idiinventory.com/) and in several associated publications (Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman, 2003 Hammer, 2011). development in relation to the DMIS continuum (Figure 5 1). For the purposes of this score on the IDI was used. This commonalities along the continuum and is the perspective that an individual is most likely to use in situations where cultural differences and commonalities need to be bridged. Data Analysis Part 1 SEAGEP Program Participant Outcomes Descriptive statistics including means, standard errors and standard deviations were calculated for the pre trip and post trip assessment scores for each acad emic personal and intercultural outcome construct and sub construct (Table 5 2). In addition, means and standard deviations were calculated separately for engineering students and life and physical science students (Table 5 3) and separately for groups co mpleting each of the three different trips (Table 5 4). Inferential statistics in the form of paired t tests were used to determine the significance of changes in pre trip and post trip scores for each targeted outcome. In all cases a 95% confidence level was used ( =0.05) to determine significance. One way

PAGE 171

171 (China, South Africa or Brazil) on academi c STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development. Part 2 Comparison Group Outcomes In addition to descriptive statistics (means, standard errors and standard deviations) for each of the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultu ral development outcome constructs and sub constructs, independent samples t tests were used to compare the post trip outcome assessment scores of the study abroad participant group with outcome assessment scores of the comparison group. In all cases a 95% confidence level was used ( =0.05) to determine significan ce Results The results for the statistical analyses are broken down into two parts. First, I examine the differences between the pre and post trip assessment s cores of the SEAGEP program particip ants. These analyses also include an examination of the programs. The second part of the analyses examines the differences between assessment scores of students in the SEA GEP participant group versus the comparison group. Part 1 SEAGEP Program Participant Outcomes Descriptive statistics for the pre trip and post trip assessment scores of the entire study abroad group are presented in Table 5 2. Table 5 3 includes descript ive statistics for the assessment scores broken down into separate engineering and life and physical science groups and Table 5 4 summarizes descriptive statistics for assessment scores

PAGE 172

172 of students completing each of the three different trips. Inferential statistical analysis results are presented in Table 5 5 Academic STEM learning outcomes For the study abroad group, mean scores on the overall academic STEM learning construct increased from 63.76 ( SD = 8.02) on the pre trip assessment to 67.21 ( SD = 5.81 ) on the post trip assessment. A paired samples t test compared the academic STEM learning construct and sub construct scores on the pre trip and post trip assessments. There was a significant difference in the scores for the pre trip and post trip assessm ents for the overall academic STEM learning construct; t (32) = 2.954, p =0.006. Similarly, mean scores increased between pre trip and post trip assessments for all three academic STEM learning sub constructs ( professional self efficacy in science and engi neering global science communication, and socio cultural role of science and engineering pre trip). These differences in scores for the pre trip and post trip assessments were significant for the socio cultural role of science and engineering sub construc t; t (32) = 4.079, p =0.000. However, there was not a significant difference in the pre trip and post trip scores for the professional self efficacy in science and engineering [ t (32) = 1.343, p =0.189] or global science communication [ t (32) = 1.954, p = 0. 059] sub constructs. When broken down into life and physical science and engineering sub groups, there was no significant difference between gain scores for the academic STEM learning construct at the p <.05 level [ F (1, 31) = 2.590, p = 0.118]. Nor were th ere significant differences between g ain scores for students from the different disciplines on two of the academic sub constructs at the p <.05 level [ professional self efficacy in science and engineering ; F (1, 31) = 1.045, p = 0.315: socio cultural role of science and

PAGE 173

173 engineering; F (1, 31) = 0.258, p = 0.615]. However, there was a significant difference between the gain scores of the two discipline groups on the science communication sub construct [ F (1, 31) = 4.457, p = 0.043]. There was no significant diff erence between gain scores for the overall academic STEM learning construct for groups visiting each study abroad site [ F (2, 30) = 1.313, p = 0.284]. Similarly, there were no significant differences between the changes in pre and post trip scores on the a cademic STEM learning sub constructs for the groups on the three study abroad programs [ professional self efficacy in science and engineering ; F (2, 30) = 1.218, p = 0.310: science communication; F (1, 31) = 1.389, p = 0.265: and socio cultural role of scien ce and engineering; F (2, 30) = 0.281, p = 0.757]. Personal growth outcomes Mean scores on the overall personal growth construct increased significantly from 59.09 ( SD = 7.53) on the pre trip assessment to 63.61 ( SD = 7.14) on the post trip assessment ( t ( 32)= 3.958, p =0. 000). All three personal growth sub construct mean scores also significantly increased between the pre trip and post trip assessments (personal confidence [ t (32)= 2.357, p =0.025], career perceptions [ t (32)= 3.233, p =0.003], and global awareness [ t (32)= 3.996, p = 0.000] ). There was not a significant difference between the gain scores for the pre and post trip scores of the life and physical science students compared to engineering students on the overall personal growth construct at the p <.05 level [ F (1, 31) = 0.998, p = 0.326]. Nor were there significant differences in gain scores in three personal growth sub construct s for students from the life and physical sciences compared to engineering [career perceptions; F (1, 31) = 1.651, p = 0.208: personal confidence; F (1, 31) = 0.288, p = 0.596: and global awareness; F (1, 31) = 0.100, p = 0.754]. In addition, there was no

PAGE 174

174 significant difference between the gain scores on the personal construct scores at the p <.05 level for the students that participated in the different trips. The gain scores in the pre and post trip assessments for the overall personal growth construct [ F (2, 30) = 0.328, p = 0.723] and for the three personal growth sub constructs [career perceptions; F (2, 30) = 0.351, p = 0.707: personal confidence; F (1, 31) = 1.012, p = 0.376: and global awareness; F (1, 31) = 1.614, p = 0.216] were not significant. Intercultural development outcomes Mean scores on the IDI did not change significantly pre trip to post trip ( t (30)= 0.590, p =0.559) indicating that this instrument did not detect changes in levels of intercultural development. When broken down into life and physical science and engineering sub groups, there was also no significant difference between gain scores f or the academic STEM learning construct at the p <.05 level [ F (1, 29) = 3.545, p = 0.070. With respect to the three different trips, IDI mean scores increased for the group that went to China (pre trip M = 87.57, SD = 13.01and post trip M = 92.29, SD = 14.4 9). However, the IDI scores decreased for those who went to Brazil (pre trip M = 84.75, SD = 15.64 and post trip M = 82.43, SD = 10.58) and South Africa (pre trip M = 94.00, SD = 13.47 and post trip M = 86.20, SD = 14.34). There was a significant differenc e between gain scores across the three different trips [ F (2, 28) = 3.746, p = 0.036]. Post hoc analyses using Bonferroni pairwise comparison s indicated that there was a significant difference in gain scores between the group that went to China and the Sout h Africa group. However, there were no significant differences in gain scores between the China and Brazil groups, nor between the South Africa and Brazil groups.

PAGE 175

175 Part 2 Comparison Group Outcomes Des criptive statistics for the scores of the comparison gr oup are presented in Table 5 2. Independent t test results for comparisons between the study abroad and the non study abroad groups are presented in Table 5 6. Independent t test results indicated no significant differences between most of the academic STE M learning personal growth and intercultural development responses of the comparison group and the study abroad participants prior to their enrollment in the program. The one exception rceptions, wit h those enrolled in the international programs ( M = 24.15, SD = 3.35) reporting more positive perceptions of global career concepts than the comparison group ( M = 21.47, SD = 5.05); t (6 3 )= 2.518 p = 0.015. Academic STEM learning outcomes Independent t te st analyses yielded significant differences in academic STEM learning constructs when study abroad group post test scores were compared to those of the comparison group. Significant ly higher scores in all three sub construct assessments were also found whe n these two groups were compared (Table 5 6). Personal growth outcomes When independent t test construct, differences betwee n these two groups were significant and scores for the study abroad group were significantly higher than those of the comparison group. Scores on the career perceptions and personal confidence sub constructs were also significantly higher for the study abr oad group. However, global awareness sub construct scores for these two groups were not significantly different from each other.

PAGE 176

176 Intercultural development outcomes Independent t test comparisons between IDI scores of students in the study abroad and comp arison groups indicate no significant differences in levels of intercultural development of students who completed study abroad experiences and those who did not. Discussion Research Question 1 What are the self reported academic STEM learning personal g rowth and intercultural development outcomes of underrepresented life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participate in science and engineering related study abroad experiences? Results of this research study suggest that students completing science and engineering related study abroad experiences do significantly increase their self reported levels of academic STEM learning and personal growth as a result of participation in a study abroad experience. However, results of this study also suggest that science and engineering related study abroad experiences may not significantly indicate that study abroad experiences have significant positive i mpacts on all three personal growth sub constructs while changes in academic STEM learning sub constructs resulting from study abroad participation are more variable. Academic STEM learning outcomes In terms of academic STEM learning erceptions regarding the socio cultural role of science and engineering were significantly higher after completion of a study abroad experience while their perceptions of professional self efficacy in science and engineering and global science communicat ion did not

PAGE 177

177 significantly increase as a result of participation in a study abroad experience. While an individual item analysis was not conducted, examples of the individual items that comprise each sub construct can be found in Table 5 7. An examination o f the SEAGEP study abroad program itineraries (Appendix G ) and onsite observations conducted during each of the three study abroad programs suggest some possible explanations for these results. For example, as part of each study abroad program, students vi sited science and engineering projects focused on the advancement of society and bringing benefit to the local community. Visits to a water management project and an organic farming cooperative in South Africa, conversations with students and faculty at ke y research laboratories in China and visits to an ecological institute in Brazil all overtly emphasized the socio cultural role of science and engineering in the host countries. Thus, it is not surprising that gains for this sub construct were significant. Conversely, changes in the professional self efficacy in science and engineering and global science communication sub constructs were not significant While these sub constructs were found to be less reliable than the other academic STEM learning sub cons example, the visits to both South Africa and Brazil occurred during semester breaks at the host institutions, which limited the opportunities for interaction with local fa culty and students. These logistical constraints also prevented students from making presentations to audiences in their host countries during two of the study abroad programs may have hindered student growth in global science communication Finally, becau se all three study abroad experiences were interdisciplinary, it was not possible

PAGE 178

178 for students from many specializations to make connections with faculty expertise in each of their respective areas of focus. This limitation may have hindered student growth in both professional self efficacy in science and engineering and global science communication Personal growth outcomes The most powerful positive impacts resulting from completion of study abroad experiences in this study occurred in the area of person al growth outcomes. Overall, student scores for all three sub scales in the personal growth construct (personal confidence, career perceptions, and general global awareness) significantly increased as a result of participation in a study abroad experience. The individual items for each sub scale are presented in Table 5 7. These results suggest that students completing science and engineering related study abroad programs experience the same types of personal growth gains reported for students completing st udy abroad experiences in other disciplines. For example, several studies have reported the positive impact of confidence ( Anderson et al., 2006; Bender et al., 2009; Dwyer & Peters, 2004). Other studies have demonstrated positive levels of global awareness (Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Dolby, 2004; Lambert, 1993; McCabe, 1994). Intercultural development outcomes The lack o f growth in levels of intercultural development resulting from participation in study abroad experiences in this study is not surprising. Intercultural development or competence is not an explicit objective of the SEAGEP study abroad program, but it is oft en cited as a desired outcome for study abroad programs in

PAGE 179

179 general. Results of this study indicate that mere completion of a study abroad development will occur. In parti cular, this short term study tour program format, during which students stayed in hotels and typically participated in group academic and social activities, did not provide many opportunities for interaction with the host culture These findings substantia abroad for academic study is not enough to achieve the larger goal of creating effective global citizens ( Vande Berg 2007). Other researchers have also documented the need for specific and intentional interventions in order to facilitate intercultural development during study abroad experiences. For example, in a study of 50 students on a year long study abroad program in England, Pedersen (20 10 ) found that the use of an intercultural pedagogy and stud impacts on whether or not a student moved along the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS) as measured by the IDI. In particular, Pedersen determined that the use of intentional intercu ltural pedagogy is particularly important for students with limited international travel experience prior to completion of a study abroad program. This finding may also be applicable to the current study, which lacked a specific intercultural pedagogy and in which a third (33%) of participants had limited (two times or less) foreign travel experience. It is also important to note that the IDI has not been used previously to measure the intercultural development of science and engineering graduate students a nd may not be valid for use in this context Therefore, further research is needed in order to understand why science and engineering related study abroad programs do not seem to improve levels of intercultural development.

PAGE 180

180 Comparison of outcomes by disci pline Comparisons between engineering and life and physical science students completing study abroad experiences yielded no significant differences between pre trip or post trip scores for any of the three major categories of targeted outcomes ( academic ST EM learning personal growth, or intercultural development). These results indicate that: 1. engineering, and life and physical science graduate students had similar levels of academic STEM learning personal growth, and intercultural development before co mpleting the study abroad trips and 2. engineering and life and physical science students experienced similar increases (or lack of increase) in academic STEM learning personal growth, and intercultural development as a result of participation in the SEAG EP study abroad programs. Interestingly, there was a significant difference between science and engineering students on a single sub construct, that of global science communication. In this aspect, life and physical science students exhibited a significan tly greater gain score ( M = 1.8667, SD = 2.47) as a result of the program compared to engineering students ( M = 0.0556, SD = 2.44). T hese results may reflect the different backgrounds of the students and their previous experiences, rather than any impact o f the study abroad program on perceptions of global science communication. However, additional research is needed to further investigate this phenomenon. Comparison of outcomes by trip There were also no significant differences found between the academic S TEM learning and personal growth post trip scores of students participating in the three different trips. However, IDI post trip scores were significantly different for students completing the three different trips. Closer examination of the mean post trip IDI scores

PAGE 181

181 for each country visited indicate that students on the China trip experienced significant positive increases in their levels of intercultural development while students on the South Africa and Brazil programs did not experience significant gain s in their levels of intercultural development. Again, a review of the three program itineraries, together with onsite observations conducted during implementation of the three study abroad programs, provide tentative explanations for these results. Durin g the China program, students stayed in two different locations and spent most of their program time in Beijing. As a result, they had ample time for more independent explorations of the city during their free time, during which they had multiple opportuni ties to interact with local Chinese citizens and directly experience a very different culture. In addition, this trip occurred while local universities were still in session and students were able to spend time, both during the day and in the evenings, wit h their Chinese science and engineering graduate student counterparts. These numerous opportunities to interact with people from another culture appear to have played a major role in the increase of intercultural development of students during the China st udy abroad program. During the South Africa and Brazil programs however, students visited and stayed in multiple locations for short durations, which limited their opportunities for non structured individual exploration and interaction with local people a nd cultures. These trips also occurred during semester breaks at the local universities, which precluded opportunities for SEAGAP students to directly interact with their South African and Brazilian counterparts as envisaged in the program syllabus. Finall y, security and safety concerns in several locations visited during the South Africa and Brazil trips, such as

PAGE 182

182 Johannesburg and Sao Paulo, significantly restricted opportunities for students to explore the area during their free time, thus limiting the opt ions for cultural interaction. Overall, however, the results of this study suggest that participation in science and engineering related study abroad programs do have significant positive impacts on many areas of academic STEM learning personal growth, an d potentially intercultural development of participants. Previous research has clearly demonstrated the value of study abroad as a pathway to internationalization for college level students in general and the results of this study support those same conclu sions in science and engineering contexts (Anderson et al. 2006, Bender et al., 2009; Lumkes et al., 2012; Pedersen, 2010) However, this study was unique in that it also investigated the impact of study abroad participation on student outcomes that are sp ecific to science and engineering disciplines (e.g., socio cultural role and global science communication). These results suggest that assessment instruments used to evaluate the impact of study abroad experiences on science and engineering specific stude nt outcomes need to include more discipline related items and constructs in order to fully understand the impact of these experiences on science and engineering students. It would be useful to disciplinary knowledge, understanding of technical concepts or specific skills were impacted by participation in the study abroad experience. For example, an item that asks a student to rate his/her current level of disciplinary knowledge or confidence in their laboratory skills would enable faculty and study abroad administrators to use these findings to design activities to promote student learning in their discipline, in addition to general academic learning and personal growth.

PAGE 183

183 Res earch Question 2 Do perceived academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes of study abroad experiences differ for life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participate in study abroad experiences comp ared to those who do not? The results of Part 2 of this study suggest that, prior to program participation, the SEAGEP study abroad participants were representative of the broader population of under represented science and engineering graduate students i n most areas. However, one area in which students enrolled in the study abroad programs significantly differed from the comparison group prior to departure was that of career perceptions. Students enrolled in the study abroad program had higher pre trip pe rceptions of international career opportunities and exhibited more interest in living and working in another country as compared to students in the non study abroad group. This is not unexpected, given the fact that students participating in SEAGEP study abroad programs were self selected and thus were already more likely to have a pre existing interest in globally focused science or engineering careers. As Gray, Murdock and Stebbins (20 02 ) noted, self selection is a common challenge when assessing study a broad students, as they (p. 50). academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes were significantly higher than those of the comparison group suggesting that program participation did have a significant positive impact in both of these areas. However, for two constructs (intercultural development and general global awareness), study abroad participant post test scores were n ot significantly different from those of the comparison group. As I have previously noted, intercultural development was not an explicit objective of the SEAGEP study abroad

PAGE 184

184 program, and, as such, there were no specific program activities or assignments to enhance students learning in this area. Furthermore, previous research has suggested intentional pedagogy focused on intercultural competency outcomes must be included in a study abroad syllabus to ensure student development (Pedersen, 2010). Similarly, g lobal awareness was not a stated objective for student learning on the SEAGEP study abroad program, although students were expected to learn about the history, culture and traditions of the host country. In the academic STEM learning and personal growth as sessment instrument, the general global awareness sub construct consisted of only These results suggest that more direct attention needs to be devoted to addressing and assessing those aspects of student growth in future science and engineering related study abroad programs. Study Implications science and engineering students and support t he argument for development of more international programs in these disciplines. However, the lack of significant improvement in some targeted participant outcomes highlight some areas of focus that need to be addressed when conceptualizing and implementin g future science and engineering related study abroad programs and when designing assessment measures Specifically: To increase the professional self efficacy in science and engineering of graduate students who participate in science and engineering rela ted study abroad programs, opportunities should be provided to visit leading research facilities and meet with key faculty in the fields of study of the program participants. Graduate students have very specific research interests and it is important to pr ovide networking opportunities within their disciplines and fields of study, as well as in an interdisciplinary context. Such networking activities and research visits can provide

PAGE 185

185 program participants with the chance to observe the on going research and ca liber of facilities in the host country and enable them to make research specific connections. A ttention must be paid to the scheduling of programs to ensure multiple opportunities for students to meet and interact with their graduate student peers at hos t institutions. These interactions may not only impact participants perceptions of professional self efficacy in science and engineering through discussions with their counterparts, but may also provide opportunities for participants to make research pres entations to host audiences with science and/or engineering knowledge; To further enhance opportunities for global science communication during study abroad experiences, students should conduct presentations of their own research in their host countries an d engage in faculty led scientific discussions with graduate students and researchers to enhance their understanding of issues related to science communication across cultures; The results of the current study suggest that study abroad students experienced significant increases in their perception of the socio cultural role of science and engineering. These results are indicative of the multiple opportunities students had to learn about the impact of research on the local communities in the host culture. Of ten graduate students work in relative isolation, conducting field and/or laboratory research without the opportunity to explore or even understand the broader impacts of their work. These study abroad activities can provide the chance to observe the impac t of science and engineering in a real world context and can motivate students to pursue and persist with research that will benefit communities and ecosystems on a global scale. The significant positive impacts of the study abroad experience on the person al growth construct, including career perceptions, personal confidence and global awareness suggest that the combination of cultural and professional activities provided appropriate learning experiences. In particular, on each program students were provide information about various post graduate and job opportunities and were encouraged to develop contacts for future career exploration. In addition, the program included a variety of cultural activities during which students learned about the history, geogra phy, and politics of the host nation. Finally, as has been documented by study abroad programs, participation in international travel provided students with the opportunity to build their personal confidence. elopment, there should be more time for individual exploration and personal experience during the program. This, together with group and individual reflection exercises has been found to enhance study abroad participants intercultural development (Pederso n, 2010). In addition, study abroad faculty should be trained in intercultural pedagogy and course syllab i

PAGE 186

186 should include intentional interventions designed to promote intercultural development (Lederman, 2007; Pedersen, 20 10 )

PAGE 187

187 Ethnocentric Stages Ethno relative Stages 55 70 85 100 115 130 145 Figure 5 1. Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity and IDI Assessment Scale [Adapted from Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. 2003. Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Inter cultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421 443. ] Stage 1 Denial of D ifference Stage 2 Defense of Difference Stage 3 Minimization of Difference Stage 4 Acceptance of Difference Stage 5 Adaptation to Difference Stage 6 Integration of Difference

PAGE 188

188 Table 5 1. Demographics of student participants of the SEAGEP international program and the comparison group of under represented science and engineering gra duate students Participants Discipline Ethnicity Sex China 12 Engineering 3 Life & Physical Science 8 Black/African/African American 7 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish 8 Male 7 Female South Africa 3 Engineering 6 Life & Physical Science 4 Black/African/African A merican 4 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish 1 American Indian or Alaskan Native 2 Male 7 Female Brazil 3 Engineering 6 Life & Physical Science 5 Black/African/African American 4 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish 6 Male 3 Female Total Study Abroad 18 Engineering 15 Life & Physical Science 17 Black/African/African American 15 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish 1 American Indian or Alaskan Native 16 Male 17 Female Comparison Group 11 Engineering 21 Life & Physical Science 15 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish 17 Black/African/African American 14 Male 18 Female

PAGE 189

189 Table 5 2. Overall means, standard errors and standard deviations of academic, personal and intercultural development scores for the study abroad participant group and the comparison group Construct Sub construct Assessment Number of pa rticipants (n) Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Academic Outcomes Pre trip 33 63.76 8.02 1.40 Post trip 33 67.21 5.81 1.01 Comparison 32 62.53 7.68 1.36 Professional self efficacy in science and engineering Pre trip 33 17.73 2.39 0.42 Po st trip 33 18.27 1.35 0.24 Comparison 32 17.13 2.43 0.43 Global Science Communication Pre trip 33 19.97 3.22 0.56 Post trip 33 20.85 2.45 0.43 Comparison 32 19.53 2.77 0.49 Socio Cultural role of Science & Engineering Pre trip 33 19.33 2.93 0. 51 Post trip 33 21.09 2.66 0.46 Comparison 32 19.47 3.11 0.55

PAGE 190

190 Table 5 2. Continued Construct Sub construct Assessment Number of participants (n) Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Personal Outcomes Pre trip 33 59.09 7.53 1.31 Post trip 3 3 63.61 7.14 1.24 Comparison 32 56.66 10.07 1.78 Personal confidence Pre trip 33 25.42 3.94 0.69 Post trip 33 26.94 2.59 0.45 Comparison 32 25.03 3.38 0.60 Career Perceptions Pre trip 33 24.15 3.35 0.58 Post trip 33 25.91 3.49 0.61 Com parison 32 21.47 5.05 0.89 Global Awareness Pre trip 33 9.52 2.32 0.40 Post trip 33 10.76 2.77 0.48 Comparison 32 10.16 3.13 0.55 Intercultural Development Pre trip 31 89.42 13.75 2.47 Post trip 31 88.10 13.85 2.49 Comparison 30 87.27 14. 52 2.65

PAGE 191

191 Table 5 3. Means and standard deviations of academic, personal and intercultural development scores for engineering and life and physical science students who participated in the study abroad participant program Construct Sub construct Disciplin e Number of participants (n) Assessment Mean Standard Deviation Academic Outcomes Engineering 18 Pre trip Post trip 64.67 66.44 7.98 5.10 Life & Physical Science 15 Pre trip Post trip 62.67 68.13 8.22 6.63 Professional self efficacy in science and e ngineering Engineering 18 Pre trip Post trip 17.94 18.11 2.34 1.13 Life & Physical Science 15 Pre trip Post trip 17.47 18.47 2.50 1.60 Global Science Communication Engineering 18 Pre trip Post trip 20.11 20.17 3.07 2.64 Life & Physical Science 15 P re trip Post trip 19.80 21.67 3.49 1.99 Socio Cultural role of Science & Engineering Engineering 18 Pre trip Post trip 19.72 21.28 3.01 2.02 Life & Physical Science 15 Pre trip Post trip 18.87 20.87 2.88 3.34

PAGE 192

192 Table 5 3. Continued Construct Sub co nstruct Discipline Number of participants (n) Assessment Mean Standard Deviation Personal Outcomes Engineering 18 Pre trip Post trip 58.28 63.83 6.67 6.34 Life & Physical Science 15 Pre trip Post trip 60.07 63.33 8.59 8.23 Personal confidence Engin eering 18 Pre trip Post trip 25.39 27.22 4.07 2.32 Life & Physical Science 15 Pre trip Post trip 25.47 26.60 3.91 2.92 Career Perceptions Engineering 18 Pre trip Post trip 23.72 26.11 3.01 3.71 Life & Physical Science 15 Pre trip Post trip 24.67 2 5.67 3.75 3.33 Global Awareness Engineering 18 Pre trip Post trip 9.17 10.50 2.15 2.23 Life & Physical Science 15 Pre trip Post trip 9.93 11.07 2.52 3.37 Intercultural Development Engineering 18 Pre trip Post trip 87.50 90.76 12.66 15.07 Life & Physical Science 15 Pre trip Post trip 90.64 84.86 15.61 11.95

PAGE 193

193 Table 5 4. Means and standard deviations of academic, personal and intercultural development scores for students completing each study abroad program Construct Sub construct Country Number of participants (n) Assessment Mean Standard Deviation Academic Outcomes Brazil 9 Pre trip Post trip 65.56 68.56 7.45 5.27 China 15 Pre trip Post trip 65.57 67.36 8.22 6.31 South Africa 9 Pre trip Post trip 59.60 65.80 7.38 5.83 Professional sel f efficacy in science and engineering Brazil 9 Pre trip Post trip 18.56 18.67 2.01 1.50 China 15 Pre trip Post trip 17.93 18.07 2.09 1.27 South Africa 9 Pre trip Post trip 16.70 18.20 2.91 1.40 Global Science Communication Brazil 9 Pre trip Post tr ip 19.78 20.89 2.77 1.54 China 15 Pre trip Post trip 20.57 20.64 3.47 3.30 South Africa 9 Pre trip Post trip 19.30 21.10 3.41 1.86 Socio Cultural role of Science & Engineering Brazil 9 Pre trip Post trip 20.44 21.78 2.60 2.28 China 15 Pre trip P ost trip 20.00 21.71 3.01 2.27 South Africa 9 Pre trip Post trip 17.40 19.60 2.32 3.10

PAGE 194

194 Table 5 4. Continued Construct Sub construct Country Number of participants (n) Assessment Mean Standard Deviation Personal Outcomes Brazil 9 Pre trip Post trip 60.11 63.67 6.45 7.48 China 15 Pre trip Post trip 60.79 64.93 7.60 6.96 South Africa 9 Pre trip Post trip 55.80 61.70 7.98 7.41 Personal confidence Brazil 9 Pre trip Post trip 25.67 26.11 3.32 2.93 China 15 Pre trip Post trip 26.57 27.86 4.26 2.32 South Africa 9 Pre trip Post trip 23.60 26.40 3.66 2.46 Career Perceptions Brazil 9 Pre trip Post trip 25.00 26.00 3.20 3.64 China 15 Pre trip Post trip 24.50 26.57 3.25 3.76 South Africa 9 Pre trip Post trip 22.90 24.90 3.57 3.07 Global Awareness Brazil 9 Pre trip Post trip 9.44 11.56 1.33 2.40 China 15 Pre trip Post trip 9.71 10.50 2.79 2.93 South Africa 9 Pre trip Post trip 9.30 10.40 2.50 2.99 Intercultural Development Brazil 7 Pre trip Post trip 84.75 82.43 15.64 10.58 C hina 15 Pre trip Post trip 87.57 92.29 13.01 14.49 South Africa 9 Pre trip Post trip 94.00 86.20 13.47 14.34

PAGE 195

195 Table 5 5. Paired t test comparisons of pre and post trip academic, personal and intercultural development scores for the study abroad partic ipant group (alpha = 0.05) Construct Sub construct Number of participants (n) Mean Standard Deviation t Value Significance (p) Academic Outcomes 33 3.45 6.72 2.954 .006 Professional self efficacy in science and engineering 33 0.55 2.33 1.343 .189 Glo bal Science Communication 33 0.88 2.58 1.954 .059 Socio Cultural role of Science & Engineering 33 1.76 2.48 4.079 .000 Personal Outcomes 33 4.52 6.55 3.958 .000 Personal confidence 33 1.52 3.69 2.357 .025 Career Perceptions 33 1.76 3.12 3.233 .003 Global Awareness 33 1.24 1.79 3.996 .000 Intercultural Development 31 1.32 12.48 0.590 .559

PAGE 196

196 Table 5 6. Independent t tests of academic, personal and intercultural development scores for the study abroad participant group and comparison group (alpha = 0.05) Construct Sub construct Pre trip & Comparison Group Post trip & Comparison Group Degrees of Freedom t value p value Degrees of Freedom t value p value Academic Outcomes 63 0.629 0.532 63 2.775 .007 Professional self efficacy in science and engineering 63 1.007 0.318 63 2.341 .023 Global Science Communication 63 0.588 0.559 63 2.032 .046 Socio Cultural Role of Science & Engineering 63 0.181 0.857 63 2.261 .027 Personal Outcomes 63 1.106 0.273 63 3.218 .002 Personal confidence 63 0.43 1 0.668 63 2.560 .013 Career Perceptions 63 2.518 0.015 63 4.112 .000 Global Awareness 63 0.940 0.351 63 0.820 .415 Intercultural Development 60 0.446 0.657 60 0.228 .820

PAGE 197

197 Table 5 7. Academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument items by subscale Academic STEM learning Outcomes Scales Professional self efficacy in science and engineering I believe that I can learn new knowledge from scientis ts/engineers in other countries I am aware of scientific/engineering research o pportuni ties in other countries I value research conducted by scientists/engineers in other countries I believe that I can learn new skills from scientists/engineers in other countries Global Science Communication I think science/engineering are communicate d using similar methods in other countries I believe that English is the most important language in the communication of science/engineering I am comfortable giving an academic presentation in an international setting I think it is important for scienti sts/engineers to speak more than one language I am comfortable discussing my research with people from other countries Socio Cultural Role of Science/ Engineering It is important to understand the perspectives of people from other countries have regar ding science/engineering I feel I can apply my research in global settings My discipline has an important role to play in solving global problems I have a clear understanding about the role of science and engineering in other countries I have a clear understanding about the role of science/engineering in other countries

PAGE 198

198 Table 5 7. Continued Personal Growth Outcomes Scales Career related perceptions I feel prepared to work on a multinational research project I am interested in working on a multin ational project I am interested in working as a scientist/engineer in another country I feel confident about practicing my discipline in a different country I am competent to work as a scientist/engineer in other countries I aspire to work in another country Personal Confidence I am prepared to live in another country I am confident that I can take care of myself in a new situation I have the ability to make a difference in the world I am confident that I can deal efficiently with unexpected eve nts I am confident in my abilities as a scientist/engineer I am a self sufficient person General Global Awareness I am knowledgeable about international issues I am familiar with current events in China/South Africa/Brazil I am familiar with curren t events in other countries

PAGE 199

199 CHAPTER 6 BEST PRACTICES FOR G RADUATE LEVEL STUDY ABROAD IN THE SCIENC E AND ENGINEERING DISC IPLINES Traditionally, study abroad opportunities have focused on undergraduate students in the social sciences, business and hu manities disciplines. The Institute for International Education (IIE, 2011) reports that, during the 2009 2010 academic year, 85.4% of U.S. college students who participated in a study abroad program were undergraduates. In addition, 22.3% were social scie nces majors, 20.8% were business and management majors and 12.1% were humanities majors. Only 7.5% of study abroad students during the 2009 2010 academic year were physical or life science majors and 3.9% were engineering majors. Further, only 13.6 % were graduate programs, such as law and medicine, and 0.6% doctoral students. However, the IIE data also indicate that there has been a slow but steady increase in both the number of graduate students and the number of science and engineering majors participating in study abroad programs over the last decade. This reflects the fact that many institutions of higher education are currently trying to address these historic imbalances, of fering more study abroad opportunities for graduate students and students in traditionally underrepresented disciplines such as science and engineering (Gearon, 2011). These increases in graduate student and science and engineering major participation, tog ether with a growing recognition of the importance of an international experience for all students, provide d the underlying rationale for this study. Purpose of the Study and Research Question There is clearly an increasing need to document the impact of i nternational study abroad experiences on college students, particularly those at the graduate level and

PAGE 200

200 those majoring in science and engineering disciplines. The recent report from a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded workshop entitled International Experiences in STEM Graduate Education and Beyond: From Anecdotal to Empirical Evidence highlighted this need. This workshop, which convened a group of experts on international education, identified priority areas for future research on graduate level int ernational experiences (Blumenfield & Nerad, 2012). These priorities include: (a) an examination of the impact identification of the most effective study abroad progr am structures and characteristics, including length, timing and location of programs; and (c) the assessment and documentation of participant learning outcomes following completion of an international experience. According to Nerad and Blumenfield (2012), while there is an increasing level of acceptance of, and participation in, study abroad programs by graduate students, little comprehensive evaluative research has been conducted to assess the efficacy of these programs and determine what types and models of international experience are most effective for this population of students. Furthermore, they acknowledge that the lack of evaluative data regarding the effectiveness of study abroad programs is especially problematic in the science and engineering fie lds, which have traditionally faced many obstacles regarding international opportunities for students. Kirk (2008) agrees with researchers who participate in international collabo empirical evidence regarding these impacts and outcomes is still lacking (p. 3).

PAGE 201

201 Previous research (Chapter 5) has suggested that a short term s tudy abroad experience can significantly impact academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for graduate students in the science and engineering disciplines. However, the existing literature does not clearly indicate whic h specific components of science and engineering related study abroad program enhance and/or limit student gains in each of these three areas of targeted outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine which specific components of graduate level study abroad programs designed specifically for science and engineering academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes. This study sought to answer the following specific research quest ion: What are the essential components of a successful graduate level study abroad program in the science and engineering disciplines? In this paper, I present the results of a qualitative study of three short term study abroad programs designed for scienc e and engineering graduate students. Using this rich set of contextual evidence, my goal is to provide college and university faculty and administrators in the science and engineering disciplines with specific recommendations to guide the development, impl ementation and evaluation of successful study abroad programs for graduate students. Literature Review Modern study abroad at U.S. institutions of higher education dates back to the early part of the twentieth century and currently, more than 270,000 col lege students study abroad each year (Baskin, 1965; IIE, 2011). As the numbers of students and the numbers of programs have increased, various guidelines and best practices recommendations have evolved to guide the development, implementation and

PAGE 202

202 evaluatio n of these programs. Recently, several study abroad organizations have taken the next step with the development of formalized standards and benchmarks for study abroad practice. While these guidelines and standards primarily focus on undergraduate study ab road programs and do not focus specifically on science and engineering related international experiences, a review of these documents provides a useful context for this research study. General Standards for College Level Study Abroad Programs In recent ye ars, two different organizations have developed standards and guidelines for college level study abroad programs: the Institute for International Education of Students Abroad (IES Abroad) and the Forum on Education Abroad (Forum). The IES Abroad is one of the oldest and largest study abroad providers, representing a consortium of 195 U.S. colleges and universities and enrolling almost 6,000 students annually. The Forum on Education Abroad is a non profit organization recognized by the U.S. Department of Jus tice and the Federal Trade Commission as the standards development organization for the field of education abroad. The Forum currently has more than 550 members, including U.S. colleges and universities, overseas institutions, consortia, agencies and third party provider organizations. In 1999, IES Abroad assembled a group of leaders in both international and U.S. higher education to address the growing need for more effective program development and assessment in international education. This research and analysis effort produced the first version of the IES standards document called ISE Abroad Model Assessment Practice (MAP) for Study Abroad Programs in 1999. These initial IES Abroad standards served as the foundation for subsequent development of the Fo Standards of Good Practice for Education Abroad in 2007. Joan Gillespie, associate vice president

PAGE 203

203 for academic affairs and assessment at the Institute for International Education advocates applying both sets of standards, those of the Forum and those of IES MAP, standards are explicit in describing the framework for planning and operating a program abroad and the types of policies and procedures that are required to support the The IES Abroad Model Assessment Practice for Study Abroad Programs These study abroad standards focus on three categories: (a) the student learning environment, including pre departure preparation, cours ework, internships and field study; (b) resources for student learning, including administrative and staff qualifications, student qualifications, facilities, housing, health, and safety and risk management; and (c) the field of assessment of student learn ing and development abroad. These categories are intended to serve as the framework for design, development and evaluation of all college level study abroad programs. The Forum on Education Abroad Standards of Good Practice for Education Abroad The fourth Standards of Good Practice for Education Abroad (2011) lists nine specific standards to guide the design, implementation and assessment of college level study abroad programs. These standards include five institutional and four prog rammatic level program requirements. At the institutional level, the standards stipulate that: 1. 2. the institution must provide adequate financial and personnel resources for fund ing and staffing these programs

PAGE 204

204 3. the institution should have a clearly defined academic framework to govern study abroad institution wide 4. the institution must ensure that programs have adequate health, safety, security and risk management procedures in pla ce 5. the institution must operate ethically and with integrity Programmatic guidelines require each study abroad program to: 6. identify specific student learning objectives for study abroad 7. use fair and transparent participant selection procedures 8. use app ropriate codes of conduct 9. provide adequate preparation for students through pre and post trip advising and support activities (Forum on Education Abroad, 2011) With the recent growth in short term study abroad programs (eight weeks or less) and the incre asing numbers of students participating in these short term programs, the Forum recently developed the more specific Standards for Short Term Education Abroad Programs (2009). These standards were formulated using the existing framework of the nine Standar ds for Good Practice for Education Abroad and extracting elements from them that apply most directly to short term programs. There are still nine standards in this 2009 document, but more specific guidance is provided to ensure that, despite their brevity, these short term programs still maximize student learning opportunities. National Society for Experiential Education Standards for Practice Finally, as I consider study abroad as an experiential learning activity, it is appropriate to include a review of the (NSEE) Standards for Practice (1998). These eight standards mandate that experiential education programs, such as study abroad, ensure that: 1. all parties understand the intention, purpose, goals and objecti ves of the activity

PAGE 205

205 2. all participants receive adequate preparation and planning to support their learning, 3. all programs are authentic and provide experiences in a real world context 4. all programs have opportunities for reflection to transform the experience into a learning experience 5. all programs provide adequate orientation and training 6. all programs include monitoring and continuous improvement 7. learning outcomes for all participants are assessed 8. all parties to the experience are included in the recognition of progress and accomplishments (NSEE, 1998). Best Practices in College Level Study Abroad Despite the existence of standards and the large number of students participating in college level study abroad programs each year, only a limited number of article s and research studies have investigated and documented the actual use of best practices in the design and implementation of these programs (Sachau, Brasher & Fee, 2010). Yet, faculty members and program directors agree that when working with a short time frame for study abroad, preparation is tantamount to success, both for students and for the faculty members leading thee group (Donnelly Smith, 2009). The following sections summarize key findings from existing articles and research studies regarding best practices for study abroad programs. Program guidelines The guidelines for study abroad programming can be divided into three distinct, but equally important, components: (a) program design and development; (b) program implementation; and (c) program eval uation.

PAGE 206

206 Program design and development. A review of the available literature has revealed that there are four primary areas of consideration when designing and developing a study abroad program : a. curriculum design and content b. logistics (including timing, c ost etc.) c. personnel d. participant preparation Curriculum Design and Content A key recommendation in the design of study abroad program curricula is well defined objectives and learning goals. For example, Vande Berg (2007) contends that the design of stud y abroad programs must begin with the identification of learning goals for student participants and should only proceed with the identification of courses, activities and strategies for the program once these learning goals are clearly defined. Similarly, Sachau, et al. (2010), state that the first step in organizing a trip is to develop educational goals, which they divide into three categories of increasing knowledge, shaping attitudes, and building confidence. Beyond the initial identification of progra m goals and objectives, several researchers and organizations have advocated the integration of study abroad programs with the home curriculum (Association of Departments of Foreign Languages, 2008; Donnelly Smith, 2003; Parkinson, 2007; Stanitski & Fuellh art, 2003; Wainwright, Ram, Teodorescu & Tottenham 2009). At the same time, study abroad should be more than a U.S. style course that just happens to occur in another country. To this end, Henthorne, Miller and Hudson (2001) promote the inclusion of guest lecturers from host institution(s). They argue that local lecturers can provide a unique perspective, but warn that study abroad organizers must select guest speakers carefully and communicate

PAGE 207

207 with them prior to the program to ensure that their presentatio ns adequately address intended curriculum requirements. Koernig (2007) also emphasizes the importance of balancing the study abroad curriculum and suggests that the ideal time allocation is 40% academic activities (university and company visits), 40% struc tured cultural activities, and 20% free time for student free choice learning and exploration. He advocates involving the students in the planning of cultural activities, requiring them to submit a short list of sites they would like to visit during pre tr ip meetings. He also suggests leaving open time slots in the schedule to adjust the itinerary based on student feedback during actual implementation planning, organizing and conduct ing short term study abroad programs and on data collected for program evaluations. Conversely, Sachau et al., (2010) suggest that faculty leaders should pack the travel tour itinerary with scheduled activities and give students very little opportunity to modify the daily schedule once the trip starts. However, they do agree with Koenig that soliciting student input during the pre trip planning phase and building in one or two days for unstructured, independent student exploration are important consideratio ns. Sachau et al., (2010) based these recommendations on an examination of three different short term study abroad programs: the summer semester abroad, the study tour, and the service learning trip. Logistics. The key recommendation in relation to program logistics is to begin planning early. Most researchers suggest starting planning at least one year prior to departure (Sachau et al., 2010; Tritz & Martin, 1997). The Association of Departments

PAGE 208

208 of Foreign Languages (ADFL) not only advocates early planning on behalf of faculty and/or administrations, but also emphasizes the importance of including all stakeholders, including participants, in the planning process (ADFL, 2008). Henthorne et al., (2001) and Stanitski and Fuellhart (2003) both stress the need t o assess he level of student interest in international study as a critical preliminary planning activity. Koenig (2007) advises that major logistical considerations for planning a study abroad program includes location, cost, travel arrangements, program activities, and program duration. Locations or destinations of study abroad programs have received attention in several best practices publications. For example, Sachau, et al., (2010) suggest that the trip leader should establish a home base location for the program, securing accommodations and arranging other logistics well in advance. They argue that a program will be more successful if the location is selected to fit the both the the cost of a study abroad program are also crucial to success. The size of the study abroad group, rates for transportation and accommodations, and faculty and staff salaries must all be considered when developing the budget for any program (Koenig, 2007 ; Sachau et al., 2010). Personnel. and time a study abroad program, the selection of a faculty leader who i s passionate and knowledgeable about the type of program is extremely important (AFDL, 2008). Henthorne et possess a genuine enthusiasm for and belief in this type of experiential le

PAGE 209

209 Additionally, Donnelly Smith (2009) promotes the selection of faculty leaders who are inter culturally competent, able to adapt to working in different locations and cultures, and comfortable and competent with experiential teaching. Lutte rman Aguilar and Gingerich (200 2 ) say that faculty and staff who are trained in experiential education and intercultural education must facilitate programs. In terms of faculty preparation, Henthorne, et al., (2001) emphasize the importance of an initial p lanning visit to the study abroad site to provide faculty leaders with a basic working knowledge of the study area and allow them to make contact with local hosts and lecturers and begin to formulate the itinerary and arrange specific site visits. Particip ant preparation students with cross cultural adjustments and makes experiencing another culture more (1997) and Roberts and Jones (2009) both emphasize the importance of identifying existing knowledge as part of their study abroad faculty trip leaders to dir ectly address misconceptions and help participants build a solid base for the new knowledge they will gain through their experience. Participant preparation should also include traveler tips and address practical concerns in order to reduce student anxiety about issues ranging from appropriate clothing to food options. According to McGowan (200 7 ), students tend to worry about their study abroad experience and its potent ial application to reduce anxiety and stress while at the same

PAGE 210

210 With regard to facilitating cross cultural adjustments, some studies have demonstrated the importance of pre departure or ientations with a specific cultural focus, while others have contradicted those findings. For example, Fuller (2007) used the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) to conduct a pre trip and post trip assessment of the impact of study abroad experiences of variable lengths on a sample of 18 graduate level theology students. He found that the study abroad experiences had no ( Fuller, 2007). Fuller (2007) suggests that a lack of appropriate preparation was partially responsible for immersion experiences (p. 328). The Georgetown Conso rtium Study (Vande Berg, Connor Linton & Paige, 2009) determined that pre departure orientations with a strong cultural component were Vande Berg et al. (2009) there fore recommend that intercultural learning be included in pre research on the impact of pre departure preparation on student intercultural development during study abroad progra development using the IDI in a pre and post trip format and found that a pre departure concluded that two different conditions increased the likelihood that students would have a significant increase in intercultural sensitivity. Those were: 1) having parents

PAGE 211

211 who have had overseas experiences and 2) being non minority students (racial and ethnic minorities as well as internationa l students). Another important component of pre departure preparation is establishing contact media and other forms of electronic communication (Sachau et al., 2010). The y argue that this pre trip communication helps students begin building relationships and sharing information prior to the program and can also be used to maintain relationships after the trip. The detailed pre departure orientation activities outlined abo ve usually cannot be achieved in a single session, and thus several researchers advocate a series of pre departure briefings beginning several months before the trip (Sachau et al., 2010; Stanitski & Fuellhart, 2003 ). Koernig (2007) also recommends that pr e trip meetings/sessions be supplemented with frequent communication via email, phone and in person to ensure that students are comfortable with all trip plans and logistics and to maximize rapport among participants before departure. Program implementati on. There are many different models for implementation of study abroad programs, including U.S. faculty led programs, enrollment in host institution courses, cohort programs, and home stay programs. (Engle & Engle, 2003; Vande Berg, 2010). Despite this var iety in format, some best practices recommendations are applicable to the implementation of all study abroad programs. Intercultural learning Donnelly Smith (2009) recommends extensive integration of program participants within the local community, the i nclusion of lecturers from the host country, and opportunities for ongoing reflection for both individual students and

PAGE 212

212 the group as a whole. Koernig (2007) recommends that integration into the local community is best facilitated early in the program and su ggests that the first day of a study abroad experience should include a walking tour of the local area and an opportunity to use local transportation if available. He contends that these activities help students acclimate to their new environment and gain confidence getting around on their own. Henthorne, et al. 62) as a highly effective method of initiating interaction between students and the local population and allowing them the opportunity to g ain further insight into the culture they are visiting. However, they caution that these research projects should be useful and meaningful for the student and should be aligned with the overall goals of the program. During the actual study abroad experien ce, McGowan (2007) notes that students value their interactions with students from the host university and encouraged students to make friends with host country students and spend time with them. Likewise, Koernig (2007) advocates organizing a student exch ange with a class from a local university to provide study abroad participants with an opportunity to interact with their peers from the host country and learn about the culture of the country from native residents. Sachau, et al. (2010) suggested several learning on a study abroad program, including homestays, visits to small communities, internships, and structured interactions with host country students. These researchers also suggested group activities to help in troduce different cultural aspects of the host country. For example, a group dinner early in the program can help alleviate concerns about ordering and trying new and different foods. Koernig (2007) also suggested a group dinner early in the program as an introductory activity to facilitate group bonding

PAGE 213

213 and introduce hosts or discuss the upcoming itinerary. Maximizing contact with the host is also advocated by Engel a nd Engle (2004, p. 232) as the most effective means of Academic STEM learning In relation to the academic component of the program, Stanitski et al. (2003) noted that the academic nature of the program shou ld be emphasized to students and that all program activities (including cultural excursions, and social events) should be closely tied to the study abroad curriculum. Similarly, Koernig (2007) suggests arranging visits to host country industries and busine sses to help students better understand the differences between practices in the host country compared to the U.S. However, he acknowledges that careful planning of these visits is necessary to avoid long, boring presentations. He notes that feedback from previous study abroad program evaluations indicate s that students prefer opportunities to walk around the facilities and hear from local presenters as they tour. Sachau et al. (2010) recommend visiting only one academic related site and one cultural site i n a given day and suggest that more than this results in information overload for students. Sachau et al. (2010) also suggest that organizers avoid the traditional lecture in favor of site visits and note the need to include free time for independent trave et al., 2010, p. 652). Donnelly Smith (2009) and Stanitski et al. (2003) emphasize the importance of post trip meetings, debriefing sessions and re e ntry support for returning students and suggest a follow up course or capstone experience to maximize student learning

PAGE 214

214 associated with short term programs. Finally, several researchers emphasize the importance of reflection as a necessary component of an i nternational experience (Koenig, 2007; Roberts & Jones 2009). Sachau et al. (2010) recommend using reflective journaling to encourage students to think about their learning experiences, as most, if not all of these occur outside the classroom setting. Pro gram evaluation. Program evaluation should be a key component of any study abroad program and should focus on both program implementation and program impact. In addition, due to the experiential nature of study abroad experiences, Lutterman Aguilar and Gin gerich (200 2 ), note that this pedagogical approach requires both ongoing formative as well as post trip summative evaluation to ensure that learners are accomplishing intended objectives and to allow for continuous improvement of study abroad program qua lity. Areas of study abroad program implementation commonly evaluated include aspects of program logistics, faculty leader quality, and pre and post trip support activities (Stanitski et al., 2003). To evaluate student learning outcomes, IES Abroad advoca tes the use of both qualitative and quantitative assessments, combining measures and tests designed by faculty leading the program with other standardized measures of content knowledge and alternative performance based assessment measures, such as student assignments and presentations (Gillespie, 2009). In fact, the IES MAP discussed previously, provides a set of detailed criteria for evaluating study abroad programs (Gillespie, Braskamp & Braskamp, 1999). Meanwhile, based on their extensive experience lead ing different types of study abroad programs, Sachau et al.,

PAGE 215

215 (2010) recommend that assessment of learning objectives for a short term study abroad or study tour is best accomplished through student journal assignments. Best Practices for Science and Engine ering Study Abroad Programs With few existing study abroad programs in science and engineering, and with limited numbers of students from these disciplines participating in an international experience, it is not surprising that the literature contains few articles addressing best practices for these specific types of programs. However, Parkinson (2007) has conducted a survey of engineering study abroad programs to identify: (a) what types of programs are offered; (b) what are the challenges associated with these programs; and (c) what constitutes a set of best practices regarding these programs He reviewed 25 different engineering study abroad programs and conducted interviews with program directors. Based on these investigations, Parkinson (2007) note s so me of the challenges associated with study abroad in engineering and provide s some guidelines for conducting programs in this discipline. He notes that engineering programs are already demanding and long and students will not participate if the study abroa d experience conflict s with the existing curriculum or delay their graduation. To overcome these obstacles, he suggests that departments of engineering offer a series of integrated study abroad programs with a variety of formats that allow students to fit study abroad in their existing program of study. He also notes that there are often difficulties with transfer credits in engineering, especially in relation to programs that are hosted by foreign institutions not accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Parkinson suggests that colleges and universities be more proactive to ensure that credits will transfer seamlessly

PAGE 216

216 According to Parkinson (2007), engineering colleges also struggle to engage faculty in study abroad as it is time consuming and does not often align with their research interests. He contends that colleges and universities must commit to the long term future of such programs by rewarding faculty who are willing to participate in study abroad program develop ment and implementation. Finally, Parkinson (2007) notes that engineering students often have little travel experience or foreign language skills and he recommends specific pre trip preparation in four areas: a. cultural issues, such as cultural diversity an d communication across cultures b. c. study abroad issues, such as handling money, safety and health d. globalization issues, such as trade policy, outsourcing, and intellectual property Wainwright, Ram, Teodorescu and Tottenham (2009) discuss study abroad in the sciences, noting that, as with engineering programs, there are a variety of formats for these activities. Although they do not directly advocate a list of best practices, they do review some of the obstacles for study abroad in the science disciplines and offer suggestions for overcoming these barriers. In particular, they note that the crowded curriculum can be a significant impediment for science students wishing to study abroad Wainwright et al. (2009) recommend the use of summer and short term programs that do not conflict with the existing curriculum and course schedule. Alternatively, they acknowledge that significant efforts must be made to integrate longer, semester progra ms with the home campus curriculum. They also note the importance of collaborating with host institutions that have strong reputations in the science disciplines to ensure that students are exposed to high quality instruction and research opportunities. An other obstacle to study abroad in the sciences is the lack of science faculty support for these programs (Wainwright et al., 2009). This can be

PAGE 217

217 addressed with more meetings, seminars and information sessions to educate science faculty about the benefits of study abroad programs for students and with targeted strategies to engage students with discipline specific opportunities. This summary of the current literature demonstrates that research regarding standards and best practices for college level study abr oad is primarily applicable to undergraduate study abroad programs. In addition, the majority of best practices documents and articles currently available in the literature are not based on systematic empirical research, but rather reflect recommendations based on anecdotal evidence or personal experiences/observations. Currently, little research evidence exists regarding the best methods for design, development, implementation and evaluation of graduate level science and engineering related study abroad pr ograms. Using available literature regarding best practices and general guidelines for study abroad as a foundation, the current study was completed in an attempt to provide more useful empirical evidence regarding most effective strategies for the design, implementation, and evaluation of graduate level study abroad programs in the science and engineering disciplines. Study Design This study was conducted at the University of Florida (UF), in conjunction with the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded So uth East Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (SEAGEP). During 2011, SEAGEP implemented a series of new international initiatives for their graduate students to address the need for global experience at the graduate level. These comprehens ive international experiences were designed to provide students with opportunities to develop global competencies that would give them a competitive edge in their preparation for, and pursuit of academic

PAGE 218

218 abroad programs were investigated in this study: UF in China (May, 2011); UF in South Africa (June, 2011); and UF in Brazil (July, 2011). Specific details regarding the structure and content of each of these international e xperiences is provided in Chapter 5 of this dissertation and in Appendix G. Study Sample Thirty five SEAGEP affiliated science and engineering doctoral students enrolled in the study abroad programs in 2011, with 15 visiting China and 10 visiting South Af rica and Brazil respectively. All of these the students were pursuing doctoral degrees in science or engineering and all met NSF criteria for classification as underrepresented minorities in these disciplines (Appendix H) Initially, all students agreed to participate in the research study and gave permission for us to analyze their course assignments and to observe them during the program implementation. However, three students, two on the Brazil program and one on the South Africa program did not submit their reflective writing assignments and thus the final study sample consisted of 32 students with complete reflection data. The final study group was comprised of 14 male and 18 female students, with 18 from engineering, and 14 from the life and physical science disciplines. There were 17 Black/African/African American students, 14 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish students, and 1 American Indian or Alaskan Native. Data Collection As mentioned in Chapter 2, the over arching theoretical perspective used in this study was experiential constructivism, defined as a theory of learning where humans construct meaning from current knowledge structures and experiences. According to

PAGE 219

219 meaningful rea lity as such, is contingent upon human practices being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed and the experienc e and asks how participants construct meaning of the event. However, previous studies have indicated that there is often a lack of connection between stated goals for study abroad programs and the actual educational experience as perceived by program parti cipants (Skelly, 2009). Thus, I decided it would be important to observe and document the actual implementation of study abroad programs to determine which meaning out of thes e experiences. The program observation component of this study provided an opportunity to examine three alternate deliveries of the same science and engineering study abroad program syllabus by several different faculty members in different settings (China South Africa and Brazil). Program observati ons were completed during four different types of activities in each study abroad course: the pre departure orientation, a research facility visit, a commercial facility visit, and a cultural activity. Each obs ervation session lasted between one and two hours and, on each occasion, detailed field notes were recorded. As much as possible, I adopted an observational stance during these sessions and refrained from interacting with students, faculty or guest speaker s during these periods (See Appendix E Observation Protocol). As an additional qualitative data source, I trip reflective writing assignments after the conclusion of each program. These writing assignments were a required component of the study abroad syllabus for each program and

PAGE 220

220 specifically focused on student reflections regarding how their experiences during the program contributed to their personal learning and growth. Data Analysis trip reflective writing assig nments and field notes of program observations served as the primary data sources for examining how actual academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development o utcomes. These data sources were analyzed using the qualitative general content analysis a used to condense, summarize, and organize the raw text data and establish links between the research study objectives and findings emerging from the raw data. I initia lly familiarized myself with the material by reading the field notes of each set preliminary notes during this process. Text segments containing meaning units were ident ified and coded using a pre existing, or a priori, set of codes. These pre determined codes were derived from previous research regarding factors influencing the effectiveness of study abroad programs (Chapters 4 and 5) and also reflected specific research and study abroad course objectives unique to this particular study. Specific outcome related constructs examined in this research study included: Academic STEM learning o Professional self efficacy in science and engineering o Global science communication o Soc io cultural role of science/engineering

PAGE 221

221 Personal Growth o Career related perceptions o General global awareness Intercultural Development o Knowledge and understanding of other cultures Content analyses specifically focused on determining which specific study abroad program components and experiences facilitated or hindered student gains in each of the outcomes of interest. Results of these analyses were then used to generate a list of recommended best practices for the design and implementation of science and engineering related study abroad programs. Findings The findings for academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development are each presented separately and include both the findings from program ing assignments. The academic STEM learning section contains findings for the three sub constructs of professional self efficacy in science and engineering global science communication and the socio cultural role of science and communication. Findings for the two personal growth sub constructs, career related perceptions and general global awareness are presented next. Finally, I understanding of other cultures. In each sec tion, I my analysis of the data from I then provide sample evidence from both field notes and reflective writing assignments to support these asse rtions and my conclusions with respect to each construct and sub construct.

PAGE 222

222 Academic STEM learning Outcomes Three sub constructs of academic STEM learning were specifically examined in this study: 1. Professional self efficacy in science and engineering 2. Perceptions of science communication in a global context, and 3. Perceptions regarding the sociocultural role of science and engineering in other countries. The professional self efficacy sub construct focus es to science and engineering used in other countries and the value that they attach to scientific knowledge generated outside the United States. In the next sections, I present results of each of the se three academic STEM learning sub constructs. Professional self efficacy in science and engineering Two of the stated objectives of the graduate level study abroad programs examined in this study included helping students develop an understand ing of the differences in science and engineering education and research cultures between the U.S. and the host country and helping students network with students, faculty, researchers and government agencies abroad. To accomplish these objectives, the iti nerary of each study abroad program included multiple visits to institutions of higher education, research facilities and government agencies (Appendix G ). It is therefore not surprising that all of the students completing all three programs made concrete connections to the concept of professional self efficacy in science and engineering program observations on professional self efficacy in science and engineering were furt her analyzed and three themes emerged from the data: itinerary and site visits; level of research and technology in the host country and networking and opportunities for

PAGE 223

223 future research collaboration. The results for each of these themes are presented in t he following sections. Itinerary and site visits. Overall, the majority of students (25 out of 32) indicated that they enjoyed the opportunity to visit many different institutions, organizations and companies during their study abroad programs and discuss ed how these meetings and visits enhanced their knowledge and understanding of scientific research and development activities in their host countries. For example, in South Africa, where the visits included several universities and government research faci reflective writing assignments focused on the diversity of on going projects and indicated that they were impressed by the openness of the researchers: SA 2: I am now informed about the type of research conducted in RSA (Republic of Sout h Africa) and the capacity to conduct research at several institutions. SA 6: I did get to meet individuals at the Council on Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the University of Pretoria, the Limpopo Department of Agriculture, and Tshwane Univers ity of Technology who are involved in extremely eager to share their work. Similarly five of the eight students who went to Brazil had positive perceptions of the program itinerary and t he visits to the various research and production facilities. In investigati ( B 7 ). Other Brazil participants also noted the value of the various site visits in their reflective writing assignments: B 1: A good aspect of the places we visited was the opportunity to learn about the different points of vie w.

PAGE 224

224 B 5: I found putting on a hard hat and moving around the facility from the sugar can e grinding area to the control room to be a very memorable experience. Twelve of the 15 students on the China program also remarked on the opportunities to learn about science and engineering in different locations. For example, cities of Shanghai and Beijing offer excellent opportunities for business people and C 3 ) and C 8 ). Overall the research opportunities in China impressed the students, as illustrated by the following reflective writing assignment comment: C 1: Before this experience, I would not have thought China would have had so large a potential in research. One challenging aspect of all three study abroad programs appeared to be the ed on making meetings and sticking to a schedule that we did not have time to actually converse with SA 1 ). Program observations also suggested a lack of time for discussion and informal interac tion during all of the programs, with students frequently complaining about the pace of the program. In fact, during the Brazil site visits, I observed that some students completely tuned out from the presentation and one even fell asleep. This program iti nerary was particularly busy, with multiple daily meetings, and I frequently during the last meeting of the day. It is important to note that a staff member, rather than a faculty member, had the primary responsi bility of developing the program itineraries and negotiating the program logistics. For the China and South Africa

PAGE 225

225 programs, the staff member worked closely with UF faculty leaders who had extensive experience in the host countries and had previously led s tudent groups to these destinations. In contrast, the Brazil trip was organized by a commercial study abroad provider, with some limited input by a UF faculty trip leader who had previously lived and worked in Brazil, but who did not have study abroad expe rience. Level of research and technology. In their reflective assignments, the majority of students (14 of 24) who visited South Africa and China mentioned how impressed they were with the on going research and associated facilities that they encountered during their visit s Several even mentioned that they were surprised to see such high quality equipment and extensive resources in these countries. In South Africa, the visits to two governmental agencies, the Innovation HUB and the CSIR in Pretoria partic ularly impressed three students: SA 3: The other experience that was a surprise was the level of scientific research that is being conducted in South Africa. SA 6: I was extremely impressed by the work, facilities, and culture of the Council for Scientif ic and Industrial Research. SA 9: In terms of the technology in South Africa, it exceeded my expectations. After visiting the Innovation HUB, the CSIR, the University of Pretoria and Tshwane University of Technology (TUT), I was impressed with the technol ogy used In China, the itinerary enabled students to visit more laboratories and research reflected their level of impression at these institutions: C 6: My second most me morable event was seeing all the instrumentation and resources available at the universities. Being in the energy efficient College of Engineering building of Tsinghau University opened my eyes to how advanced the universities are and the great strides Chi na are making to be a more green country.

PAGE 226

226 C 8: I was impressed by the world class facilities in art design and agricultural and environmental engineering. C 11: I observed some of the Ph.D. level labs and research at the Beijing University of Science and Technology. We were able to visit one of the National Key labs in Materials Science and Engineering. Basically, we were all pretty blown away by some of the materials they were working on and some of the great facilities they were using. C 12: The univer sities in China are nothing like what I expected they would be; they are massive, filled to capacity with students and contain some very impressive facilities. These comments were supported by program observations, during which I noted that students exhibi ted great interest in the facilities and equipment at each site visited in both China and South Africa. They often made comments to each other and to the U.S. faculty about how the facilities were much more advanced than they expected. As we left the Beiji ng University of Science and Technology, one student commented aloud the instruments are Interestingly, during the program in Brazil all students discussed the fact that the bioethanol industry technology was much more advanced than in the U.S. However, in their reflective writing assignments, only one student in this group commented on the kinds of research going on there but I was blown away by the depth, diversity, and B 8 ). This lack of reflective focus on the level of scientific research and technology in Brazil may have been influenced by negative impressions students developed as a result of visits to

PAGE 227

227 several universities whose labs and other scientific research facili ties were poorly maintained and contained out of date and aging scientific equipment. Networking and opportunities for future research collaboration An explicit objective of these study abroad programs was facilitation of opportunities for students to ne twork with students, faculty, researchers and government agencies abroad. Results of my analyses indicate that networking opportunities varied considerably between the three study abroad programs. While networking opportunities were not a major outcome ide ntified by students completing the Brazil trip, the majority of students on the programs to China (8 of 15) and South Africa (5 of 9) mentioned how much they valued opportunities they had to network with counterparts and make connections for future collabo rations. In their reflective writing assignments nine out of 24 students even mentioned their desire to return to the host country in an academic or professional capacity: SA 1: We had excellent opportunities to make connections. I do have intentions to r evisit South Africa and make stronger professional connections. SA 6: During this trip, there were a plethora of opportunities to establish both professional and personal networks. C 5: I am especially thankful for the opportunities presented to us to bu ild connections with some of the Chinese students. If an opportunity to study abroad in China for a whole summer presented itself I would like to take advantage of it. C 6: I have also managed to make friends and establish contacts throughout the process C 8: Interacting with students from the Tsinghau University, Beijing University, and China Agricultural University was by far the best part of the trip in my opinion Following the university visits in Beijing, program participants also engaged the local h ost faculty member in a long conversation about opportunities to return to China

PAGE 228

228 to study or conduct research in a university exchange capacity. One student professional collab ( C 15 ). However, five students (three on the South Africa program and two on the China program) made negative comments in relation to the networking opportunities they experienced during these programs. The first related to a significant deviation in the itinerary in South Africa, where the last minute cancellation of a presentation at Kruger National Park was noted by two participants in their reflect ive writing assignments: SA 4: The inability of Kruger scientists to meet us hampered the ecological aspect of the course. SA 8: Since the main topic of this trip was ecology/conservation I was expecting to interact more with professors, students and re searchers of these areas, or related ones. Unfortunately, our interaction was mainly with researchers from agricultural, social sciences and other areas like engineering, which is not a bad thing but just different from the expectations generated under the announced topics of ecology/conservation. On the China program, one student was disappointed not to meet researchers in C 2 ). During the Brazil program, I observed that there were significantly fewer opportunities for participants to meet with students and faculty at the host institutions and the lack of comments about networking in their reflective writing assignments reflected this ob servation. Conversely, members of this study abroad group seemed to bond very well with each other and the participants appreciated the disciplinary diversity of their group and the opportunities they had to learn from each other. One student he people on this trip really enabled me to appreciate different

PAGE 229

229 ( B 3 ). The timing of each study abroad program impacted the opportunities students had to interact with local faculty, researchers and student counterparts during the university visits. I observed that students made the most connections and developed the greatest networking opportunitie s during the visit to China when the universities were in session and participants were able to observe and discuss on going research projects with host country faculty and students. Conversely the program to Brazil occurred during the semester break and s tudy abroad participants had very limited opportunities to visit laboratories or meet with host country faculty and students. The program to South Africa actually occurred during the examination period for most universities, but there were some opportuniti es to meet directly with host country faculty and students. For example, the South Africa study abroad participants toured several laboratories and attended research presentations at Tswhane University of Technology (TUT) in Pretoria. In addition, during a field trip to a research site, they were able to informally interact with host country graduate students. Global science communication The second major sub construct related to the academic STEM learning outcome nication in a global context. To engage students in global science communication, the faculty members who designed the study abroad program included an objective in the syllabus requiring students to deliver an oral research presentation to a host audience Regrettably, due to scheduling issues with the local universities this component was eliminated from both the South Africa and Brazil programs. This change in itinerary was unfortunate, as one student on the China

PAGE 230

230 his trip was presenting in front of more than 100 C 3 ). On the Brazil and South Africa programs, faculty members leading these trips supplemented group discussions of research topic s, but these did not involve audience members from the host country. However, even these group discussions seemed to B 3: I especially enjoyed the group discussions in which I was able to work with B 4: We had several group discussions among ourselves both during and after presentations, and even in our time off over dinner and drinks. That was cool. S A 9: A set of criteria I would choose to best describe my learning process is the group discussions. They helped me get a better understanding of the oming from. Overall, students on all three trips made both positive and negative comments about their attempts to communicate about scientific topics while in each country. On a positive note, two students discussed how science and engineering offer the op portunity to communicate across cultures: SA 9: I met a master student at TUT that was working in the same area as me (groundwater treatment). Despite our cultural differences, we were able to communicate through science, which became one of the memorable experiences in South Africa. B 6: The most memorable or valuable aspect I gained from the trip was how science and innovation is a universal language. However, half of the students on the Brazil program indicated that communication with host scientists a nd engineers was one of the most difficult and frustrating aspects of the program. For example, a student from the Brazil program commented that B 8

PAGE 231

231 biggest challenge during the B 7 ). He B 7 ). Similarly, in China, students struggled with the language barrier, with one commenting, ( C 13 ). Encouragingly, three students indicated that their study abroad experience inspired them to learn another language or reach out to students in the U.S. who do not speak English as B 3 barriers, I will try to C 13 ). During the programs to Brazil and China, translators were present for all scheduled activities. On both programs, a host country faculty member with technical expertise in science and/or en gineering was also available to provide translations during the academic presentations. This was particularly important, as some of the general translators did not have the ability to translate technical scientific terminology. However, on some occasions, when the groups on the China and Brazil programs split to tour laboratories, or during informal interactions with local students, language differences did appear to create a significant communication barrier. This was particularly evident in China, althoug h many of the local students and faculty did speak some English. On the Brazil program, I observed that Spanish speaking participants were able to communicate on some level with their Portuguese speaking counterparts. In all cases, even on the South Africa program where the language barrier was not a major impediment, I noted that students were much more reticent to speak to their hosts at the

PAGE 232

232 beginning of the program. However, as each program progressed, students were much more willing to engage the hosts with questions and comments on the science and engineering research projects they observed. Socio cultural role of science and engineering The third major sub construct related to the academic STEM learning outcome c ultural role of science and engineering in a global context. Some interesting differences emerged in the reflective writing samples of students visiting each of the three different countries. The majority of students (7 of 9) visiting South Africa made com ments about the sense of responsibility they felt to conduct science and engineering research that benefits the general community. For applicable to their own unique problems and they emphasized accessing the need of SA 5 best part of our actual interactions was that we were able to learn a lot of what applied science is taking place in South SA 8 ). One student rhetorically asked himself SA 7 ). The program in Brazil, which was focused on bioeth anol production, prompted reflective comments regarding the environmental aspects of science and engineering. green energy, capable of transforming their economy and at the sa me time serving as B 5 ). However, overall, students on the Brazil program made relatively few comments about the socio cultural role of science and engineering (only three out of seven students).

PAGE 233

233 Given the Communist government in China, it was not surprising that students paid attention to the influence of politics on the social and cultural role of science and engineering. Students appeared to be most aware of this during the university visits, the Chinese to be indoctrinated by the C 4 ). Similarly, C 1 1 ). He surmised that their research Personal Growth Outcomes The two specific types of personal growth outcomes examined in this study focused on career related perceptions and general global awareness. The su b construct of career related perceptions focused on the impact of the study abroad focused careers. Career related perceptions Thirty percent of students on the three study abroad programs commented on the impact of the experience on their interest in working outside the United States in their reflective writing assignments. These comments indicate that their interest in work opportunities in other countries increased a s a result of their participation in the programs. For example, three students mentioned their increased interest in a post doctoral opportunity in the country they visited: SA 2: I can now add RSA to my list of places I would like to conduct a postdoc. S A 6: So with a collaborative research environment and the opportunity to have an impact on the education community, CSIR is on my radar for possible post doctorate employment opportunities.

PAGE 234

234 B 6: I am considering doing a post doc abroad rather than in th e United States Observations of students asking host institution representatives about the opportunities to return as an international post doctoral student supported these findings. During site visits to the CSIR in South Africa, FAPESP (the scientific r esearch agency in Sao Paulo) and the Beijing University of Science and Technology, students heard detailed information about how to access post doctoral opportunities Meanwhile, in their reflective writing, eight students indicated their intentions to ex plore future research opportunities, suggesting a longer term impact of the study abroad experience on their career perceptions. One student on the China program commented: C 9: I plan to talk to Dr. Zhang this evening about possible opportunities of retur ning China to do research. I feel that opportunities such as these will make me a more well rounded and cultural individual. Likewise, three students on the Brazil program and two on the South Africa program noted impacts on their research interests, with a South African participant SA 2 T his experience opened the door to the infinite international possibilities to develop m B 5 ). Finally, however, it was noted that the majority of students did not comment on the impact of their participation in the programs on their career related perceptions. This may have been due to the fact that the reflective writing assignmen ts were completed immediately after the end of each program, leaving students with little time to contemplate these impacts. It could also reflect the fact that student participants were at different stages in their degree programs, with some approaching g raduation and

PAGE 235

235 actively pursuing post graduate opportunities and others in their first year of doctoral study. General g lobal a wareness The second sub construct of personal growth outcomes was general global awareness. In their reflective writing assignmen ts, students only made brief mention of the impact of the study abroad experience on their levels of general global awareness. Two indicated that the program reinforced previously held perceptions about the countries they visited. For example, one student SA 7 C 8 ). However, others commented on how the programs contradicted their pre trip perceptions of the countr y they visited. For instance, one SA 2 ). Three students s uggested that the study abroad experience made them realize the need for more global awareness among American scientists and engineers. One was (C7) and another wrote: C 6: Being in China for almost two weeks has raised my awareness of the fact that life is progressing beyond the borders of the United States of America. challenge my thoughts, my ideas, and my worldview. And on this day of May 15th 2011, C 2 ).

PAGE 236

236 The findings for this sub construct suggest that the study abroad programs did not impact most parti results is the fact that the students received very little pre departure information about their destination. Another possible explanation is that, as a result of their participation in this program, students realized how little they actual know about other countries and world affairs in general. Intercultural Development This section summarizes field note observations and reflective writing evidence regarding how the study abroad experi understanding of other cultures Knowledge and understanding of other cultures devoted to observations and perceptions of the different c ultures they encountered in the host country. Once again, some interesting differences emerged between the different program groups, but there were also some commonalities. For example, in all three programs, students commented on the similarity between th e host culture and ( B 3 B 8 ). A student on the China program ounger generation) are C 12 ). This student seemed to consider westernization as a positive attribute. However, two students who visited South Africa and China seemed to be more disappointed by the cultural similarities t hey encountered:

PAGE 237

237 SA 1: I was a bit disheartened to see that a lot of the places that we explored were very much like places in the United States. C 4: However, it is not necessarily good in all ways because Shanghai looks like a melting pot of western cu ltures and it has lost its Chinese heritage...my biggest disappointment in China is how westernized everything is. to the hospitality of the people they encountered. Student s frequently mentioned the warm welcome and kindness they encountered. Six of the nine South African program participants commented on the warmth and friendliness of the people they met. One dly answered our SA 2 SA 5 ). A third student on the all the people with SA 8 ). B 3 ). Ano awe of how hospitable all the guest speakers were and how they appeared to be B 6 ). In China, the program participants interacted most frequently with local students and this was reflected in their reflective writing assignments. One student reported a C 7 ). Another student was surprised by the Chine C 10 ).

PAGE 238

238 ee different trips were primarily associated with the living conditions they observed and the food they tried. Seven of the 15 students on the program to China commented on the bathroom C 13 ). Overall, students found these to b e some of the greatest cultural challenges during the trip to China. Meanwhile, some of the greatest cultural challenges in South Africa were sheltered during most of the c SA 2 ) as a result of traveling in a group and ( SA 1 ). Another challenge for students visiting South Africa was navigating the political history of apartheid. Some pre SA 2 ) were overturned and students particularly appreciated the cultural program to educate them the course was to visit t SA 4 ). The students on the Brazil program made the fewest comments about their perceptions of the host culture (only 6 out of 9). Three students did mention the chal lenge of navigating in a culture when they could not speak the language, but two noted their knowledge of Spanish helped them communicate. However, the majority exam learning experiences is something that will mark your life forever, it definitely has market

PAGE 239

239 One overriding observation during th e implementation of all three programs was the general lack of cultural information and orientation provided. At the pre departur e sessions, less than 10% of this orientation time was devoted to cultural learning and the pre trip readings primarily focused on issues of science and engineering, rather than culture. In addition, with the exception of the South Africa program, there was no opportunity provided for students to discuss their cultural observations and learning during the programs. Here again, pro gram observations highlighted the critical impact of faculty leading the different programs. On the South Africa program, one faculty member with a background in counseling psychology organized two group discussion and reflection sessions to help students process some of their cultural experiences. This activity was not a part of the syllabus for the program and occurred on an ad hoc basis. However, the other programs to China and Brazil, led by faculty who were less experienced in both international and in tercultural education, did not include any structured group discussions focused on cultural experiences. Furthermore, two of the three faculty members on the South Africa program had previously visited this country as leaders of student groups. One of thos e faculty members had multiple years of experience working in South Africa, and living, and working in several other countries on the continent. Observations of these two South Africa trip faculty members indicated that they frequently discussed the cultur al aspects of the program, including the impact of culture on science and engineering enterprises, with students. By contrast, only one of the two faculty members on the China program had previously visited this country, and only

PAGE 240

240 then for a short trip. Sim ilarly, only one of the two faculty members on the Brazil program had in country experience, but he had not led a study abroad program before. Despite the lack of previous cultural experience of the China and Brazil faculty trip leaders, the Chinese direc tor of the U.F. Beijing Center, who accompanied the students throughout the China program, enhanced cultural learning and provided mentoring for the group that the regular science and engineering faculty member leaders were not equipped to provide. In Braz il, the study abroad program was organized by a private agency which had not previously hosted science or engineering students. Overall, faculty members leading the Brazil trip were less attentive to both the academic and cultural learning outcomes than fa culty working with the China and South Africa programs. Summary of Findings This research study sought to determine which components of a graduate level science and engineering related study abroad program enhanced and/or limited the academic STE M learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes. Academic STEM learning outcomes writing assignments indicate that several components of the study abroad prog ram academic STEM learning outcomes. These included the opportunity to visit a wide variety of science and engineering facilities and opportunities to directly prof essional self efficacy in science and engineering global science communication and the socio cultural role of science and engineering were affected by both the formal component of

PAGE 241

241 the program, with presentations and laboratory tours, as well as the inform al program, when they had opportunities to network with other students, faculty and business representatives. One factor that appeared to limit opportunities for academic STEM learning during these programs was the rigid and full itinerary for each program most notably in Brazil and South Africa, when little to no time was allotted for informal interactions or meetings with a greater diversity of researchers. For some students, the lack of informal, unstructured opportunities for interaction with host cou ntry scientists and engineers was compounded by the lack of opportunities to meet researchers, educators and business representatives in their particular fields of acad emic STEM learning outcomes were changes in activities in the planned itinerary that eliminated opportunities for participants to make their own scientific presentations to a host country audience and the cancellation of meetings with key science and engin eering personnel at some locations. Personal growth outcomes Personal growth outcomes were enhanced by the multiple opportunities students had to learn about career opportunities in science and engineering in each country visited. Students were particular ly animated by these interactions and indicated that this aspect of the trip had the greatest potential for long term repercussions and benefits. Conversely, the program s seemed to have limited impact s of global awareness. This may have been due to the limited information about the host country presented during the pre departure orientation, or it could reflect the fact that, as students encountered new countries and cultures, they realized the limitations of their global knowledge.

PAGE 242

242 Inte rcultural development outcomes Students made many positive comments about the cultural components of the study abroad programs. They particularly enjoyed the opportunities to meet local people during the programs and learn about their lifestyles, history, politics and other aspects of experience s and provided them with opportunities to reflect on their own culture. Two elopment outcomes during these programs were the lack of cultural preparation provided before trip departure and the lack of opportunities for reflection related to cultural learning during the programs. Finally, the selection of faculty to lead science a nd engineering related study abroad programs appears to have a significant impact on both the academic STEM learning and intercultural development of participants. Both student writing reflections and program implementation observations suggest that progra ms led by faculty with more international and intercultural educational experience are more effective. Discussion The results of this study were used to develop an initial set of guidelines and best practices for the design, implementation and evaluation of science and engineering related study abroad programs for graduate students. Suggested guidelines and best practices emerging from this study are presented for each of the three targeted participant outcomes : academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development. Academic STEM learning opportunity to visit a wide variety of science and engineering facilities and interact with

PAGE 243

243 counterparts in the host country academic STEM learning outcomes. Each of the three study abroad programs examined in this study was organized around an overriding theme specific of the host country; but, regardless of the theme of each trip, all three trips inclu ded visits to institutions of higher education, government research facilities and private sector operations in their planned itineraries. When implemented, the particular structure of each program varied according to the theme and site visit locations cho sen. For example, the China program included two full days and an additional half day at three different university campuses, whereas the South Africa program only included two three hour visits to two different university campuses. In addition, the Brazil program focused more on private sector operations, with four company visits, whereas the programs to South Africa and China each included only two commercial site visits. Despite these variations in the duration, variety, and types of sites visited in ea ch program, the diversity of sites visited appears to be a significant factor influencing academic STEM learning As student participants clearly indicated, exposure to a variety of different points of view during the study abroad experience help ed them understand the complexities of science and/or engineering research and practice in a global context. Students also valued the opportunities provided to meet and talk with researchers, faculty members, students and industry representatives in the ho st country. However, rigorous daily program schedules appear to be detrimental and students in this study felt that there was not enough time to participate in substantive discussions with the individuals they met during the site visits. This was particula rly true for the South Africa

PAGE 244

244 and Brazil trips which included a lot of in country travel and often scheduled three different site visits during a single day. As Koenig (2007) suggests, the number of academic site visits each day should not exceed two and o rganizers should avoid long lecture formats. Unfortunately, staff, with limited faculty input, primarily organized each of the programs in this study and staff members did not apply these guidelines when developing the itineraries. This resulted in excessi vely long days, during which students became overloaded with information and had little opportunity to engage in reflection, discussion or informal interactions with their hosts. Another concern emerging from this study that may be unique to graduate level specific disciplines and areas of study. The programs in this study were designed for an interdisciplinary group of science and engineering graduate students and as a resul t of the diversity of their research interests, it was not possible to arrange meetings that had been more involved in the planning process for the programs, and if ther e had been some flexibility built into the schedules, it would have been possible to arrange individual meetings, particularly during the campus visits. As Henthorne et al., (2001) interests into account during the planning process ; and for graduate level students, the opportunities to meet researchers in relevant disciplines is of paramount importance. Finally, while this science and engineering study abroad program did have a set of student learning objectives outlined in the syllabus, they were not clearly defined, nor did they integrate with the home curriculum, as advocated by Donnelly Smith (2009),

PAGE 245

245 Vande Berg (2007), and Sachua et al. (2010). For graduate level programs, integr ation of study abroad program objectives with the home curriculum may be less crucial than in the study abroad curriculum. However, clearly stated course goals and obj ectives are necessary in order to verify the impact of any study abroad experience. In this particular case, planning for the study abroad programs was constrained by the funding timeline which only allowed three months to develop and design all three prog rams and recruit participants. Personal Growth As outlined in the syllabi, each study abroad program included opportunities to learn about career prospects, including post doctoral and research positions in each host country. In addition, all three of th e pre departure orientations included information on Fulbright options for funding international post doctoral and research positions. In this way, students received multiple sources of information regarding the potential for international science and engi neering careers and it was not surprising that the study abroad experience enhanced their personal growth in this aspect. Obviously, one limiting factor for such opportunities is access to funding. However, both host country personnel and program faculty provided students with information about agencies and organizations that provide financial support for international research and post doctoral positions, and students were encouraged to apply for these funds. Thus, participation in these study abroad prog awareness of potential research and post doctoral positions available overseas and increased their interest in pursuing these opportunities as part of their future career paths.

PAGE 246

246 There are many obstacles limiting the participation o f science and engineering graduate students in international experiences, particularly those that demand long time commitments (Van Eyck, Van Toll, Wattiaux & Ferrick, 2012). However, the findings from this research study suggest that short term programs that include opportunities for participants to interact with researchers, faculty and students at host institutions and provide participants with detailed information about potential international research and post doctoral positions are an effective way t o expose students to international career prospects. Thus, study abroad programs designed for graduate students should include a strong career component, with opportunities to explore international opportunities and build networks with counterparts in othe r countries. One objective listed on the syllabi for each study abroad program was for students to learn about the history, politics, geography, culture and traditions of the host country. Before departure, students in all three study abroad programs had to prepare a country report to familiarize themselves with the history, geography, government and politics and other facts of interest for their destination. However, no opportunities were provided either before or during each trip for students to particip ate in organized discussions about the host countries or share the information they learned when completing their individual country report assignments. Furthermore, aside from a short component of 30 minutes or less during each pre departure orientation, students did not receive any advance information about the host countries from program faculty or country experts. Results of this study indicate that students did gain knowledge about cultural aspects of their host countries during the

PAGE 247

247 study abroad progr ams, but students did not mention or seem to recognize the effects of program participation on their level s of general global awareness. Intercultural Development indicate th at students had multiple opportunities to participate in cultural activities and learn about the host culture as part of each study abroad experience. Koenig (2007) suggested that a study abroad itinerary should allocate 40% of total time to organized cult ural activities and that 20% of time should be allotted for students to explore the host country individually. Following these guidelines, each of the programs in this study contained both organized co curricular activities and personal time for participa nts to explore independently and, in their reflective writing assignments, students made many positive comments regarding the cultural components of the program. They particularly enjoyed the opportunities to meet local people and learn about their lifesty les, history, politics and other aspects of their cultures. However, the time dedicated to cultural activities and individual exploration varied between the three programs, with the program to China offering both the most organized cultural activities and the most free exploration time for the students. The fact that this program visited only three primary locations, Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai, and that the group stayed in just two locations, facilitated the inclusion of adequate cultural excursions and free time for students. Conversely, the programs to South Africa and Brazil had fewer organized cultural excursions and less free time and the students moved between four or five sites and accommodations during the program. Participants in the South Afri ca and Brazil programs noted the lack of interaction, both organized and informal, with people from

PAGE 248

248 their host countries and they made fewer comments about cultural activities in their reflective writing assignments. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, i nadequate pre intercultural development during these programs. According to several researchers (McGowan, 2007; Roberts & Jones, 2009; Sachau et al., 2010), pre departure ori entation sessions regarding host country culture are a critical component of the study abroad experience. Finally, a key component promoting intercultural development on study abroad programs is the inclusion of opportunities for reflection on cultural in teractions (Donnelly Smith, 2009; Koenig, 2007; NSEE, 1998; Roberts & Jones, 2009). In this study, only one study abroad program, the South Africa program, included any opportunity for such group discussion and reflection. This occurred on an ad hoc basis, primarily as the result of the intervention of one faculty member leader with a background in psychology and counseling. On the China and Brazil programs, no structured cultural interaction reflection activities occurred. In fact, intercultural developmen t was not included as an explicit objective in the syllabi of any of the programs and even the reflective writing assignments outlined in the syllabus only directed students to focus on how the study abroad experience affected their academic STEM learning These inadequate opportunities for reflection regarding cultural Summary of Recommended Best Practices for Graduate Level Science and Engineering Study Abroad Programs Based on t he results of this study, the following best practices recommendations have emerged. These recommendations are grouped into three major categories:

PAGE 249

249 program development, program implementation, and program evaluation. The program development category includ es recommendations for the development of the curriculum, logistics planning, student preparation and selection of program personnel. The program implementation category includes recommendations about the curriculum delivery, on going logistics and cultura l activities. Finally, the program evaluation category provides recommendations for overall evaluation. Program Development Curriculum Seek support at the institutional, college and departmental levels for graduate study abroad programs in the science and engineering disciplines. Conduct meetings, seminars and workshops to educate faculty in these disciplines about the benefits of study abroad for their graduate students and solicit faculty member input in the program design phase. Involve all stakeholders (students, parents, host country representatives, study abroad administrators and program evaluators) early in the study abroad planning process. Establish clear educational goals and objectives for the study abroad program in the areas of academic STEM l earning personal growth, and intercultural development. As part of this process, consult with faculty and students in the target disciplines to ensure that the course is appropriately integrated into the existing graduate program curriculum and ensure tha t the credits earned will apply Engage home campus faculty to assist with the development of a curriculum and itinerary that adequately address discipline specific educational goals and learning objectives. Logistics Dete rmine an international destination that is appropriate for the selected minimum course enrollment numbers. Determine the appropriate duration and timing of the program, t aking the graduate schedules and public holidays in the host country into account.

PAGE 250

250 Develop a program that is affordable for graduate students and ensure that any study abroad related g rants and scholarships provided do not negatively impact their existing financial aid, fellowships, assistantships and other funding. Student p reparation Conduct multiple pre departure orientations, or even a minimal credit pre departure seminar course, to provide participants with information about logistics, health and safety issues, course content, country specific details, intercultural development training, and potential funding sources for international career opportunities, such as Fulbright and post doctoral positions. Develop a balanced program that includes academic sessions, cultural activities and sufficient time for students to engage in both reflection and independent exploration. Work with graduate students to set up meetings and/or short rese arch experiences in country that are relevant to their specific disciplines and are content matched with their research topics. Coordinate with host faculty to ensure that all site visits are engaging and relevant to the study abroad course theme and resea rch focus. Facilitate contact between graduate students and their international counterparts, faculty and researchers in the host country prior to departure on the study abroad program. Personnel Recruit faculty who have prior successful experience leadin g study abroad programs, who have expertise in the specific content disciplines relevant to the study abroad course topic and who are inter culturally competent. Recruit faculty who are familiar with the chosen country destination and both the everyday and technical language used in the host country. Include early career and/or junior faculty to ensure continued engagement in study abroad by science and engineering disciplines. Program Implementation Curriculum Schedule a varied itinerary that provides stu dents with opportunities to explore the diversity of science and/or engineering institutions related to the program topic. Include host lecturers and guest speakers when possible,

PAGE 251

251 Arrange visits to key laboratories and leading universities to enable studen ts to see the top facilities in the host country. Arrange post trip de briefings and presentations to build on and reinforce the experience after returning to the home campus. Ensure that students deliver engage in discussion and with local students, facul ty and researchers. Logistics Limit scheduled activities to a maximum of one academic and one cultural visit in a day. Build in flexibility in the itinerary and ensure time for informal networking, Include time for independent exploration of the local cult ure and individual meetings with local researchers and students. Use public transportation as much as possible and avoid the bubble effect of using coaches and moving around as a cohort. Avoid multiple sites and lots of internal travel. Provide translators who are fluent in technical scientific language. Promptly communicate all schedule changes with students and solicit input on alternate options. Cultural Arrange group dinners at the beginning and end to introduce participants to the e and food and celebrate the completion of the program. Otherwise, let students organize their own meals in the evening or arrange small group dinners with various local faculty and students. Set up on site research or service learning projects with teams consisting of U.S. and local students. Include opportunities for individual and group reflection during the trip, preferably with a trained intercultural facilitator. Include organized interactions with host country students. Include home stays and interns hips if possible.

PAGE 252

252 Program Evaluation Develop a comprehensive evaluation protocol and use qualitative and quantitative assessments to measure both short and long term outcomes, ural development and other learning outcomes. Ensure that findings are utilized improve programs

PAGE 253

253 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to investigate the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for un derrepresented life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participated in science and engineering related study abroad programs. To achieve this purpose, it was necessary to develop a new instrument for assessing academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes for the target population. This assessment instrument together with the commercially available Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), was used to measure pre and post trip outcomes of 33 science and engineering graduate s tudents who participated in three short term study abroad programs between May and August 2011. In addition, a comparison group of 32 life and physical science and engineering graduate students who did not participate in South Eastern Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (SEAGEP) study abroad programs, completed the same two outcomes assessment instrument s. Results (pre trip and post trip scores) of the study abroad group were compared with those of the non study abroad group. Finally, I an alyzed my own field notes of onsite study abroad program implementation trip reflective writing assignments in order to determine which specific components of the study abroad programs helped or hindered student growt h in the three targeted outcome areas: academic STEM learning personal growth, and intercultural competence. This chapter provides a summary of the research study, including the overarching theoretical framework, specific research questions and methodolo gy. This is followed by a review of key quantitative and qualitative study results and a discussion synthesizing

PAGE 254

254 design and implementation of science and engineering r elated study abroad for science and summarize study related limitations. Finally, I present recommendations for future research based on the new questions and issues emerging from this study. Theoretical Framework The lack of an existing theoretical found ation for college level study abroad programs made it necessary to develop a new integrated framework to guide this study. The resulting integrated theoretical framework developed for this study is based on existing theories and concepts in related areas o f educational research, developmental learning, cognitive and educational psychology, experiential learning and intercultural development. The experiential constructivist theoretical foundation for this study assumes that students use their experiences du ring and after study abroad programs to construct meaning about academic, personal and intercultural concepts. In fact, the syllabi for the specific SEAGEP study abroad programs examined in this study inadvertently followed le, with opportunities for students to have concrete experiences, observe real world situations and undertake reflection activities. In addition, the integrated theoretical framework guiding this study includes aspects of transformative learning, implying that exposure to new experiences during study abroad academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development. Indeed, the SEAGEP study abroad programs examined provided multiple opportuniti es for science and engineering students to encounter real world conditions and circumstances that appeared to contradict pre trip knowledge and beliefs developed during previous classroom and laboratory learning

PAGE 255

255 experiences. These new conditions and circum stances encountered during the study abroad experience caused students to re examine and question their existing knowledge and assumptions, thereby creating numerous transformative learning opportunities. Finally, the integrated theoretical framework used in this study also addressed specific aspects of personal growth and intercultural development. Despite the fact that changes in individual identity development, including personal confidence and interpersonal competence, have previously been reported for study abroad participants, these outcomes were not explicitly included as objectives for the SEAGEP programs (Chickering & Braskamp, 2009; Deardorff, 2005; Jenkins & Skelly, 2004). However, I theorized that these would also be important outcomes for parti cipants of science and engineering related study abroad programs and therefore included assessment of personal growth and intercultural development as components of this research study. tions and associated methodologies and results. A total of 76 science and engineering graduate students participated in this research study, with 33 participating in the three SEAGEP study abroad programs examined and 32 non study abroad science and engine ering graduate students forming the comparison group. All study participants were pursuing doctoral degrees in science or engineering and all were members of an ethnic minority group as defined by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Alliances for Graduat e Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) program. Research Question 1 How can researchers and practitioners effectively assess the academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes of life and physical science and

PAGE 256

256 engineering graduate students who parti cipate in science and engineering related study abroad programs? This research study involved the development of a new assessment instrument to measure academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes for students completing science and engineering rel ated study abroad programs. Initial development of this assessment instrument involved a focus group of six SEAGEP students, a comprehensive literature review of existing study abroad assessment studies and consultation with three experts in international education, science education and assessment and evaluation. The draft instrument developed as a result of these preliminary activities was pilot tested with 11 SEAGEP students completing a study abroad program in Chile in March 2011. After revising the ass essment instrument based on pilot test results, the pre trip assessments completed by students participating in the China, South Africa and Brazil SEAGEP trips as well as students in the comparison group were analyzed to determine the reliability and vali dity of the revised academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment tool. In total, 65 students participated in the reliability and validity testing phase of this study. The final version of the assessment instrument consisted of 29 Likert style item s, with 14 items assessing the academic STEM learning construct and 15 items addressing the personal growth construct. In addition, nine items were included to calculated to assess reliability of the instrument and content and construct validity was established based on expert reviews, a literature review, statistical analysis of pre trip and post trip data and analysis of the alignment between assessment tool scores and th trip reflective writing assignments.

PAGE 257

257 Results indicate that the academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument developed as part of this study is largely valid and reliable. Two academic STEM learning sub const ructs (professional self efficacy for science and engineering, and global science communication), were less robust in terms of their validity and reliability, and further development for these scales is needed. However, overall t hese results demonstrate th at it is possible to use a Likert type electronic assessment instrument to measure and document self reported changes in academic STEM learning and personal growth of graduate students who complete science and engineering related study abroad programs. Re search Question 2 What are the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for graduate science and engineering students who complete science and engineering related study abroad programs? This research que stion involved two sub questions: a. What are the self reported academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for underrepresented graduate students in life and physical science and engineering who participate in science and e ngineering related study abroad experiences? b. Do the perceived academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes differ for underrepresented life and physical science and engineering graduate students who participate in study ab road experiences compared to those who do not? Thirty three students, 15 visiting China, eight visiting Brazil and nine visiting South Africa, completed pre trip and post trip assessments of academic STEM learning and personal growth outcomes using the e lectronic assessment instrument developed for this study. Thirty one SEAGEP study abroad students (15 to China, seven to Brazil and nine to South Africa) also completed the IDI assessment of intercultural development. Additionally a comparison group of 32 non study abroad science and

PAGE 258

258 engineering graduate students completed the same academic learning and personal growth assessment and 30 completed the IDI. Data analysis included paired t tests to examine differences between the pre trip and post trip assessm ent instrument scores of students completing the study abroad experiences. In addition, independent t tests were used to compare assessment instrument responses of the study abroad group and the comparison group of non study abroad students. Finally, one w ay ANOVAs and appropriate follow up statistical procedures were used to compare the academic learning, personal growth, and intercultural competence outcomes of students completing the three different study abroad programs (China, South Africa and Brazil) and to compare these outcomes for life and physical science and engineering students participating in the study abroad experiences. Results of these statistical analyses yielded significant differences between the pre trip and post trip assessment scores o f SEAGEP study abroad students for both the academic STEM learning and personal growth constructs. In addition, there were significant differences between pre trip and post trip trip assessment scores for four of the six sub constructs, including the socio cultural role of science and engineering, personal confidence, career related perceptions and general global awareness. Conversely, no significant differences were found between the pre trip and post trip IDI scores of SEAGEP study abroad participants. In dependent t test results indicated no significant differences between the pre trip and post trip scores of SEAGEP study abroad with the comparison group scores on either the overall academic STEM learning and personal growth constructs, five of the six sub constructs, or in intercultural development. However, pre trip assessment

PAGE 259

259 scores for the SEAGEP study abroad group did differ significantly from comparison group scores on the career related perceptions sub construct. Results of independent t tests compar ing post trip assessment scores of the SEAGEP study abroad group with scores of comparison group participants indicated significant differences in academic STEM learning and personal growth constructs and all sub constructs, except general global awareness As was the case with the pre trip assessment scores, no significant difference was found between the post trip assessment scores of SEAGEP students and scores of the comparison group for the intercultural development construct. Finally, when scores of li fe and physical science students were compared with those of engineering students completing the study abroad experiences, no significant differences were found for any academic STEM learning personal growth or intercultural competence constructs or sub c onstructs. In addition, no significant differences were found between the academic STEM learning and personal growth post trip scores of students participating in the three different trips. However, IDI post trip scores were significantly different for stu dents completing the three different trips. Closer examination of mean post trip IDI scores for each country group indicated that the 15 students completing the China program experienced significant positive increases in their levels of intercultural devel opment while students completing the South Africa and Brazil trips did not experience significant gains in intercultural competence. Overall, results of this study suggest that participation in science and engineering related study abroad programs does ha ve significant positive effects on many aspects of academic STEM learning and personal growth regardless of the country visited.

PAGE 260

260 However, the impact of these study abroad experiences on intercultural development of participants was not significant, except for the group that went to China. Furthermore, the results of the independent t tests between the pre trip scores for the SEAGEP participant group and the comparison group indicate that SEAGEP study abroad participants were representative of the broader p opulation of underrepresented science and engineering graduate students in most areas. However, one area in which the science and engineering graduate students completing study abroad programs differed on their pre trip responses from their comparison grou p counterparts prior to departure was that of career related perceptions. Students enrolled in the SEAGEP study abroad programs already had significantly higher pre trip perceptions of international career opportunities and exhibited more interest in livin g and working in another country as compared to their counterparts in the non study abroad group. This is not unexpected, given the fact that students participating in SEAGEP study abroad programs were self selected and thus were already more likely to ha ve a pre existing interest in globally focused science or engineering careers. academic STEM learning and personal growth outcome scores were significantly higher than those of the comparison group suggesting that study abroad program participation does have a significant positive impact in both of these areas. However, for two constructs (intercultural development and general global awareness), study abroad participant post test scores were not sig nificantly different from those of the comparison group. Since intercultural development was not an explicit objective of the SEAGEP study

PAGE 261

261 abroad program no specific program activities or assignments were built into the study abroad experience to enhance s tudent growth in this area. Research Question 3 Which specific components of science and engineering related study abroad programs enhance and/or limit the impact of these programs on the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural developme nt of participants? On site observations and accompanying field notes collected during implementation of the study abroad programs provided the opportunity to investigate connections between the intended study abroad programs, as outlined in course syllab i trip perceptions of the actual study abroad experience as compared to their pre trip expectation s of the experience. First, I observed three alternate deliveries of the same science and engineering study abroad program syllabus in different settings (China, South Africa and Brazil). These observations were completed during four different types of ac tivities on each trip post trip reflective writing assignments served as the primary data sources for examining how actual implementation of the study abroad programs enhance d and/or academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes. These data sources were both analyzed using qualitative general content analysis. Findings indicated that study abroad participation enhanced student academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development. Regarding the academic STEM learning construct, evidence from both observations and reflective

PAGE 262

262 writing assignments specifically indicated that students valued opportunities to visit research facilities and private companies and interact with host researchers and different trip experiences were noted for all three sub constructs of academic STEM learn ing namely: professional self efficacy in science and engineering global science communication and socio cultural role of science and engineering. First, the effect of language barriers on perceived program success varied noticeably across the three prog rams, with students on the China and Brazil programs noting more challenges than those on the South Africa program. Second, the level of scientific infrastructure observed also differed greatly across the three different programs, with the students visitin g South Africa and China being particularly impressed with the facilities they visited, while the students on the Brazil program noting less well developed science and engineering infrastructure, particularly at the universities. Third, variations in the n umber and types of opportunities participants had to explore different projects during each cultural role of science and engineering. Findings for personal growth outcomes revealed that all three SEAGEP study related perceptions, with students expressing increased interest in international research opportunities in their post trip reflective essays. Conversely, findings for the gen eral global awareness sub construct suggest that, as implemented, none of the three SEAGEP study abroad construct.

PAGE 263

263 The intercultural development construct generated the largest dataset of part post trip reflective essays and examination of these data sources elucidated some interesting differences between the three different program deliveries. Comments by Brazil prog ram participants indicated positive perceptions of U.S. influence on the host culture, while South Africa program participants expressed disappointment with their observations of western influence on the host culture. Other notable differences between stu situation, race relations, and general living conditions. One recurring observation emerging during implementation of all t hree programs was the general lack of cultural information and orientation provided to participants as part of the planned program. In addition, with the exception of the South Africa program, no opportunities were provided for students to discuss their cu ltural observations and perceptions during the study abroad experience. Discussion three individual research questions. A comprehensive review of the existing study abr oad literature, together with expert consultation, student focus groups and a pilot study of the draft academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument all supported my selection of three over arching outcome constructs: academic STEM learn ing personal growth and intercultural development. The following discussion provides a synthesis of how the results and findings of this study relate to the existing literature regarding these constructs and their associated sub constructs. Each section

PAGE 264

264 a lso includes a discussion of the data sources used and the results of both quantitative and qualitative analyses of these date sources. Academic STEM learning Outcomes Academic learning is frequently cited as a desired outcome for study abroad participants (Bolen, 2007; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Sutton, Miller and Rubin, 2007) However, previous study abroad outcomes assessments have primarily focused on student knowledge and skills development in foreign language and social studies (Deardorff, 2006; Engle & Engle, 2003; Mohajeri Norris & Dwyer, 2005). Few studies have investigated academic learning outcomes resulting from science and engineering focused study abroad experiences and results of these limited studies have been inconclusive. For example, while two studies of undergraduate science students reported gains in academic learning constructs, such as skill in oral presentation, science writing and technical understanding (Bender, Wright & Lopatto, 2009; Nasr, Berry, Taylor, Webster, Echempati & Chandr an, 2002), others found no significant gains in knowledge of scientific concepts by science study abroad students ( Lumkes, Hallett & Vallade, 2012; Strauss & Terenzini, 2007). This dissertation study attempted to address the lack of adequate measures for assessing academic learning resulting from study abroad experiences with the development of a valid and reliable quantitative instrument for use specifically with college students completing science and engineering related study abroad programs. This resul ting assessment instrument focuses on three sub constructs of academic learning that are especially applicable to science and engineering related study abroad contexts: professional self efficacy in science and engineering global science communication, so cio cultural role of science and engineering.

PAGE 265

265 Professional self efficacy in science and engineering Four items on the assessment instrument address the first sub construct of academic STEM learning professional self efficacy in science and engineering T hese the value they personally attach to scientific knowledge generated outside the United States. Results of this study indicate that participation in the SEAGEP study abroad professional self efficacy in science and engineering However, it should be noted that this scale had relatively low Observations of onsi te implementation of the three SEAGEP study abroad programs indicate that the inability to arrange meetings with in country researchers in the area of professional self efficacy in science and engineering Examination of trip reflective writing assignments, which included a few comments additional support for this hypothesis. Fu rthermore, both reflective writing entries and onsite program observations revealed that the planned rigorous daily program schedules were detrimental to the growth of professional self efficacy in science and engineering Students in this study felt that there was not enough time to participate in substantive discussions with the in country science and engineering professionals they met during the site visits. These findings all indicate that small modifications to the design and implementation of science and engineering related study abroad programs could promote greater gains in professional self efficacy in science and engineering of participants.

PAGE 266

266 Further examination of field note and reflective writing data also highlighted aspects of professional self efficacy in science and engineering that were not directly examined by the four items on the quantitative assessment instrument For example, students included numerous positive comments about site visits to a wide variety of science and engineering facili ties in their reflective writing assignments, but none of the professional self efficacy items on the assessment instrument focused on this particular topic. Participants clearly indicated that exposure to a variety of different points of view during the s tudy abroad experience helped them understand the complexities of science and/or engineering research in the countries visited. These analyses of student writing assignments indicate that perhaps certain areas of professional self efficacy in science and e ngineering did improve as a result of the study abroad experience but these particular areas were not directly measured on the existing assessment instrument. Based on these emerging findings, I recommend the addition of items specifically focusing on the value of the specific site visits and interactions with science and professional self efficacy in science and engineering Modification of the items on this sub construct could als o serve to strengthen the reliability and validity of the scale for quantitative analysis. Global science communication The five items focusing on the second academic STEM learning sub construct, global science communication, addressed the relevance of spe aking a second language, the primacy of English in science and engineering and personal level of comfort discussing research in foreign contexts. As was the case for the professional self efficacy sub construct, results of this study indicate that particip ation in the

PAGE 267

267 perceptions of global science communication. An examination of the study abroad program itineraries (Appendix G ) and onsite observations conducted during implementa tion of each of the three study abroad programs suggested some possible explanations for the lack of growth in this area. First, logistical constraints prevented students from making planned presentations to audiences in host countries during two of the s tudy abroad programs, thus limiting their opportunities to directly practice global science communication skills. Additionally, in their post trip reflective writing essays, several participants from all three programs included both positive and negative c omments regarding their attempts to communicate with host country residents about scientific topics. For example, students appreciated the opportunity to discuss science and engineering concepts across cultures, but several noted that communication with ho st scientists and engineers was one of the most difficult and frustrating aspects of the program. These conflicting perceptions and communication competence. Encouragingly, in their reflective essays, some students indicated that their study abroad experience inspired them to learn another language or reach out to students in the U.S. who do not speak English as a first language. Additionally, while observing program implementa tion I noted that students became more confident communicating with their hosts as each program progressed and the presence of expert translators facilitated cross cultural conversations. To increase the effect of study abroad programs on global science co mmunication, future programs should include opportunities for

PAGE 268

268 formal presentations by participants. Additionally, an itinerary with more time for informal communication opportunities with in country scientists and peer graduate students may enhance student growth in the area of global science communication. Socio cultural role of science and engineering The third major sub construct related to academic STEM learning outcome focuses on the socio cultural role of science and engineering in a global context. Five items on the instrument relate to this sub construct. Results of this study found a trip and post trip assessment scores on this sub ive writing assignments corroborated these positive results, but also revealed some interesting differences in student perceptions of the socio cultural role of science and engineering across the three programs. In reflective writing samples, most student s visiting South Africa made comments about the sense of responsibility they felt to conduct science and engineering research that benefits the larger community. Meanwhile, participants from the Brazil program, which focused on bioethanol production, comme nted on environmental aspects of science and engineering and students on the China program paid attention to the influence of politics on the social and cultural role of science and engineering. These ding the socio cultural role of science and engineering directly reflect the priorities and focus of each specific SEAGEP study abroad program and the types of site visits arranged in each country. To facilitate the development of a broader perspective reg arding the socio cultural role of science and engineering, future study abroad programs for scientists and engineers should continue to emphasize the application of specific types of research while also

PAGE 269

269 providing students with opportunities to explore dive rse perspectives related to the program theme. Personal Growth Outcomes The second major construct examined in this study was personal growth, which included three sub constructs: global career perceptions, personal confidence and general global awareness A review of studies examining the impact of study abroad participation on personal growth outcomes suggests that several of the most frequently assessed parameters include the development of personal identity and personal confidence, the perception and u nderstanding of different cultures and the effect of study abroad experiences on career aspirations (Dolby, 2004. Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Norris & Gillespie, 2009). Such personal growth outcomes are of crucial of interest in, and openness to, pursuing opportunities to live and work in other countries or at least participate as part of a multi national and multi cultural team. The assessment instrument developed for this study included 15 items focusing on the p ersonal growth construct and its three sub constructs. Career related perceptions The first personal growth sub ability to perform as scientists and/or engineers in a global context and measures changes in their levels of interest in a globally focused career. Six items on the assessment instrument address this sub construct and results of this study found a trip career related perceptions. T hese results align with positive impacts on career aspirations demonstrated in other study abroad research studies and are supported by the course

PAGE 270

270 syllabi, field note data, and reflective writing essays examined in this study (Fass & Fraser, 2009; Sachdev, 1997). Opportunities to learn about career prospects, including post doctoral and research positions in each host country, were outlined in the SEAGEP syllabi and pre departure orientations included information on Fulbright funding. Each country program a lso included site visits during which students learned about potential research opportunities. Thus, the SEAGEP study abroad programs provided students with multiple sources of information regarding international science and engineering careers and had the study suggest that short term study abroad programs targeting science and engineering students have similar impacts on career related perceptions as general study abroad programs (Norris & Gillespie, 2009). However, results also indicate that effective science and engineering related study abroad programs for graduate students should include extensive opportunities for participants to interact with researchers, faculty and student s at host institutions and should provide participants with detailed information about potential international research and post doctoral positions. Personal confidence Six items on the assessment instrument addressed the second personal growth sub constru confidence in relation to traveling and living in other countries and cultures. Results of this study found that overall, participation in the confidence scores. These results suggest that students completing science and engineering related study abroad programs experience the same types of gains in self

PAGE 271

271 confidence reported for students completing study abroad experiences in other disciplines ( Anderson et a l., 2006; Bender et al., 2009; Dwyer & Peters, 2004). comment related to the impact of the study abroad experience on personal confidence. This particular student, who participa B 1 ). In addition, program observations did not provide any insight into particular aspects of the study abroad experience that influ lack of emphasis on personal confidence outcomes in students trip comments and post trip reflective writing essays indicates a need for the inclusion of more during trip reflective activities, including specific writing prompts or focused discussion sessions to help participants become more aware of the impact of the study abroad experiences on their personal self confidence. General g lobal a wareness The final personal growth sub construct examined stu about international issues and current events using three items on the assessment instrument awareness following participation in the SEAGEP programs. These results are similar to those reported in previous studies of the impact of study abroad experiences on Dolby, 2004; Lambert, 1993; McCabe, 1994). Supporting evidence from qualitative dat writing essays were limited by the fact that students only made brief mention of the impact of the study abroad experience on their levels of general global awareness.

PAGE 272

272 Despite the inclusion of a specific objective on the SEAGEP study abroad syllabi for students to learn about the history, politics, geography, culture and traditions of the host country, only six of 31 reflective writing assignments included comments related to general global awareness. On site program o bservations suggest that these findings might be due to the lack of opportunities provided for students to participate in organized discussions about the host countries or share information they learned when completing their country report assignments. Res ults of this study indicate that study abroad participants did increase their levels of general global awareness, but additional pre departure information and in country discussions might further participant gains for this sub construct. Intercultural Dev elopment Outcomes The final construct addressed in this study was intercultural development, which was examined with the 50 item IDI. Previously, some studies using the IDI have documented significant gains in cultural knowledge, cultural sensitivity, and interpersonal maturity resulting from completion of study abroad experiences ( Anderson, et al. 2006; Kitsantas, 2004; Paige, Cohen and Shively, 2004). However, in trip and post trip i ntercultural development scores were found. site program observations indicate that participants had multiple opportunities to take part in cultural activities and learn about the host culture as p art of each study abroad experience. Students made many positive comments regarding the cultural components of the program in their reflective writing essays and particularly enjoyed opportunities to meet local people a nd learn about their cultures. Howeve r, the short term study tour program format, during

PAGE 273

273 which students stayed in hotels and typically participated in cultural activities as a cohort, did not provide many opportunities for in depth interactions with the host culture, especially in informal co ntexts. Additionally, only limited pre departure preparation related to cultural knowledge or cultural sensitivity was provided as part of the orientation experience for the study abroad programs. Furthermore, the South Africa program was the only program that included any opportunities for group discussion and reflection about intercultural experiences. According to several researchers, pre departure orientation sessions regarding host country culture and reflection activities are critical components for promoting intercultural development on study abroad programs (Donnelly Smith, 2009; Koenig, 2007; McGowan, 2007; Roberts & Jones, 2009; Sachau, et al. 2010). The fact that intercultural development was not included as an explicit objective in the syllabi of any of the programs and was thus not directly addressed during implementation of any of development during this study. Interestingly, when IDI pre post data sets were a nalyzed for individual study abroad programs, significant increases in intercultural development were found for participants completing the China program, but pre post IDI scores of participants completing the Brazil and South Africa programs did not signi ficantly improve. On site program observations indicate that the amount of time dedicated to cultural activities and individual exploration of the local culture varied greatly between the three programs, with the China program offering both the most organi zed cultural activities and the most free exploration time for the students. Conversely, the South Africa and

PAGE 274

274 Brazil programs had fewer organized cultural excursions and less free time for independent exploration. Participants in both the South Africa and Brazil programs noted the lack of interaction with people from their host countries and made fewer comments about cultural activities in their reflective writing assignments. Results of this study indicate that mere completion of a study abroad experience that simply sending students abroad for academic study is not enough to achiev e the larger goal of creating effective global citizens (Lederman, 2007). Furthermore, they pedagogy focused specifically on intercultural competency to ensure participant growth in that area. It is also important to note that, until this study was conducted, the IDI had not been used to measure the intercultural development of science and engineering graduate students. It may be useful to examine this instrument more closely and perhaps modify it to better address the specific intercultural development needs of science and engineering graduate students completing study abroad experiences. Implications for Practice eriences can have on science and engineering graduate students and support the argument for development of more international programs targeting students in these disciplines. However, the lack of significant improvement in some targeted outcome areas high lights areas of focus that need to be directly addressed when conceptualizing and implementing future science and engineering related study abroad programs. The following sections outline specific recommendations for enhancing the academic STEM

PAGE 275

275 learning personal growth and intercultural development outcomes of graduate students participating in science and engineering related study abroad programs. Academic STEM learning Outcomes perceptions of professional self efficacy in science and engineering and global science communication has several implications for future program design and implementation. To increase the professional self efficacy of graduate students participating in sc ience and engineering related study abroad programs, opportunities to visit leading research provided in all programs. Such visits expose participants to a wide va riety of perspectives and facilities, which is a significant factor positively influencing perceptions of professional self efficacy. In addition, graduate students have very specific research interests and, as part of the study abroad experience, networki ng opportunities within interdisciplinary networking opportunities. These focused networking activities and research visits can provide participants with multiple opportunitie s to observe the on going research and caliber of facilities in the host country and enable them to clearly see how their unique fields of study are addressed in other countries. Program schedules and daily itineraries should be more flexible and include a dequate time for participants to meet and engage in substantive discussions with researchers and graduate student counterparts at host institutions. These interactions professional self eff icacy in science and engineering through discussions with their counterparts, but also provide opportunities to enhance perceptions of global science communication. Ensuring that

PAGE 276

276 participants have opportunities to make presentations about their research to host science communication. Ensuring that culturally competent and globally aware science and engineering faculty lead science and engineering related study abroad programs is also a critical factor influencing the success of these programs. These same concerns also apply to the host country faculty and guest speakers selected to work with science and engineering graduate students on site. Efforts should be made to recruit facu lty who are experienced leading study abroad programs, are familiar with the cultural norms of the host country, and have expertise in the specific science and engineering disciplines relevant to the study abroad course topic. Furthermore, in non English s peaking countries, expert translators with a working knowledge of scientific terminology are essential to facilitate global science communication. In this study, participants experienced significant increases in their perception of the socio cultural role of science and engineering. These positive gains appear to be the direct result of the multiple opportunities provided for participants to learn about the impact of research on the local communities in the host country. Often science and engineering gradua te students work in relative isolation, conducting field and/or laboratory research without the opportunity to explore or even understand the broader participants with the c hance to directly observe the positive impact of science and engineering research in a real world context and can motivate students to pursue and persist engaging in research that can directly benefit human communities and natural

PAGE 277

277 ecosystems on a global sc ale. Therefore, future science and engineering related study abroad programs should include a variety of site visits to expose participants to different perspectives regarding the socio cultural role of science and engineering in the host country. In addit ion, providing opportunities for participants to directly engage in community oriented projects or other service learning activities could further enhance cultural role of science and engineering in other countries. Perso nal Growth Outcomes The significant positive impact of the SEAGEP study abroad experience on related perceptions, personal confidence and general global awareness, suggests that the inclusion of both cultural and professional activities in the programs provides an effective combination of learning experiences. In particular, as part of each program students were provided with information about various post graduate and job opportunities and were encouraged to develop contacts for future career exploration. In addition, the program included a variety of activities during which students learned about the history, geography, and politics of the host nation. Finally, as has been documented by other research regardi ng the impact of study abroad programs, participation in international travel provides students with the opportunity to build their personal confidence. These results imply that future science and engineering related study abroad programs should include a similar combination of career related and culturally oriented need to include additional focused activities, such as reflective assignments or discussions during the

PAGE 278

278 awareness of personal confidence gains. Additionally, future programs should include awareness. Intercultural Deve lopment Outcomes The results of this study suggest that future science and engineering related study abroad programs should include a more extensive focus on cultural knowledge and awareness as part of their pre departure preparation, perhaps with the assi stance of a trained intercultural facilitator. Additional time for individual exploration and opportunities for informal culturally related personal experiences should also be built in to daily itineraries. Finally, program schedules should include both gr oup and individual focused reflection exercises during the actual study abroad experience since previous studies development (Pederson, 2010). Finally, as mentioned previously, the IDI or other quantitative instrument s for specifically assessing the intercultural development of science and engineering students also merit further examination and potential revision. Limitations Since this research study focused on previously plann ed and approved SEAGEP study abroad programs, the study sample was one of convenience, rather than random selection. All graduate students in the study sample self selected to participate in the SEAGEP international programs and members of the comparison g roup were recruited based on the specific recommendations of the study abroad participants. These methods of study sample recruitment resulted in several study limitations. Firstly, self selection of study abroad participants may have resulted in inclusion of individuals with more positive pre existing international perspectives. A self selection limitation is not

PAGE 279

279 uncommon in study abroad research studies and the use of a comparison group in this study did provide some control for most assessment parameters (Gray, Murdock & Stebbins, 20 02 trip assessment instrument responses and those of the comparison group revealed that the study trip career related perceptions were significantly higher than those of the comparison group, indicating that self selection may have influenced some targeted outcomes, especially related to the personal growth construct. In addition, the inability to randomly select study participants produced other threa ts to internal validity, including selection maturation and selection history. Again, the use of an equivalent comparison group did provide some control for these effects, but I could not examine the differing maturation rates and effects of history for th e two groups, as the comparison group participants only completed each assessment instrument once rather than pre post and the groups had different experiences during the time period of the study. Another limitation in this study was sample size. Due to f unding con straints and the scope of the programs studied, the number of SEAGEP program participants was relatively small. This impede d my ability to make comparisons between different sub groups, such as different ethnic groups and sexes. I did include com parisons between the three country groups and life and physical science vs. engineering participants. However, small group sizes limit the power of these statistical comparisons and conclusions related to differences in the specific trips and disciplines a re therefore ethnicities, nationalities, second language abilities, and previous travel experiences may

PAGE 280

280 have affected study outcomes, but again, groups were not large en ough to make these comparisons. Finally, this study did not investigate the impact of faculty program leaders on student learning outcomes. Qualitative data such as onsite program observations do suggest that different faculty, with different levels of exp erience, had different impacts am unable to determine how they may have enhanced or limited the success of each study abroad program. Recommendations for Future Researc h In order to gain a more accurate picture of how participation in study abroad programs affects the academic STEM learning personal growth and intercultural development of science and engineering graduate students, it will first be necessary to develop a dditional international programs in these specific disciplines. As previously mentioned, science and engineering students are currently underrepresented in study abroad programs nationally and relatively few science and engineering related programs exist c ompared to those in business, social studies and the humanities. Thus, new and expanded programs must be developed and recruitment of science and engineering student participants must be intensified if future research studies are to provide greater insight into the impacts of such programs. Additionally, while this study focused on graduate students from minority populations, future studies are required to examine the effects of study abroad participation on both graduate and undergraduate science and engin eering students of all ethnicities. Future studies could also explore the effectiveness of different methods of assessing student learning outcomes resulting from study abroad program participation.

PAGE 281

281 One possible modification might be to include more disci pline related items and constructs on the academic STEM learning and personal growth assessment instrument perceptions of their disciplinary knowledge, understanding of technica l concepts or specific skills were impacted by participation in the study abroad experience. Items that ask students to rate their levels of disciplinary knowledge or confidence in their laboratory skills before and after completion of the study abroad exp erience could enable faculty and administrators to more directly document the impacts of these program and help design activities to promote discipline specific student learning during the study abroad experience. The use of the IDI to investigate science and engineering requires further investigation. Finally, as study abroad programs in the science and engineering disciplines evolve, researchers may want to consider invest igating longer term impacts of these programs. For instance, it would be of interest to understand how study abroad level of future engagement in global activities, such as international research collaborations by study abroad alumni would also contribute to long term outcome assessment. Conclusion With increased focus on the creation of a globally engaged workforce of scientists and engineers, and with an increased emph asis on study abroad at the college level, the ability to document the learning outcomes of students participating in these programs is of increasing significance. To address this need, a academic STEM

PAGE 282

282 learning and personal growth assessment instrument for science and engineering related study abroad programs was developed and validated as part of this study. Additionally, the results of this study demonstrate that short term study abroad experiences can have significant positive impacts on the academic STE M learning and personal growth of science and engineering graduate students. However, the impact of such experiences on the intercultural development of science and engineering students is still not clear. Finally, this study provided a set of best practic es and recommendations for the design and implementation of more effective graduate level study abroad programs in the sciences and engineering.

PAGE 283

283 APPENDIX A IRB PROTOCOL 1. Title of Protocol: An assessment of outcomes for under represented graduate students as a result of participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) study abroad programs. 2. Principal Investigator: Nicola Kernaghan, Assistant Director, Educational/Training Programs and Doctoral Candidate University of Florida, Sch ool of Teaching and Learning 3. Supervisor (If PI is student): Dr. Linda Jones, Associate Professor of Science Education, University of Florida, School of Teaching and Learning 4. Date of Proposed Research: April 20th 2011 April 19th 2012 5. Source of Fund ing: None 6. Scientific Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to determine the academic learning, personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for under represented graduate students who participate in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) study abroad programs. In addition, faculty interviews, review of syllabi and program observations will be used to provide information about how program implementation can affect student outcomes. 7. Describe the Research Methodol ogy in Non Technical Language: This study will invite current UF under represented graduate students, who are registered for three 2011 Summer study abroad programs, to participate in two surveys and a series of program observations. The programs in the study are: UF in China Global Science and Engineering May 6 May 18, 2011 UF in South Africa Global Science and Engineering June 10 June 21, 2011 UF in Brazil Global Science and Engineering July 22 August 3, 2011 The students will be invited to complete a STEM Outcomes assessment and an Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) assessment approximately 2 weeks prior to their departure on each of the study abroad programs and again, approximately one week after they return to the U.S. In addition 30 under represented graduate students who do not participate in the study abroad programs will be recruited to form a comparison group and these students will be invited to complete the STEM and IDI surveys at the same time intervals. The STEM Outcomes assessment is a researcher designed tool, while the IDI is a commercially available, pre existing, tool that has been statistically validated and that is widely used to assess study abroad programs. Both surveys will be implemented electronically and invi tations will be sent to the students via email. Each electronic survey will include the informed consent form and will take no longer

PAGE 284

284 than 30 minutes to complete. Results obtained from the electronic survey tools will be maintained by the researcher in a c onfidential and locked office in the UF International Center. Faculty leading the study abroad program will be invited to participate in a single, semi structured interview about their objectives, expectations and anticipated outcomes for the program. Sig ned informed consent forms will be collected at the beginning of the interview. The interview will be conducted on the UF campus and the session will be audio recorded. The interview should last no less than 20 minutes and no longer than 30 minutes and all audio taped data will be assigned numerical codes and the participants will be assigned pseudonyms to ensure anonymity. The graduate students will be invited to participate in a series of program observations associated with their study abroad experience These will include observations of the pre departure session that will be conducted on the UF campus approximately 2 weeks prior to departure on the study abroad program. Signed informed consent forms will be collected from students at the beginning of t he pre departure orientation. Additional observations of a research facility visit a commercial facility visit, and a cultural activity will be undertaken during each of the study abroad programs in China, South Africa and Brazil. Each program observation session will last between one and two hours. The researcher will make observational field notes, focusing on key learning themes and will take photographs to record the context of the activity. The researcher will adopt an observational stance and will ref rain from interacting with the students, faculty or guest speakers during these periods. As soon as possible following the activity, the jot notes, photographs and unwritten recollections will be used to prepare expanded field notes. These will include a m uch greater level of detail, including a description of the physical context, the people involved, as much of their behavior and nonverbal communication as possible, and, to the greatest extent possible, the actual words used by the participants. The rese archer will also include her impressions, thoughts, concerns and explanations related to the activity observed. The jot notes and expanded field notes will originally be recorded using paper and pencil and will ultimately be transcribed into a Word documen t in preparation for analysis. All field notes and photographs will be maintained on a password protected laptop computer while in Chile and will be transferred to a secure office in the UF International Center for storage upon return to the U.S. Student consent will be requested from those participating in the South Africa and Brazil programs to review the two reflection assignments submitted for these study abroad courses. The signed informed consent forms giving permission for the researcher to review t his material will be collected from the students at the pre departure orientation for the South Africa and Brazil programs. Upon receipt of the signed informed consent forms, copies of the student essays will be requested from the lead faculty member for t he course. All material will be kept confidential and will be stored in a locked office at the UF International Center.

PAGE 285

285 Finally, the researcher will review archival material for the China study abroad program that was submitted in the form of two reflectiv e essay course assignments. Data collected from these assignments would also be kept confidential and would be maintained in a locked office at the UF International Center. Please see attached copies of the two survey instruments and the protocols for the program observations and faculty interviews. 8. Describe Potential Benefits: The potential benefit of this study is to assess the potential outcomes for STEM students who participate in study abroad programs and to improve the design, implementation and asse ssment of future study abroad programs for STEM students. 9. Describe Potential Risks: There are no anticipated risks associated with this study. 10. Describe How Participant(s) Will Be Recruited: The 38 study abroad participants, who will all be under represe nted graduate students in the STEM disciplines, will be recruited via email from the group that is registered for the 2011 Summer study abroad programs: UF in China Global Science and Engineering May 6 May 18, 2011 UF in South Africa Global Science and Engineering June 10 June 21, 2011 UF in Brazil Global Science and Engineering July 22 August 3, 2011 The 30 participants for the comparison group will also be recruited via email using the South East Alliance for Graduate Education and the P rofessoriate (SEAGEP) list serve. This program provides professional development and support to the under represented graduate student STEM population and is the lead for the STEM study abroad programs to China, Brazil and South Africa. To the extent possi ble, the comparison group will be comprised of students of similar disciplinary and demographic to those who are participating in the study abroad programs. The faculty who lead the three study abroad programs to China, South Africa and Brazil will be inv ited to participate in interviews prior to the programs. These faculty will be contacted via email. 11. Maximum Number of Participants 68 graduate students and 3 faculty membe rs 12. Age Range of Participants: 18 65 13. Amount of Compensation: 0 14. Describe the Info rmed Consent Process. The prospective participants who have registered for the 2011 Summer study abroad programs to China, South Africa and Brazil will be sent individual emails inviting them to participate. The prospective participants for the comparison group will also be sent individual emails inviting them to participate in the study. These emails will include the informed consent forms for the individuals to read, sign, and return to the researcher. The emails will be

PAGE 286

286 individually sent with no other in formation about other prospective participants included in the content or address boxes of the email. The researcher will discuss the study and review the informed consent forms with the graduate students at the beginning of the pre departure session for each program. Any questions regarding the study will be answered at this time by the researcher and the signed consent forms will be collected by the researcher at the pre departure session. Contact information for those who wish to ask questions after t he focus group will also be provided. The researcher will discuss the study and review the informed consent form with the faculty member at the beginning of the individual interview. Any questions regarding the study will be answered at this time by the researcher and the consent form will be collected by the researcher. In all modes of communication, it will be stressed that the participants can opt out of the study at any time and have the right to refuse to answer any questions they wish. A copy of each signed consent form will be given to each participant. Please see attached copies of the informed consent forms. ___________________________________________________________________ Principal Investigator(s) Signature: Date: ____________________ _______________________________________________ Date: ___________________________________________________________________ Department Chair Signature: Date:

PAGE 287

287 APPENDIX B IN FORMED CONSENT Protocol Title: An a ssessment of outcomes for under represented graduate students as a result of participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) study abroad programs. Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in th is study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to determine the academic learning, personal growth and intercultural development outcomes for under represented graduate students who participate in science, technology, engineering an d mathematics (STEM) study abroad programs. In addition, faculty interviews, review of syllabi and program observations will be used to provide information about how program implementation can affect student outcomes. What you will be asked to do in the s tudy: In this study you will be asked to complete two electronic surveys. One survey will investigate the STEM related outcomes and the other will investigate the intercultural development of participants. Each survey has a pre and a post phase that will b e completed approximately four weeks apart. For those participating in the study abroad program: surveys to complete approximately two weeks prior to departure on the study abroad program and the post trip surveys will be sent approximately one week after you return to the U.S. Names will be used an initial method of tracking surveys, but these will be immediately removed and the surveys will be assigned numerical codes to ensure participant anonymity. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer and have the right to withdraw from the study at any time. The survey data will be used to improve the design and implementation of a future study to assess the potential outcomes for STEM students who participate in study abroad programs. You will also be asked to participate in the program observations that will be conducted for the study abroad program. Please be aware that these observations are p art of the research project, but are not part of the program syllabus. The purpose of including these program observations is to determine the extent of alignment between the intended and delivered curriculum and to understand how students make meaning out of these experiences by comparison with the learning objectives identified by faculty You do not have to participate in the observations to participate in the program and you may o pt out of the research study at any time. A researcher will make four separate observations during the planned activities of the program, including the pre departure session, a visit to an academic facility, a visit to a commercial facility and a cultural activity. These sessions are all part of the syllabus for

PAGE 288

288 the course and you will not be asked to do anything extra for the observations. The researcher will take notes during these sessions and some photographs of students participating in the sessions. Personal information, including names or other identifying data will not be recorded during the sessions and all participants will be assigned pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality. Notes and photographs will be stored on a password protected laptop that wi ll be kept in a locked location while overseas and all data will be transferred to a secure location at the UF International Center upon return to the U.S. Finally, you will be asked to give permission for the researchers to review your two reflective wr iting assignments (pre and post trip). These documents will be used to develop a better understanding of how students learn key concepts during the study abroad program. As with the survey and program observations, the review of the reflective writing assi gnments will be used for research purposes only and is not part of the program syllabus. Names will be expunged from all documents and they will be maintained in a secure and locked location at the UF International Center. Upon conclusion of the study, all survey results, photographs and copies of program observations and archives will be destroyed. For those not participating in the study abroad program: For those who are not participating in a study abroad program, you will be sent the pre survey in earl y May and the post survey approximately four weeks later. Names will be used an initial method of tracking surveys, but these will be immediately removed and the surveys will be assigned numerical codes to ensure participant anonymity. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer and have the right to withdraw from the study at any time. The survey data will be used to improve the design and implementation of a future study to assess the potential outcomes for STEM students who parti cipate in study abroad programs. Upon conclusion of the study, all survey results, photographs and copies of program observations and archives will be destroyed. Time required: Approximately 15 30 minutes to complete each of the surveys. Approximately 60 120 minutes for each observation session. Risks and Benefits: There are no anticipated risks associated with this research study. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in the study. However, a potential benefit of this study is to assess the potential outcomes for STEM students who participate in study abroad programs and to improve the design, implementation and assessment of future study abroad programs for STEM students. Compensation: There is no compensation for this study. Confid entiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a pseudonym and numerical code. The list connecting your name to this pseudonym and numerical code and any audio recordings will be kept

PAGE 289

289 in a locked file in the supervisor's office. All print documents will be destroyed within one Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Nikki Kernaghan M.S., Assistant Director: Educational/Training Programs, University of Florida International Center, 170 HUB, PO Box 113225, Gainesville, FL 32611; Ph: (352) 273 1521, Fax: (352) 392 5575, Email: nikkik@ufic.ufl.edu Dr. Linda Jones Associate Professor, School of Teaching and Lear ning, University of Florida, 2408 New Norman Hall, PO Box 117048, Gainesville, FL 32611; Ph: (352) 273 4423 Fax: (352) 392 9193; Email: lcjones@coe.ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research partic ipant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; ph 392 0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this des cription. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: ____________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: ____________

PAGE 290

290 APPENDIX C A CADEMIC LEARNING AND PERSONAL GROWTH ASSE SSMENT INSTRUMENT Academic Lear ning Outcomes 1. I believe that I can learn new knowledge from scientists/engineers in other countries 2. It is important to understand the perspectives of people from other countries have regarding science/engineering 3. I believe that English is the most import ant language in the communication of science/engineering 4. I am aware of scientific/engineering research opportunities in other countries 5. I value research conducted by scientists/engineers in other countries 6. I feel I can apply my research in global settings 7. I think it is important for scientists/engineers to speak more than one language 8. I am comfortable discussing my research with people from other countries 9. I think science/engineering are communicated using similar methods in other countries 10. I am comforta ble giving an academic presentation in an international setting 11. I have a clear understanding about the role of science and engineering in other countries 12. I have a clear understanding about the role of science/engineering in other countries 13. I believe that I can learn new skills from scientists/engineers in other countries 14. My discipline has an important role to play in solving global problems 15. I think STEM education in other countries is not as advanced as it is in the U.S.*

PAGE 291

291 16. I think that technology transfer in science/engineering occurs differently in other countries compared to the U.S.* 17. Science policy is the same around the world* 18. I think research in science/engineering is more advanced in the U.S. than in other countries* 19. I think commercial opportunities in science/engineering in other countries are similar to those in the U.S.* 20. I think that science/engineering research in other countries is similar to the U.S.* Personal Growth Outcomes Scales 1. I feel confident about practicing my discipline in a different co untry 2. I am knowledgeable about international issues 3. I am a self sufficient person 4. I am competent to work as a scientist/engineer in other countries 5. I feel prepared to work on a multinational research project 6. I am interested in working as a scientist/engin eer in another country 7. I am confident that I can deal efficiently with unexpected events 8. I am confident in my abilities as a scientist/engineer 9. I am prepared to live in another country 10. I am confident that I can take care of myself in a new situation 11. I have the ability to make a difference in the world 12. I am familiar with current events in other countries 13. I aspire to work in another country 14. I am familiar with current events in China/South Africa/Brazil

PAGE 292

292 15. I am interested in working on a multinational project 16. Ca reer opportunities in other countries are not interesting to me* 17. I believe that people from other countries view the U.S. positively* Demographic Information 1. What is your name? 2. What is your sex? 3. How old are you? 4. What is your race/ethnicity 5. What is your na tionality 6. How many times have you travelled outside your home country 7. Do you speak a language other than English 8. If yes, please indicate which languages you speak and the level of fluency 9. Have you previously visited China/South Africa/Brazil? Note that it ems marked with an were excluded from the assessment instrument following the pilot testing phase.

PAGE 293

293 APPENDIX D INTERCULTURAL DEVELO PMENT INVENTORY The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is a pre existing, commercial available instrument for asses item continuum. The survey will be independently scored by the Intercultural Communication Institute and individual profiles will be generated and provided to the researcher. One purpose o f this study is to determine how international experiences, such as the Global Science and Engineering study abroad programs, help students develop global awareness and the ability to effectively interact in culturally diverse settings. The intercultural d evelopment inventory is a widely used and a statistically reliable, valid measure of intercultural sensitivity. A summary of the IDI introduction/instructions for students is provided in the following paragraphs. Each of us has a worldview that is relate d to participation in one or more culture groups. These groups are typically defined by national and/or ethnic boundaries, but they may also represent other affiliations. In the IDI, terms such as "our culture" or "my culture" refer to the culture group(s) to which you feel you "belong" the most. The terms "other cultures," "people from different cultures," or "different cultures" refer to groups to which you do not feel you belong. Try to think about the other culture groups with which you are familiar. Pl ease avoid considering cultures that you know only from media. Respond to each item in the IDI in terms of the specific culture groups with which you have had the most contact or experience. Confidentiality: Your honest responses to the IDI are crucial t o its effectiveness. If your name or ide ntification is asked for, your individual responses will be kept in strict confidence by the IDI administrator. Instructions: For each statement, please click the button that most accurately indicates your agreement or disagreement with the item. When a statement presents an opinion or viewpoint, respond to that item as if you overheard someone making that statement. Also, be sure to respond to each item in terms of the specific culture(s) with which you have had the most contact or experience. There ar e no right or wrong answers, nor "good" or "bad" responses. Respond to each statement based on your first, initial reaction. You should not respond based on whether you believe certain type of statement should or should not be made or whether you like or d islike the way a statement is worded. .BE SURE to respond to each and every item. Ignoring some statements will mean that your total responses will not reflect your own personal viewpoint, and your completed survey cannot be properly analyzed. Some of th e items in the IDI express a viewpoint that you might not feel comfortable expressing to others. When responding to these types of statements in the IDI, you should think about the degree to which you agree or disagree with the overall content or meaning o f each statement as if you "overheard" someone make that statement. Response Options: Disagree

PAGE 294

294 Disagree somewhat more than agree Disagree some and agree some Agree somewhat more than disagree Agree Questions: 1. It is appropriate that people do not c are what happens outside their country. 2. I feel rootless because I do not think I have a cultural identification. 3. I have observed many instances of misunderstanding due to cultural differences in gesturing or eye contact. 4. When I am with people from different cultures, I act differently than when I am with people from my own culture. 5. I have seen many situations where cultural differences in the way people express their emotions led to misunderstanding. 6. People of other cultures are more interest ed in improving themselves than we are. 7. People are the same; we have the same needs, interests, and goals in life. 8. Technology is creating a single world wide culture. 9. I can look at the world through the eyes of a person from another culture. 10. I do not feel I have a culture. 11. When I come in contact with people from a different culture, I find I can change my behavior to adapt to theirs. 12. I use different cultural criteria for interpreting and evaluating situations. 13. While I see myself as a member of my own culture, when I am in one or more other cultures, I find myself 14. I evaluate situations in my own culture based on my experiences and knowledge of other cultures. 15. It is appropriate that members of our stronger culture have more op portunities. 16. Human behavior worldwide should be governed by natural and universal ideas of right and wrong. 17. There would be fewer problems in the world if culturally different groups kept to themselves. 18. People from our culture are lazier than pe ople from other cultures. 19. I can change my behavior to adapt to other cultures. 20. I do not feel I am a member of any one culture or combination of cultures. 21. Many times I have noticed cultural differences in how direct or indirect people are in con versation. 22. If only other cultures were more like ours, the world would be a better place. 23. I am often aware of cultural differences in how decisions are made. 24. People from our culture are less polite compared with people from other cultures. 25. I do not identify with any culture, but with what I have inside. 26. My cultural identity is not clear to me because it is not grounded in the values and patterns of any particular cultural group. 27. Too much attention is directed toward other cultures. 2 8. People from other cultures are more sophisticated than people from our culture. 29. Other cultures relate to technology better than our culture does.

PAGE 295

295 30. Despite some cultural differences, it is more important to recognize that people are all alike in t heir humanity. 31. If only our culture was more like other cultures, the world would be a better place. 32. I often act as a cultural bridge between people from different cultures. 33. People from our culture are less tolerant compared with people from oth er cultures. 34. People from other cultures are not as interested as we are in improving themselves. 35. Too much cultural diversity is bound to lead to divisive conflict. 36. People are fundamentally the same despite apparent differences in cultures. 37. Family values are stronger in other cultures than in our culture. 38. It is appropriate that people do not socialize very much with individuals from different cultures. 39. People in our culture work harder than people in most other cultures. 40. Our cultu re's way of life should be a model for the rest of the world. 41. Cultural differences are less important than the fact that people have the same needs, interests, and goals in life. 42. Family values are stronger in our culture than in other cultures. 43. People should avoid individuals from other cultures who behave differently. 44. People from our culture are not as open minded as people from other cultures. 45. Our common humanity deserves more attention than cultural difference. 46. Because there are u niversal values, cross cultural conflicts can be resolved. 47. I have frequently observed cultural differences in how problems are defined and solved. 48. It is best to form relationships with people of your own culture. 49. Universal moral principles prov ide an effective guide for behavior in other cultures. 50. I frequently change my behavior to deal with cultural differences in gesturing or eye contact. Demographic Information: Name Gender Age category The longest period of time you have lived in a cu lture other than your own Education level (completed): Nationality and/or ethnic background In what world region did you primarily live during your formative years to age 18 Are you currently or have you ever been an ILA member? How many ILA conferences ha ve you attended? Which ILA Member Interest Group (MIG) are you a part of? What is your background (professional and personal) regarding co ntact with cultural difference? What is your philosophy or viewpoint regarding cultural difference? What initiatives o r programs have been undertaken in your organization to address cultural difference, and how successful do you think they have been?

PAGE 296

296 What kind of additional efforts do you think your organization should undertake to address cultural difference? To learn m ore about the Intercultural Development Inventory or to receive technical assistance with the online IDI assessment, please contact: Debra Freathy, Assessment Coordinator The Intercultural Communication Institute 8835 SW Canyon Lane, Suite 238 Portland, O regon 97225, USA Phone: +1.503.297.4622 Fax: +1.503.297.4695 Email: idi@intercultural.org Mitchell R. Hammer, Ph.D., and Milton J. Bennett, Ph.D., 1999, 2001, 2005

PAGE 297

297 APPENDIX E OBSERVATION PROTOCOL (1 2 hours) Several observation sessions will be condu cted during each study tour program. These sessions will occur during the pre departure orientation, site visit s to a research facilit ies (university or government), site visit s to commercial facilit ies and cultural activit ies Prior to departure on the study tour, a copy of the syllabus for the course will be obtained and analyzed for themes related to student learning objectives during each activity. These will be used to prepare a key, which will be used as a reference to determine the focus for each o f the program observations sessions (see Table below). Program Session Learning Themes Pre departure Discussion of course objectives and expectations Information on history, geography, language, politics and government, traditions and other cultural asp ects of destination country Intercultural awareness discussion Research Facility Visit Opportunities to network with students, faculty and/or government researchers Opportunities to develop an understanding of the differences in STEM education and researc h cultures between the U.S. and the host country Opportunities to give presentations in an international context Commercial/industrial Facility Visit Opportunities to interact with researchers, entrepreneurs and scientific business leaders Opportunities t o learn about differences in science and technology and technology transfer between the U.S. and the host country Cultural Activity Opportunities to learn about history, geography, and other cultural aspects of host country Opportunities to meet community members First hand cultural experiences

PAGE 298

298 Each program observation session will last between 1 and 2 hours and observational field notes will be created, focusing on the key learning themes. The researcher will adopt an observational stance and will refrai n from interacting with the students, faculty or guest speakers during these periods. The preliminary field notes will be in the format of jot notes, in which words or short phrases will be recorded in relation to the activity undertaken, behaviors observ ed, and group and individual dialogue when appropriate. Photographs will also be taken to record the context of the activity. As soon as possible following the activity, the jot notes, photographs and unwritten recollections will be used to prepare expand ed field notes. These will include a much greater level of detail, including a description of the physical context, the people involved, as much of their behavior and nonverbal communication as possible, and, to the greatest extent possible, the actual wo rds used by the participants. The researcher will also include her impressions, thoughts, concerns and explanations related to the activity observed. The jot notes and expanded field notes will originally be recorded using paper and pencil and will ultima tely be transcribed into a Word document in preparation for analysis.

PAGE 299

299 APPENDIX F SEAGEP SYLLABUS Science & Engineering in the Global Context Spring/Summer A/Summer B 2011 ALS 5905/EIN 6905 Instructors: Dr. Samesha Barnes sbarnes@aa.ufl.edu Dr. Walter Bowen wbowen@ufl.edu Dr. Kathleen Colverson kearl@ufic.ufl.edu Dr. Anne Donnelly adonn@uf l.edu Dr. Camille Feanny cfeanny@ufl.edu Dr. Sandra Russo srusso@ufic.ufl.edu Dr. Mike Walsh mwalsh787@hargray.com C ourse Description To address the need for global experience at the graduate level, the South East Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (SEAGEP) has developed an international project and 3 credit course in collaboration with the University of Florida International Center entitled Science & Engineering in the Global Context The program will consist of short duration trips to Chile, China, South Africa and Brazil that will allow a total of 54 SEAGEP scholars to develop global competencies th at will give them a competitive edge in their preparation for and pursuit of academic careers. Each trip will include a schedule that will include visits to local industries and academic institutions, meetings with research and government agencies and a c ultural experience. SEAGEP scholars will participate in discussions at local universities and have an opportunity to network with faculty & students. The team of scholars in each country will be divided into groups which will be assigned to one of four re search topics (science and technology, science communications, technology transfer, education) to investigate during the trip. Upon return to the U.S., participants will write a report covering the assigned research topic. The final SEAGEP Annual Meeting, which will be held at the University of Florida in September 2011, will be an international symposium featuring presentations from all Science and Engineering in the Global Context program students. Participants will draft a comprehensive report that wil l be published to capture the knowledge gained from these experiences. Course Objectives 1. Participants will learn about the history, culture and traditions of the host country 2. Participants will develop an understanding of the differences in STEM education and research cultures between the U.S. and the host country 3. Participants will investigate one of the four research topics below with an assigned team: a. Science and Technology b. Science Communications c. Technology Transfer d. Education 4. Participants will network wit h students, faculty, researchers and government agencies abroad 5. Participants will engage in discussions on the research topics in the host country 6. Participants will develop a presentation summarizing the international experience 7. Participants will draft a c omprehensive report of findings for publication in conjunction with students from all four destinations

PAGE 300

300 Destinations Four destinations were selected where UF, the lead alliance institution, has liaisons and established partnerships to help facilitate t he international experience. The country descriptions and tentative departure and return dates are summarized below. Chile In recognition of the global importance of energy management in 2007 the UF College of Engineering established cooperative agreement s with several South American Universities including the Pontifica Universidad Catolica de Chile. An International Industrial Energy Management Course was also established at that institution. Two years later, the College of Engineering undertook a formal internationalization of the curriculum, specifically targeting our Latin American and South American engineering institutions, who are partners with UF in the Latin American and Caribbean Consortium of Engineering Institutions. A leader in this effort is Dr. Cristian Cardenas Lailhacar, Executive Director of the National Energy Efficiency Program for the Chilean Department of Energy. Dr. Cardenas, who has worked with the SEAGEP program in the past, has agreed to serve as host for the Chilean SEAGEP group so that they can explore current issues in this area, as well as gain a general understanding of issues surrounding research in this part of the world. China ized cities. Beijing has more than 70 colleges and universities, including several of international recognition. The University of Florida Beijing Center opened in June 2005, and offers study abroad programs for UF students, recruits students from China to UF and markets UF distance learning programs in China. In addition, the UF Center in Beijing assists UF faculty in establishing relationships with faculty at Chinese universities. UF has cooperative agreements with at least 17 universities in China and re cently signed an agreement with the China Scholarship Council to increase the number of Chinese students and faculty coming to UF. Working closely with the UF Beijing Center, this trip will provide opportunities to visit Chinese universities, and tour cutt ing edge facilities with an emphasis on engineering. South Africa The international experience to South Africa will include visits to multiple STEM oriented institutions with which UF has established relationships. Students will spend approximately half the trip in Johannesburg and Pretoria, where they will visit a variety of sites, such as the National Research Foundation, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Tswane University of Technology, and the University of Pretoria. In addit ion, UF will collaborate with E Tongila Manly, to arrange site visits to private sector facilities in Johannesburg. Meetings with scientists working on natural resources, water, and wildlife management of the Kru ger National Park, the largest Province. Options to visit water and agricultural research sites in the Limpopo Transfrontier area will be possible. Early human archeology sites and several World Heritage sites of cultural and environmental interest will be explored. Brazil The University of Florida has a long and extensive relationship with Brazil. The Center for Latin America Studies houses the F lorida Brazil linkage program ( www.latam.ufl.edu/research/fbi ) as a formal recognition of the importance between the two countries. Many Brazilian students benefit from this program by reduction of out of state tuition to attend UF. The Tropical Conservation and Development ( www.tcd.ufl.edu ) has been conducting interdisciplinary research in conservation and sustainable practices for decades in numerous Brazilian com munities. This has resulted in multiple publications and a heightened prominence of the Center for Latin American Studies at UF across the world. Finally, UF has cooperative agreements with more than 30 Brazilian institutions to further research and studen t exchanges. This combination makes Brazil an ideal choice for multi disciplinary STEM students to visit.

PAGE 301

301 Country Tentative Dates* Focus Chile March 4 March 14 Energy China May 6 May 18 Engineering South Africa June 10 June 22 Ecology/Conserv ation Brazil July 23 August 3 Agriculture & Natural Resources Orientation An extensive orientation will be held prior to departure for each country. Itinerary, travel and sues, and other important information will be discussed. The orientation will be held at the University of Florida. Clemson and University of South Carolina students will participate by videoconference. Attendance is mandatory for all students. Attendance /Participation Full participation is expected and will constitute a significant portion of your grade. Please approach this experience with an open mind and fully engage in all planned activities. Assignments Written assignments should to be submitted to Dr. Barnes ( sbarnes@aa.ufl.edu ) by 5:00 pm on the specified due date. Assignments should be double 12 pt font. Assignment 1: Destination Summary Prepare an overview (2 pages ) about your destination highlighting the history, culture, government, and facts of interest. This assignment is due one week prior to travel. Assignment 2: Group Discussions Prepare for two 1 hour group discussions on learning from assigned readings and various research Polokwane), and observations of the research done by SANParks in Kruger National Park. Each group will have 15 minutes to lead the discuss ion of their assigned research topic based on the assigned readings and South Africa experiences. All students are expected to share and be actively engaged in the dialogue. Assignment 3: Research Topic Report Prepare a report (4 pages) on the research to pic that you investigated with your team during the study abroad program. Incorporate specific details from your international experience whenever possible. Include references using a citation style that is customary for your discipline. Team interaction i s encouraged during preparation; however each student must submit an individual report. Reflective Writing Journaling can significantly enhance your study abroad experience by allowing you to document what you see, hear, and learn and to record your thoug hts and feelings about what you encounter. Journaling will also allow you to reflect back on your experiences long after the trip is over. Students are strongly encouraged but not required to keep a journal, however daily journaling during the trip may mak e it easier to complete the reflective writing assignments below. Reflective Writing 1: Discuss (1 2 pages) your expectations for the study abroad program. What do you hope to gain from the experience both personally and professionally? How might you expect to utilize what you learn on this trip in your professional career? What are you expecting based on any prior knowledge of the host country? What are you looking forward to the most? Share any concerns or reservations that you may have about the vis it.

PAGE 302

302 Reflective Writing 2: Reflect on your experiences abroad. Discuss (1 2 pages) the differences between what you expected and what you actually experienced. Have your experiences met, exceeded or fallen short of your expectations? What have been th e most memorable or valuable aspects of the visit so far? What have been the greatest challenges? If you had to choose a set of criteria that would best detail and evaluate your learning process on this trip, what would they be and why? Due Dates Due date s for assignments will vary by destination as shown below. Country Due Date Assignment 1 (Overview) Reflective Writing 1 Reflective Writing 2 Assignment 3 (Report) Chile February 25 March 8 March 12 April 4 China April 29 May 5 May 16 June 6 South Africa June 3 June 9 June 28 July 11 Brazil July 15 July 21 August 1 August 22 Additional Requirements In addition to the graded assignments above, participants will be expected to complete the following: SEAGEP Annual Meeting Presentation Prepare a presentation with your host country team for the SEAGEP Annual Meeting at the University of Florida in September 2011. This is a group project that will require cooperation from all participants. Your team should designate a leader(s) to organize and coord inate this effort and ensure presentation that gives an overview of the international experience and addresses the four research topics. Creativity is encourag ed. Final Report Prepare a professional comprehensive report that captures the knowledge gained from the international experience encompassing the findings from the four research topics for all destinations. This is a group project to be completed with co ntribution from all participants from each country. Grading Students will earn a letter grade in the course. Assignments will be weighted as shown below. Participation 30 % Assignment 1 10 % Assignment 2 10 % Assignment 3 30 % Reflective Writing 1 10 % Reflective Writing 2 10 % 100 % Class policies Attendance This is a graduate course. It is expected that all students will attend every activity and participate fully. The only allowed absences will be for serious illness or observance of p ersonal religious holidays. Late Work Late work will not be accepted.

PAGE 303

303 Academic Honesty As a result of completing the registration form at the University of Florida, every student has signed the Florida expects its students to be honest in all their academic work. I agree to adhere to this commitment to academic honesty and understand that my failure to comply with this commitment may result in disciplinary action up to and including expulsion f rom

PAGE 304

304 APPENDIX G SEAGEP ITINERARIES Science & Engineering in the Global Context Itinerary for Chile Trip (Energy) Friday, March 4, 2011 to Monday, March 14, 2011 Friday, March 4 Saturday 5, 2011 (Travel Day from Gainesville, Florida t o Santiago, Chile) 10:00am Arrive in Santiago, Chile (Saturday 3/5/2011) Aeropuerto Internacional Comodoro Arturo Merino Bentez; Quilicura, Santiago, Chile 12:00pm 2:00pm Hotel check in Time Suites Hotel 1:00pm 2:00pm Travel to downtown Santiag o for Lunch 2:00pm 3:30pm Lunch at the Downtown Market Place 3:30pm 6:30pm speaking guide: Historical Sites, Arts & Crafts areas, etc. 6:30pm 8:00pm Dinner at typical Santiago style pizza place (Strongly re commended by Dr. Cardenas) 8:00pm 8:30pm Drive back to hotel (Retire for the evening) Sunday, March 6, 2011 (Cultural Tours within and outside Santiago) 8:00am 9:45am Rest morning and Breakfast in Hotel 9:45am 10:00am Fellows board charter bus to begin Cultural Tour 10:00am 11:45pm 12:00pm 1:00pm 1:00pm 1:30pm 1:30pm 3:00pm Lunch by the seashore 3:00pm 4:30pm smashing on the rocks 4:30pm 6:00pm several wineries) 6:00pm 7:30pm Stop in Santiago to enjoy Chilean pastries at Monday, March 7, 2011 (in Santiago, Chile) (Research presentations and University tour)

PAGE 305

305 8:00am 12:45pm Breakfast and Lunch on you own (**Time to work on assignments) 9: 1:30pm Arrive at the U.S. Embassy Chile to che ck in 2:00pm 3:00pm Briefing with Ms. Mary Brett Rogers Springs, Science, Technology and Health Officer 3:30pm 4:00pm Meet Dr. Rios at 3:45pm at the Engineering building, Pontifica Catolica Campus San Jaquin 4:00pm 6:00pm Student presentations at Pontifica Universidad Catolica de Chile 6:30pm 8:30pm 9:00pm Return to hotel Tuesday, March 8, 2011 (Travel from Santiago to UTFSM University campus in Valparaiso) 7:00am 8:00am Breakfast at Hotel 8:15am 9:45am Drive to Federico Santa Mara Technical University (Valparaiso Campus) Fellows will have an opportunity to meet with faculty, researchers and students who share similar fields and research foci. 9:45am 10:10am Mee ting with International Office Ms. Karol Trautmann, Director 10:15am 11:25am Meeting with Centro de Energa Renovables, Chilean Government Mr. Nicols Fandez 11:30am 1:00pm Meeting with CIE (Center for Energy Innovation), USM Prof. Jaime Espin oza; Prof. Pedro Serrano; and, Prof. Andrs Olivares 1:05pm 02:00pm Lunch gathering with USM researchers and invited students. 2:05pm 3:00pm Meeting with GEA (Group for Alternative Energy), USM Mr.Vicente Olavarra) 3:30pm 4:00pm Pontifica Uni versidad Catolica de Valparaiso 4:00pm 5:30pm Visit the Energy Biotechnology Center student presentations 5:30pm 7:00pm Return drive from Valparaiso to Santiago 7:00pm Arrive at Hotel (Dinner on your own) Wednesday, March 9, 2011 ( Tour of Hydro electric power plant operations) 7:30am 8:15am Breakfast in Hotel 9:00am 9:15am Arrival and Welcome from Senior Juan Andres Morel at Colbun

PAGE 306

306 9:15am 9:45am management 10:00am 11:45am T ravel to the Aconcagua Hydroelectric Plant 11:45am 12:00pm Group reception and registration at Los Quilos Hydropower Plant gate 12:00pm 12:15pm HSE General Instructions 12:15pm 12:45PM Aconcagua Hydropower Plant presentation 1:00pm 1:45pm Lunc h at Los Quilos 2:00pm 2:30pm Visit to Los Quilos Installation 2:30pm 3:30pm 4:00pm 4:30pm Visit with the experts at Chacabuquito Hydropower Plant 4:30pm 5:00pm Final Question and Answer time 5:00pm 6:45pm Arrive at hotel (Dinner on your own) Thursday, March 10, 2011 (Visit Energy facility Biogas) 8:00am 9:00am Breakfast in Hotel 9:00am 12:00p m Afternoon and evening free time Friday, March 11, Cultural Tour) 8:00am 2:30pm Breakfast and Lunch on your own 3:00pm 4:00pm Travel to Winery Industry visit (A leading export industry in Chile. The group will have a private, beh ind the scenes tour.) 4:40pm -6:30pm Private Winery Tour ( Presentation by sustainability expert about their energy processes ) 6:45pm 7:45pm Travel back to Santiago (Dinner on your own) Saturday, March 12, 2011 (Cultural Excursion on Chilean coast: Vina del Mar and Valparaiso area Tour) 69: 7:00am 8:00am Breakfast at Hotel

PAGE 307

307 8:15am 9:30am Travel to Vina del Mar 9:30am 2:30pm Students on their own for cultural excursion at Vina del Mar 2:30pm 5:00pm Drive through Valparaiso and Tour the histo ric sites 5:00pm 6:30pm Return drive to Santiago, Chile (Hotel) 8:00pm 11:45pm 11:45pm 12:00am At Midnight drive back to Hotel Sunday, March 13, 2011 (Santiago, Chile) (Packing Day for stude nts and Evening Flight from Chile to the US) 8:00am 5:00pm Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner on your own 6:00pm 7:00pm Drive to Santiago Airport and unload luggage (Aeropuerto Internacional Comodoro Arturo Merino Bentez; Quilicura, Santiago, Chile) Monda y, March 14, 2011 (Arrive back in the US Orlando Airport Return drive to Gainesville)

PAGE 308

308 Science & Engineering in the Global Context Itinerary for China Trip (Engineering) Friday, May 6, 2011 to Wednesday, May 18, 2011 May 6 Friday 1:25 AM onnell Center Parking Garage 1:30 AM Leave to Jacksonville International Airport 5:45 AM Flight departs May 7 Saturday Chonghua Zhang Arrival in Beijing at 2:20 PM (United Air, UA897 ) Dr. Chonghua Zhang will be at the airport to welcome SEAGEP g roup Transfer to SARIZ INTERNATIONAL HOTEL 7:00 PM GROUP DINNER (1), restaurant is located in the commercial section of the same building of Sariz Hotel welcoming dinner after dinner adventure around hotel area May 8 Sunday Tour Guide: Emma Gao Br eakfast at Hotel Free Morning for rest or window shopping around hotel area, with many IT shops and shopping mall Lunch on your own 12:40 PM meet at hotel lobby. We will be accompanied by a tour guide Ms. Emma Gao. 13:20 15:40 PM Cultural activity To ur of Forbidden City, Tiananmen Square 17:15 18:30 PM 18:50 19:40 PM GROUP DINNER (2) Bian Yi Fang Peking Duck 5/15/Restaurant for Dinner 19:40 PM Return to Sariz Hote l May 9 Monday Joined by Dr. Chonghua Zhang Break fast at Hotel 9:30 AM Academy of Art and Design Greeting by the international office of the college and touring the college, joined by Ms. Song Yang, a Ph.D. candidate student and she will soon visit UF on Fall 2011 as visiting scholar for one year. Ms. Song is happy to be your resource person. 12:00 PM GROUP LUNCH (3) joined by 5 students associated with Tsinghua University Exchange Association. 1:30 PM 5 Tsinghua University Exchange Association students will give presentation about Tsinghua Univers ity and opportunity for questions and establish contact. They can be your resource persons too. SEAGEP student group presentation and discussion (2 groups): Science and Technology in USA Science Communication in USA 3:30 PM College of Environmental Engin eering visit to the energy saving building and water chemistry laboratory when students are having experiment classes. 5:00pm return to Hotel Dinner (on your own) May 10 Tuesday Tour Guide Dr. Breakfast at Hotel 9:30 AM Meeting with Ms. Li, international Affair Office will lead the university tour Department of Mechanical Engineering visit to student labs (incl. Industrial Design Lab)

PAGE 309

309 Chonghua Zhang State Key Laboratory for Advanced Metal and Materials Meeting with Professor Ye who will expla in the different new material products and lead the tour 12:00pm GROUP LUNCH (4) at UTSB 1:15pm Exhibition Center of USTB history 2:30 4:50pm SEAGEP student group presentation and discussion (2 groups): Technology Transfer in USA Science Education in USA Joined by USTB students Chinese students will be a mix of disciplines 5:00 PM Return to Hotel Dinner (on your own) May 11 Wednesday Tour Guide to accompany to Tianjin Dr. Chonghua Zhang to join Bring subway cards with you! Breakfast (pick up fo od box at check in counter) 5:45 AM Meeting at hotel lobby and walk to Subway Station (Route #4) going to Beijing Train South Station 7:20 AM Bullet train to Tianjin Tanggu ( C2271) 8:30 AM 11:00 AM Touring Taida Industrial Park odle factory (2hr visit including factory visit by mini train and 11:30 AM GROUP LUNCH (5) at revolving restaurant at the top floor of Taida Central Hotel 1:40 5:20 PM Tianjin city tour to ancient cultural street & T ianjin Food Street 5:30 6:20 PM Dinner on your own at Tianjin Food Street 8:40 PM Bullet train back to Beijing 9:30 10:20 PM Transfer by subway Route #4 (Huangzhuang Station) May 12 Thursday Joined by Dr. Chonghua Zhang Breakfast at Hotel 8:2 0 Meet at hotel lobby 8:30 AM Bus depart from Hotel to China Agricultural University (East Campus) and arriving at CAU at 9:00AM Ms. Tang Ying of International Office will lead us for the visit. There will be a group of 9 students from IFAS of UF to join us. This visit will be combined with the visit by UF IFAS group 9:30 AM Food Science Department Precision Agriculture Machinery Lab 1 2:00 PM Return to Sariz Hotel Free afternoon Lunch and D inner on your own May 13 Friday Tour Guide Ms. Emma Gao Bre akfast at Hotel 8:15am Bus departs to the Great Wall 9:40 11:15 AM The Great Wall ( (Ju Yong Guan Gate) 11:40 AM GROUP LUNCH (6) 1:25 2:25 PM Take Bus to Chang Ling Imperial Tomb 2:35 4:00 Return to Beijing 4:20 5:00 PM Olympic Park, exterior view of Bird Next Olympic Stadium and Water Cube swimming pool 5:20 6:00 PM Dinner on your own 6:00 PM Depart to Peking Opera House 6:40 PM Arriving at Opera House 7:30 8:45 PM Perking Opera Performance 9:30 PM Return to Sariz Hotel

PAGE 310

310 May 14 Satu rday Tour Guide Ms. Emma Gao Chonghua To travel to Shanghai Last Day in Beijing! Breakfast at Hotel Free Morning for shopping and Lunch on your own 12:00 PM H otel c heck out (leave luggage in the bus) 12:30 PM Bus departs to Summer Palace 12:30 2:00 PM Tour at Summer Palace 2:00 3:00 PM Xiu Shui Street Shopping Plaza Dinner on your own 8:00 PM Bus departs to Beijing Train Station 10:15 PM Train d evening sleeper train) May 15 Sunday 11:39 AM Arrival in Shanghai. Bus transfer to Baron Business Hotel Tour guide to meet us at Shanghai railway station Lunch on your own Free afternoon Dinner on your own May 16 Monday Chonghua Zhang Breakfast at Hotel 8:15am bus to Suzhou (1.5 hour drive) 9:40 10:40 AM Visit to The Master of Nets Garden 11:00 11:40 AM The Ancient Canal by boat 12:00 2:20 PM GROUP LUNCH (7) at Suzhou Silk Factory and touring the factory 2:45 PM Bus to Suzhou Industrial Park 3:20 5:00 PM Meeting with Park Administration (learn about par k planning, etc.) 5:20 PM Return to Shanghai (1.5 hour drive) Dinner on your own May 17 Tuesday Chonghua Zhang Breakfast at Hotel 10:00 AM bus tour of Shanghai World Expo China Pavilion 12:00 1:15 PM Lunch on your own 1:15 3:00 PM S hanghai Muse um 3:00 5:00 PM S hanghai U rban P lanning E xhibition C enter 5:00 7:00 PM GROUP DINNER (8) at Oriental Pearl Tower (revolving restaurant) 8:00 PM Return to hotel May 18 Wednesday Breakfast at Hotel Free Morning packing/last minute shopping 11:00 AM Hotel checkout 11:30 AM Depart to Shanghai International Airport Lunch on your own at the airport after flight checkin 3:55 PM United Airlines f light departs May 18 Arrival in Jacksonville at 11:00 PM Transfer to Gainesville

PAGE 311

311 Science & Enginee ring in the Global Context Itinerary for South Africa (E cology/Conservation ) Friday, June 10, 2011 to Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10 June, Friday Jacksonville/FL 11:30 AM Jacksonville (2 vans for 10 peop le) 3:16 PM FL students/faculty: Flight departs from Jacksonville 5:45 PM Group (UF & USC students/faculty) meet at the departing gate in Atlanta airport 11 June, Saturday Johannesburg 5:00 PM Arrival in Johannesburg O.R. Tambo International Airpor t (ORTIA) 8:00 PM Bus to the Hotel Hotel check in 12 June, Sunday Johannesburg Morning recovery 10:50 AM Meeting in the Lobby for Soweto Cultural Tour (bring snacks or have late breakfast) 11:00 AM Bus depart to Soweto 5:00 PM Group Dinner 7:00 PM Bus to the hotel 13 June, Monday Pretoria Drive to Pretoria: 8:30 AM Check out from hotel 8:45 AM Bus departs to Pretoria (65km away) 10:00 11:00 AM Innovation Hub (commercialize scientific and technological discoveries 11:30 AM CSIR (Co uncil for Scientific and Industrial Research) 12:30 PM Bus transfer to University of Pretoria (UP) 1:00 PM 2:00 PM University of Pretoria Campus tour (accompanied by Tourism Department students) 5:00 PM Bus to the hotel 5:30 PM Hotel check in Dinner on your own 14 June, Tuesday Pretoria 8:30 AM Bud departs to the Zoo. Bring snacks as late lunch 9:00 10:45 AM Pretoria Zoo (wildlife research) 10:45 12:30 PM Tswhane University of Technology (TUT) ( 12:30 PM Bus to the USDA office 1:00 3:00 PM USDA office at the US Embassy Corey Pickelsimer (Senior Agricultural Attach) 3:00 PM Late lunch (on your own) and return to the hotel 5:30 6:00 PM 6:00 PM Meeting with Dr. Amy Sullivan (agricultural project) at the hotel Dinner on your own 15 June, Wednesday Polokwane Drive to Polokwane: 8:00 9:30 AM Breakfast with Tongila Manly (Enterp rise Florida Southern Africa Office) 9:30 11:00 AM Student discussion at hotel

PAGE 312

312 11:15 AM Hotel check out 11:30 AM Bus departs to Polokwane (4 hrs drive) Stop for lunch (on your own) on the way to the mine 2:00 4:00 PM Cullinan Diamond Mine Tour 4:0 0 PM Bus departs to Polokwane 5:00 PM Hotel check in 6:00 PM Dinner with representatives from the Ministry of Ag 16 June, Thursday Polokwane Public holiday: Youth Day 9:00 AM Bus departs to the field Projects by the Ministry of Agriculture: Water management Alternative compost making project Biopesticide research project Lunch and dinner on your own. For lunch bring snacks, etc. as the group will be in the field 4:00 PM Bus to the hotel 17 June, Friday Phaloborwa Drive to Phaloborwa 8:00 AM Hotel check out 11:00 AM 12:30 PM Meeting with Louise Swemmer (Senior Social Scientist) SAEON/Scientific Services Office. 12:45 PM Bus departs Amarula Factory visit 5:00 PM Hotel check in Lunch and dinner on your own 18 June, Saturday Nelspruit Drive to Nelspruit 8:00 AM Hotel check out Bring snacks! Drive via Blyde Canyon S cenic drive called the Panorama Route (80km Mac Falls & Pools 5:00 PM Hotel check in Lunch and dinner on your own 19 June, Sunday Nelspruit Breakfast in the hotel Kruger National Park Lunch on your own Evening Game Drive in Kruger National Park meet at Numbi Gate. Sanparks vehicles depart from Numbi Gate at 5:00 PM for a 3 hour game drive through the national park, returning to Nu mbi Gate at approx 8:00 PM. 9:00 PM Return to the Hotel 20 June, Monday Nelspruit 5:00 AM Bus departs to Skukuza via Paul Kruger gate 5:30 AM Kruger National Park 5:00 PM Return to hotel Lunch and dinner on your own

PAGE 313

313 21 June, Tuesday Last Day Dr ive to Johannesburg 8:30 9:30 AM student group discussions 10:00 AM Check out from hotel 10:15 AM Bus departs to Johannesburg 5:00 PM Arrival at O.R. Tambo Johannesburg International Airport 8:20 PM Flight departs to USA (flight No. DL201)

PAGE 314

314 Scie nce & Engineering in the Global Context Itinerary for Brazil (Agriculture & Natural Resources) Saturday, July 23, 2011 to Monday, August 1, 2011 Date and Location Activity Description Saturday, 07/23 Sao Paulo 1:00 pm nd drive to Jacksonville 5:34 pm Flight departs from Jacksonville International Airport 8:30 pm Group (UF, USC & Clemson) meet at departing gate in Chicago Airport for introductions Sunday, 07/24 Sao Paulo 9:45 am Arrive in Sao Paulo International Airport (GRU) 11:30 am Transfer to Hotel and check in 1:00 pm Lunch (on your own) @ MASP 2:00 pm Cultural: Street market at Paulista Avenue (the most important economic & cultural avenue in SP) FILE exhibition (Electronic Language International Fest ival) 6:00 pm Group Dinner @ Angelica Grill (steak house) 8:00 pm Return to hotel Optional: Skye Bar (design bar with a great view of Sao Paulo) Monday, 07/25 Sao Paulo Breakfast in hotel 10:00 am Walk to UNICA (10 min) 10:30am 12:00 pm UNICA (B razilian Sugarcane Industry Association) 12:30 pm Transfer to University of Sao Paulo (USP) Lunch (on your own) on campus @ Swedish Restaurant 2:30 4:00 pm Institute of Electronics and Energy, USP 5:00 pm Transfer to Hotel 6:30 7:30 pm Group discus sion (1) Tuesday, 07/26 Sao Paulo/ Nazare Paulista Breakfast in hotel 9:00 am Hotel check out and transfer to: 10:00 11:30 am FAPESP (Foundation for Research Support of Sao Paulo) 12:00 1:30pm Lunch (on own) @ Eldorado Shopping Mall 2:00 4:00 pm ETH Bioenergia S.A., a company of the Odebrecht Group 5:00 pm Transfer to IPE in Nazare Paulista (90kms) Wednesday, 07/27 Nazare Paulista/ Piracicaba Breakfast in IPE lodge 9:00 4:00 pm Instituto de Pesquisas Ecologicas (IPE) Lectures: overview of IPE history of deforestation, reforestation and research projects, animal research at IPE Participation in re foresting effort (Plant a tree) 4:00 pm Transfer to Piracicaba Thursday, 07/28 Campinas/ Piracicaba Breakfast in hotel 8:00 am Drive to Campin as (85kms) 9:00 12:00 pm NIPE (Interdisciplinary Center for Energy Planning) at University of Campinas (UNICAMP)

PAGE 315

315 12:30 pm Lunch (on your own) in UNICAMP 2:00 5:00 pm Sugar and ethanol factory in Easter Friday, 07/29 Piracicaba Breakfast in hotel 9: 30 am Transfer to USP Campus in Piracicaba 10:00 11:30 pm ESALQ (School of Agriculture), USP campus in Piracicaba National Bio fuels Program 12:00 1:45 pm Lunch (on your own) @ Rua do Porto 2:30 4:30 pm CTC: Center of Sugarcane Technology 5:00 6:3 0 pm USP campus in Piracicaba: CEPEA (Center for Advanced Studies on Applied Economics) Dinner on your own Saturday, 07/30 Sao Paulo Breakfast in hotel 8:30 9:30 pm Group discussion (2) 10: 00 am Hotel checkout and transfer to Sao Paulo (160 kms) 1 2:00 pm Hotel check in 12:30pm Lunch (on your own) at Iguatemi Shopping Mall 2:00 pm Cultural: Ibirapuera Park and Afro Brazilian Museum 7:30 pm Optional: Soccer game Palmeiras vs. Atletico Mineiro Sunday, 07/31 Sao Paulo Breakfast in hotel 8: 00 am Drive to Peruibe (141kms) Parque da Jureia (Jureia Natural Park) 5:00 pm Return to Sao Paulo Monday, 08/01 Sao Paulo Breakfast in hotel Free morning 12:00 pm Hotel check out 1:30 pm Cultural: Walking tour of historic downtown (Catedral da Se, Benedictine Monastery, Santander Tower, etc.) Bovespa Sao Paulo Stock Exchange 4:45 pm Transfer to Sao Paulo International Airport (GRU) 9:10 pm Flight departs Sao Paulo

PAGE 316

316 APPENDIX H SEAGEP STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS Student Code Sex Eth nicity Discipline Academic & Personal Assessment IDI Reflective Writing Pre trip Post trip Pre trip Post trip C1 M His Eng Y Y Y Y Y C2 F AA L & P Y Y Y Y Y C3 F His Eng Y Y Y Y Y C4 M His L & P Y Y Y Y Y C5 M AA Eng Y Y Y Y Y C6 F AA L & P Y Y Y Y Y C7 M AA Eng Y Y Y Y Y C8 F His Eng Y Y Y Y Y C9 F AA Eng Y Y Y Y Y C10 M His Eng Y Y Y Y Y C11 M AA Eng Y Y Y Y Y C12 M AA Eng Y Y Y Y Y C13 M His Eng Y Y Y Y Y C14 F AA Eng Y Y Y Y Y C15 F His Eng Y Y Y Y Y SA1 F AA L & P Y Y Y Y Y SA2 F His L & P Y Y Y Y Y SA3 M NA L & P Y Y Y Y Y SA4 F His L & P Y Y Y Y Y SA5 F AA Eng Y Y Y Y Y SA6 F AA L & P Y Y Y Y Y SA7 M His Eng Y Y Y Y Y SA8 F His L & P Y Y Y Y Y SA9 F AA Eng Y Y Y Y Y SA10 M O L & P N N N N N B1 F His L & P Y Y Y Y Y B2 M AA Eng Y Y Y Y Y B3 M AA Eng Y Y Y Y Y B4 F His L & P Y Y Y Y Y B5 F His Eng Y Y Y Y Y B6 M AA L & P Y Y Y Y Y B7 M His L & P Y Y Y Y Y B8 M AA L & P Y Y Y Y Y B9 M His L & P Y Y N N N B10 M NA Eng Y N N N N

PAGE 317

317 Key for T able Student codes C SA B China South Africa Brazil Sex M F Male Female Ethnicity AA His NA O Black/African/African American Hispanic/Latino/Spanish American Indian or Alaskan Native Other Discipline Eng L & P Engineering Life and Physical Science Survey/Writing Response s Y N Yes No

PAGE 318

318 LIST OF REFERENCES Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). (2000). Engineering criteria 2000 Retrieved from http://www.ele.uri.edu/faculty/daly/cri teria.2000.html American Chemical Society (ACS) (n.d.). Study abroad programs for undergraduate chemical science majors Retrieved from http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPER ARTICLE&node_id=1521&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=78147ee 7 ddc1 460d 90d9 17eaf21e5382 America n Council on Education (ACE). (1995). Educating Americans for a world in flux:Ten ground rules for internationalizing higher education Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Anderson, P. H., Lawton, L., Rexeisen, R. J., & Hubbard, A. C. (2006). Sh ort term study abroad and intercultural sensitivity: A pilot study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30 457 469. Association of Departments of Foreign Languages (AFDL). (2008). Best practices in study abroad: A primer for chairs of depart ments of foreign languages Retrieved from http://www.adfl.org/resources/Best_Practices_ADFL.pdf Association of International Educators (NAFSA). (2003). Globa l education for a global age Association of International Educators. Washington, DC: Association of International Educators. Banks, 2001. Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture based framework. Higher Education, 45 43 70. Baskin, S. (1965). Higher education: Some newer developments New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Beckman, E., Besterfield Sacre, M., Kovalcik, G., Mehalik, M. LaScola Needy, K., Ries, R., Shuman, L. (2007). Combining educational studies, research and international experiences in sustainable engineering. American Society for Engineering Education Retrieved on from http://search.asee.org/search/fetch;jsessionid =fn0e7p4451rk6?url=file%3A%2F%2 Flocalhost%2FE%3A%2Fsearch%2Fconference%2F14%2FAC%25202007Full22 74.pdf&index=conference_papers&space=129746797203605791716676178&type =application%2Fpdf&charset =. Bement, A. L. (2005). Global connections: National Science Fou ndation international programs and activities. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/bement/05/alb050622_global.jsp

PAGE 319

319 Bender, C., Wright, D., & Lopatto, D. (2009). Stu reported changes in intercultural knowledge and competence associated with three undergraduate science experiences. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XVIII 307 321. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: A devel opmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21 71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. (Ed.). (1998). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings Yarmo uth, MN: Intercultural Press Inc. Bennett, J. M., Bennett, M. J., & Allen, W. (1999). Developing intercultural competence in the language classroom. In R. M. Paige, D. Lange & Y. A. Yershova (Eds.), Culture as the core: Integrating culture into the langua ge classroom (pp. 13 46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Black, H. T., & Duhon, D. L. (2006). Assessing the impact of business study abroad programs on cultural awareness and personal development. Journal of Education for Business, 81 (3), 140 144. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bolen, M. C. (Ed.). (2007). A guide to outcomes assessment in education abroad Carlisle, PA: The Forum on Education Abroad. Bolen, M. C., & Martin, P. (2005). Undergraduate research abroad: Challenges and rewards. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 12 xi xvi. Braskamp, L. A., Braskamp, D. C., & Merrill, K. C. (2009). Assessing progre ss in global learning and development of students with education abroad experiences. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 101 118. Brewer, E., & Cunningham, K. (Eds.) (2009). Integrating study abroad into the curriculum: Theory and practice across disciplines Sterling, VA: Stylus. Brux, J. M., & Fry, B. (2010). Multicultural students in study abroad: Their interests, their issues and their constraints. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14 (5), 508 527. Carlson, J. S. (1 990). Study abroad: The experience of American undergraduates Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Carter, L. (2005). Globalisation and science education: Rethinking science education reforms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (5), 561 580.

PAGE 320

320 Charlton, B G., & Andras, P. (2006). Globalization in science education: An inevitable and beneficial trend. Medical Hypotheses, 66 869 873. Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). E ducation and identity (2 nd E d.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Chickering, A. W. & Braskamp, L. A. (2009). Developing a global perspective for personal and social responsibility. The Association of American Colleges and Universities Peer Review, Fall 200 9 27 30. Chieffo, L., & Griffiths, L. (2004). Large scale assessment of student attitudes after a short term study abroad program. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X, 165 177. Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellows hip Program. (2005). Global competence & national needs: One million Americans studying abroad Washington, DC: Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program. Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE). (2003). Annual report: A world of opportunity Portland, ME: CIEE. Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process London: Sage Publications Inc. Daunert, S. (2009). The scientists of today: Revisiting Leonardo in a global environment. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 393 (1), 1 3. Deardorff, D. K. (2005). A matter of logic? International Educator, 14 (3), 26 31. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessments of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10 241 266. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice New York, NY: Teachers College Press. I nternational Educator, 15 (2), 20 27. Dewey, J. (1902). The school and society Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

PAGE 321

321 De Winter, U. J. (1997). Science and engineering education abroad: An overview. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 13 1 9. DiBiasio, D., & Mello, N. A. (2004). Multilevel asse ssment of program outcomes: Assessing a nontraditional study abroad program in the engineering disciplines. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10 237 252. Dolby, N. (2004). Encountering an American self: Study abroad and national id entity. Comparative Education Review, 48 (2), 150 173. Domestic Policy Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2006). American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation Retrieved from http://www.innovationtaskforce.org/docs/ACI%20booklet.pdf Donnelly Smith, L. (2009). Global learning through short term study abroad. The Association of American Colleges and Universities Peer Review, Fall 2009 12 15. Down ey, G. L., Lucena, J. C., Moskal, B. M., Parkhurst, R., Bigley, T., Hays, C., Nichols Belo, A. (2006). The globally competent engineer: Working effectively with people who define problems differently. Journal of Engineering Education, 95 (2), 107 122. Drews, R. D., Meyer, L. L., & Peregrine, P. N. (1996). Effects of study abroad on conceptualizations of national groups. College Student Journal, 30 (4), 452 458. Durrant, M. B., & Dorius, C. R. (2007). Study abroad survey instruments: A comparison of survey types and experiences. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11 (1), 33 53. Dwyer, M. M., & Peters, C. K. (2004). The benefits of study abroad: New study confirms significant gains. Transitions Abroad Magazine, 37 (5). Retrieved from www.transitionsabroad.com/publications/magazine/0403/benefits_study_abroad.s html Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2003). Study abroad levels: Toward a classification of program types. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 9 1 20. Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity development in relation to study abroad program design. Frontiers: The Interdisci plinary Journal of Study Abroad, X 219 236. Fischer, K. (2012). In talks at international education summit, differences and common goals emerge. The Chronicle of Higher Education 58 (35). Forum on Education Abroad. (2009). Standards of good practice for s hort term education abroad programs Carlisle, PA: The Forum on Education Abroad.

PAGE 322

322 Forum on Education Abroad. (2011). Standards of good practice for education abroad: Fourth edition Carlisle, PA: The Forum on Education Abroad. Fuller, T. L. (2007). Study a broad experiences and intercultural sensitivity among graduate theological students: A preliminary and exploratory investigation. Christian Higher Education, 6, 321 332. Fass, M. F., & Fraser, A. M. (2009). Building global awareness through biology, publi c health, and study abroad: How science study can prepare students for study abroad, and how study abroad can prepare scientists for citizenship. In E. Brewer, & K. Cunningham, (Eds.). Integrating study abroad into the curriculum: theory and practice acros s disciplines (pp. 173 190). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Gearon, C. J. (2011, March 16). More graduate students consider study abroad: Even medical students and doctoral candidates can earn overseas credits. U.S. News & World Report Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/best graduate schools/articles/2011/03/16/more graduate students consider study abroad Gillespie, J. (2002). Colleges need better ways to assess study abroad programs. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48 (43), 13 20. Gillespie, J. (2009). Applying standards to creative programming in education abroad. Association of American Colleges and Universities Peer Re view, Fall 2009, 16 18. Gillespie, J., Braskamp, L. A., & Braskamp, D. C. (1999). Evaluation and study abroad: Developing assessment criteria and practices to promote excellence. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, V, 101 127. Gleason M., Chieffo, L., & Griffiths, L. (2005). Study abroad and McNair scholars: A partnership for success! Retrieved from http://www.iienetwork.org/?p=71205 Grandin, J. M. (2006). Preparing engineers for the global workplace. Journal for Global Engineering Education, 1 (1), 1 8. international mission. Change, 34 (3), 45 51. Goldstein, S. B., & Kim, R. I. (2006). Predictors of US study abroad programs: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30 507 521. Guerrero, C., Labrador, M., & Perez, R. (2007). Enhancing the global perspective of REU site students. Retrieved from http://www.icee.usm.edu/ICEE/conferences/asee2007/papers/258_ENHANCING_ THE_GLOBAL_PERSPECTIVE_OF_REU_.pdf Guest, D., Livett, M. & Stone, N. (2006). Fostering international student exchanges for science students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10 (4), 378 395.

PAGE 323

323 Haddad, M. R. (1997). Engineering students abroad. Journal of Chemical Education, 74 (7), 757 759. Hadis, B. F. (2005). Gauging the impact of study abroad: how to overcome the limitations of a single cell design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (1), 3 19. Hammer, M. R. (2011). Additional cross cultural va lidity testing of the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 474 487. Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27 421 443. Hanson, K. H., & Meyerson, J. W. (Eds.). (1995). International challenges to American colleges and universities. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Hanvey, R. (1982). An attainable global perspective. Theory into Practice, 21 162 167. Henthrone, T. L., Miller, M. M., & Hudson, T. W. (2001). Building and positioning successful study Journal of Teaching in International Business, 12 (4), 49 62. Hill, J., & Woodland, W. (2002). An evaluation of foreign fieldwork i n promoting deep learning: A preliminary investigation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27 (6), 539 555. Hoffa, W. (Ed.). (1993). administrators Washington, DC: Association for International Education. Ikeda, S. (Ed.). (2006). International internships, coops and study in rising demand as employers seek workers with foreign experience. The Black Collegian Online first semester 2006. Retrieved from http://www.black collegian.com/issues/1stsem06/global_interns.htm Immetman, A. & Schneider, P. (1998). Assessing student learning in study abroad programs: A conceptual framework and methodology for assessing student l earning in study abroad programs. Journal of Studies in International Education, 2, 59 80. Ingraham, E. C., & Peterson, D. L. (2004). Assessing the impact of study abroad on student learning at Michigan State University. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Jo urnal of Study Abroad, X, 83 100. Institute of In ternational Education (2009). challenge: Promoting study abroad in science and technology fields New York, NY: IIE.

PAGE 324

324 Institute of International Education. (2011). Open doors 2011: Report on international educational excha nge. New York, NY: IIE. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/en/Research and Publications/Open Doors International Education of Students Abroad (IES Abroad). (2011). The IES Abroad MAP (model assessment practice) for study abroad programs. Chicago, IL: Institute for the International Education of Students. Jenkins, K., & Skelly, J. (2004). Study abroad is not enough. Brethren Life and T hought, 49, 257 268. Johnston, J. S., & Edelstein, R. (l993). Beyond borders: Profiles in international education Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business. Kelley, C., & Meyers, J. (1995). Cr oss intercultural adaptability inventory Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. King, L. J., & Young, J. A. (1994). Study abroad: Education for the 21st century. Unterrichtspraxis, 27(1), 77 87. King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46 (6), 571 592. Kirk, E. (2008). Developing evaluation approaches to international collaborative science and engineering activities: Workshop Report Research Triangle Park, NC: Sigma Xi: The Science Research Society. Retrieved from http://www.sigmaxi.org/programs/global/FollowupReportFinal.pdf Kitsantas, A. (2004). Studying abroad: The role of colleg development of cross cultural skills and global understanding. College Student Journal, 38 (3), 441 452. Knight, J. (l997). of higher education in Canada Journ al of Studies in International Education. 1(1) 27 44. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8 (5), 5 31. Koernig, S. K. (2007). Planning, organizing, and co nducting a 2 week study abroad trip for undergraduate students: Guidelines for first time faculty. Journal of Marketing Education, 29( 3), 210 217. Kolb, D., & Fry, R. (1979). Experiential learning theory and experience in liberal arts education: New direct ions for experiential learning San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

PAGE 325

325 Lambert, R. D. (1993). International education and i nternational competence in the United States. European Journal of Education, 28 (3), 309 325. Lederman, D. (2007). Quality vs. quantity in study abroad. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from http://insidehighered.c om Lewin, R. (Ed.). (2009). The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship New York: Routledge. Lewis, T. L., & Niesenbaum, R. A. (2005, June 3). The benefits of short term study abroad. The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The Benefits of Short Term/22274 Lumkes, J. H., Hallett, S., & Vallade, L. (2012). Hearing versus expe riencing: The impact of a short term study abroad experience in China on students perceptions regarding globalization and cultural awareness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36 (1), 151 159. Lutterman Aguilar, A., & Gingerich, O. (2002). E xperiential pedagogy for study abroad: Educating for global citizenship. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 8 41 82. Lyman, R. (l995). Overview In K. H. Hanson, &, J. Meyerson (Eds.), International challenges to American colleges a nd universities: Looking ahead (pp. 1 17). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Martinez, L. (2011, November 24). The study abroad advantage: With international exposure, students can broaden horizons, boost job prospects. Diverse Issues in Higher Education 28 (21). Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/library/1G1 278276311/the study abroad advantage with international exposure Mahoney, S. L., & Schamb er, J. F. (2004). Exploring the application of a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity to a general education curriculum on diversity. The Journal of General Education, 53 3 4. McCabe, L. T. (1994). The development of a global perspective durin g participation in semester at sea: A comparative global education program. Educational Review, 46 (3), 275 286. McGowan, M. (2007). Benefits and preparation for an international study abroad Journal of International Agr icultural and Extension Education, 14 (2), 61 66. McKeown, J. (2006). T he impact of study abroad on college student intellectual development. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Syracuse University, New York, NY.

PAGE 326

326 McLeod, M., & Wainwright, P. (2009). Researching the study abroad experience. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13 (1), 66 71. Medina Lopez Portillo, A. (2004). Intercultural learning assessment. The link between program duration and the development of intercultural sensitivity. Frontie rs: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10 179 199. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Dimensions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74 5 12. Michigan State University. (n.d.). Why should I study abroad? Retr ieved from Michigan State University website http://studyabroad.isp.msu.edu/shared/objectives.html Mohajeri Norris, E., & Dwyer, M. (2005). Testing assumptions: The impact of two study abroad program models. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 11 121 142. Nasr, K., Berry, J., Taylor, G., Webster, W., Echempati, R., & Chandran, R. (2002). Global engineering education through study abroad experiences: Assessment and lessons learned. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering 1 14. National Science Foundation. (2006). Building a stronger foundation Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Toward a globally engaged workforce: A vision for the Office of International Science and Engineering Retrieved from the National Science Foundation website http://www.nsf.gov/od/oise/vision doc.jsp National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE). (1998). Standards of practice: Eight principles of good practice for all experiential learning activities Presented at the NSEE 1998 Annual Meeting, Norfolk, VA. Retrieved from http://agsci.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/students/EightStandards.pdf Noddings, N. (Ed.). (2005). Educating citizens for global awareness New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Norris, E. M., & Gillespie, J. (2009). How study abroad shapes global careers: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13 (3), 382 397. Ohio State University. (n.d.). Study abroad: Getting started Retrieved fr om The Ohio State University website http://oia.osu.edu/getting started.html Opper, S., Teichler, U., & Carlson, J. S. (1990). Impacts of study abroad programmes on students and graduates London: Je ssica Kingley Publishers.

PAGE 327

327 Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2004). Assessing the impact of a strategies based curriculum on language and culture learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10 253 276. Parkinson, A. (2007). Engineering study abroad programs: Formats, challenges, best practices. Journal for Global Engineering Education, 2 (2), 1 15. Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Volume 2 a third decade of research San Fra ncisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Pedersen, P. J. (2010). Assessing intercultural effectiveness outcomes in a year long study abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34 70 80. Peppas, S. C. (2005). Business study abroad tours for non trad itional students: An outcomes assessment. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 11 143 163. Permaul, J. S. (2009). Theoretical bases for service learning: Implications for program design and effectiveness. New Horizons in Education, 5 7 (3), 1 7. Peterson, C., Engle, L., Kenney, L., Kreutzer, K., Nolting, W., & Ogden, A. (2007). Defining terms for use in designing outcomes assessment projects. In M. C. Bolen (Ed.). A guide to outcomes assessment in education abroad (pp. 163 203). Carlisl e, PA: The Forum on Education Abroad. Piaget, J. (1967). Six psychological studies New York, NY: Random House. Picard, E., Bernardino, F., & Ehigiator, K. (2009). Global citizenship for all: Low minority student participation in study abroad --seeking str ategies for success. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 321 345). New York, NY: Routledge. Pickard, M. D., & Ganz, M. A. (2005). Increasing national diversit y in education abroad using the Gilman international scholarship and others. II ENetworker Magazine: Diversity in International Education Retrieved from http://www.wam2m.org/increasing national diversity in education abroad using the gilman international scholarship and othersart scholarship/ Prawat R. S., & Floden, R. E. 1994. Philosophical perspecti ves on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychologist 29 (1), 37 48. Reisser, L. (1995). Revisiting the seven vectors. Journal of College Student Development, 36 (6), 505 511. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Rec ord, 105 (9), 1623 1640.

PAGE 328

328 Roberts, T. G., & Jones, B. L. (2009). A brain based, experiential learning framework to guide international experiences. AIAEE 2009: Proceedings of the 25 th Annual Meeting 404 411. Ruggie, J. G. (1998). Constructing the world poli ty: Essays on international institutionalization London: Routledge. Sachau, D., Brasher, N., & Fee, S. (2010). Three models for short term study abroad. Journal of Management Education, 34 (5), 645 670. Sachdev, P. (1997). Cultural sensitivity training thr ough experiential learning: A participatory demonstration field education project. International Social Work, 40 7 25. Salisbury, M. H., Paulsen, M. B. & Pascarella, E. T. (2010). Why do all the study abroad students look alike? Applying an integrated stu dent choice model to explore abroad. Research in Higher Education, 52 123 150. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review o f Research in Education, 21 1 24. Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (2000). Intercultural communication: A reader Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Savicki. V. (Ed.). (2008). Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research and application in international education Sterling, VA: Stylus. Schattle, H. (2007). The practices of global citizenship Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Shaheen, S. (2004). The effect of pre departure preparation on student intercultural development during study abroad programs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Shih, K. (2009). Study abroad participation up, except among minority students. Diverse Education Retrieved from http://diverseeducation.com/article/13193/ Siaya, L., & Hayward, F. M. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses: Final report Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Sigma Xi. (2007). Embracing globalization: Mee ting the challenges to U.S. scientists and engineers. Assuring a globally engaged science and engineering workforce workshop report. American Scientist, 95 (5), 1 67.

PAGE 329

329 Skelly, J. M. (2009). Fostering engagement: The role of international education in the de velopment of global civil society. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 21 32). New York, NY: Routledge. Smith, D. G., & Schonfeld, N. B. (2000). The benefits o f diversity: What the research tells us. About Campus 5 (5), 16 23. Stanitski, D., & Fuellhart, K. (2003). Tools for developing short term study abroad classes for geography studies. Journal of Geography, 102 :5, 202 215. Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Teaching sciences: The multicultural question revisited. Science Education, 85 35 49. Stearns, P. N. (2009). Educating global citizens in colleges and universities: Challenges and opportunities New York, NY: Routledge. Stitsworth, M. H. (2001). P ersonality changes associated with a sojourn in Japan. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129 (2), 213 224. Strauss, L. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2007). The effects of students in and out of class experiences on their analytical and group skills: A student of engineering education. Research in Higher Education, 48 (8), 967 992. Sutton, R. C,. Miller, A. N., & Rubin, D. L. (2007). Research design in assessing learning outcomes of study abroad programs. In M. C. Bolen (Ed.) A guide to outcomes assessment in educa tion abroad (pp. 23 60). Carlisle, PA. The Forum on Education Abroad. Tonkin, H., & Edwards, J. (l98l). The world in the curriculum: Curricular strategies for the twenty first century New York, NY: Change Magazine Press. Tritz, J. A., & Martin, R. A. (199 7). The collegiate international experience: Criteria for successful experience abroad programs. Journal of International Agriculture and Extension Education, 4 (2), 49 55. Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies London: Routledge. Vande Berg, M. (2007). Intervening in the learning of U.S. students abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11 (3/4), 392 399. Vande Berg, M. (2010). A research based approach to education abroad classification. Retrieved from http://www.forumea.org/research position_papers.cfm Vande Berg, M., Connor Linton, J., & Paige, R. M. (2009). The Georgetown consortium project: Interventions for students learning abroad. Frontiers: Th e Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XVIII 1 75.

PAGE 330

330 Vande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., Hemming Lou, K. (2012). Student Learning Abroad: It Stylus: Sterling, VA. Van Eyck, M., Van Toll, L., Wattiaux, M., & Ferrick, J. (2012). Engaging science faculty in internationalization: Teaching innovations at UW Madison. IIE Networker, Spring 2012 28 31. Van Hoof, H. B., & Verbeeten, M. J. (2005) Wine is for drinking, water is for washing: St udent opinions about international exchange programs. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9 (1), 42 61. Wainwright, P., Ram, P., Teodorescu, D., & Tottenham, D. (2009). Going global in the sciences: A case study at Emory University. In R. Lewin ( Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 399 420). New York, NY: Routledge. Wulf, W. A. (2004). An urgent need for change. The Bent of Tau Beta Pi, Spring 31 33.

PAGE 331

331 BIOGRAPHIC AL SKETCH Nicola Kernaghan was born in Northern Ireland and earned a Bachelor of Science Environmental Management from the University of Stirling in Scotland. Nikki immigrated to the U nited States in 1993 and worked as a biological scientist in several areas of Florida for over 10 years. She joined the University of Florida International Center in 2004 as an outreach coordinator and entered the Ph.D. program in the College of Education as a part time student in 2005. While pursuing her doctoral degree, Nikki continued to work at the International Center, where she is currently the Assistant Director for Program Development. Nikki has participated in grant projects for several federal age ncies and serves as Program Manager for a N ational S cience F oundation grant integrating STEM education. In her current position, Nikki focuses on science education and evaluation of international programs.