Citation
Study Abroad: An Exploration of Student Development and Student Perceptions

Material Information

Title:
Study Abroad: An Exploration of Student Development and Student Perceptions
Creator:
ROBALIK, HEATHER ANN
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College students ( jstor )
Email ( jstor )
International students ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Study abroad ( jstor )
Tourism ( jstor )
Tours ( jstor )
Travel ( jstor )
Travelers ( jstor )
City of Gainesville ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Heather Ann Robalik. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
7/24/2006

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

robalik_h ( .pdf )

robalik_h_Page_071.txt

robalik_h_Page_075.txt

robalik_h_Page_005.txt

robalik_h_Page_122.txt

robalik_h_Page_054.txt

robalik_h_Page_103.txt

robalik_h_Page_038.txt

robalik_h_Page_018.txt

robalik_h_Page_026.txt

robalik_h_Page_145.txt

robalik_h_Page_117.txt

robalik_h_Page_044.txt

robalik_h_Page_062.txt

robalik_h_Page_113.txt

robalik_h_Page_024.txt

robalik_h_Page_052.txt

robalik_h_Page_129.txt

robalik_h_Page_080.txt

robalik_h_Page_127.txt

robalik_h_Page_007.txt

robalik_h_Page_121.txt

robalik_h_Page_125.txt

robalik_h_Page_120.txt

robalik_h_Page_099.txt

robalik_h_Page_146.txt

robalik_h_Page_101.txt

robalik_h_Page_014.txt

robalik_h_Page_051.txt

robalik_h_Page_056.txt

robalik_h_Page_004.txt

robalik_h_Page_111.txt

robalik_h_Page_073.txt

robalik_h_Page_102.txt

robalik_h_Page_020.txt

robalik_h_Page_079.txt

robalik_h_Page_009.txt

robalik_h_Page_130.txt

robalik_h_Page_069.txt

robalik_h_Page_106.txt

robalik_h_Page_132.txt

robalik_h_Page_017.txt

robalik_h_Page_088.txt

robalik_h_Page_033.txt

robalik_h_Page_128.txt

robalik_h_Page_048.txt

robalik_h_Page_061.txt

robalik_h_Page_072.txt

robalik_h_Page_068.txt

robalik_h_Page_114.txt

robalik_h_Page_021.txt

robalik_h_Page_118.txt

robalik_h_Page_126.txt

robalik_h_Page_107.txt

robalik_h_Page_083.txt

robalik_h_Page_037.txt

robalik_h_Page_001.txt

robalik_h_Page_112.txt

robalik_h_Page_116.txt

robalik_h_Page_081.txt

robalik_h_Page_045.txt

robalik_h_Page_043.txt

robalik_h_Page_084.txt

robalik_h_Page_159.txt

robalik_h_Page_140.txt

robalik_h_Page_064.txt

robalik_h_Page_165.txt

robalik_h_Page_039.txt

robalik_h_Page_123.txt

robalik_h_Page_098.txt

robalik_h_Page_095.txt

robalik_h_Page_160.txt

robalik_h_Page_050.txt

robalik_h_Page_036.txt

robalik_h_Page_093.txt

robalik_h_Page_153.txt

robalik_h_Page_089.txt

robalik_h_Page_035.txt

robalik_h_Page_055.txt

robalik_h_Page_094.txt

robalik_h_Page_152.txt

robalik_h_Page_142.txt

robalik_h_Page_047.txt

robalik_h_Page_015.txt

robalik_h_Page_158.txt

robalik_h_Page_097.txt

robalik_h_Page_076.txt

robalik_h_Page_022.txt

robalik_h_pdf.txt

robalik_h_Page_091.txt

robalik_h_Page_162.txt

robalik_h_Page_149.txt

robalik_h_Page_108.txt

robalik_h_Page_166.txt

robalik_h_Page_086.txt

robalik_h_Page_027.txt

robalik_h_Page_085.txt

robalik_h_Page_006.txt

robalik_h_Page_082.txt

robalik_h_Page_013.txt

robalik_h_Page_154.txt

robalik_h_Page_138.txt

robalik_h_Page_104.txt

robalik_h_Page_029.txt

robalik_h_Page_025.txt

robalik_h_Page_131.txt

robalik_h_Page_059.txt

robalik_h_Page_155.txt

robalik_h_Page_010.txt

robalik_h_Page_133.txt

robalik_h_Page_161.txt

robalik_h_Page_049.txt

robalik_h_Page_096.txt

robalik_h_Page_074.txt

robalik_h_Page_019.txt

robalik_h_Page_087.txt

robalik_h_Page_141.txt

robalik_h_Page_058.txt

robalik_h_Page_135.txt

robalik_h_Page_031.txt

robalik_h_Page_144.txt

robalik_h_Page_040.txt

robalik_h_Page_110.txt

robalik_h_Page_034.txt

robalik_h_Page_053.txt

robalik_h_Page_115.txt

robalik_h_Page_164.txt

robalik_h_Page_065.txt

robalik_h_Page_057.txt

robalik_h_Page_139.txt

robalik_h_Page_078.txt

robalik_h_Page_063.txt

robalik_h_Page_003.txt

robalik_h_Page_028.txt

robalik_h_Page_041.txt

robalik_h_Page_016.txt

robalik_h_Page_105.txt

robalik_h_Page_032.txt

robalik_h_Page_011.txt

robalik_h_Page_156.txt

robalik_h_Page_109.txt

robalik_h_Page_163.txt

robalik_h_Page_100.txt

robalik_h_Page_137.txt

robalik_h_Page_136.txt

robalik_h_Page_134.txt

robalik_h_Page_077.txt

robalik_h_Page_030.txt

robalik_h_Page_046.txt

robalik_h_Page_090.txt

robalik_h_Page_008.txt

robalik_h_Page_147.txt

robalik_h_Page_150.txt

robalik_h_Page_023.txt

robalik_h_Page_060.txt

robalik_h_Page_143.txt

robalik_h_Page_157.txt

robalik_h_Page_119.txt

robalik_h_Page_066.txt

robalik_h_Page_002.txt

robalik_h_Page_124.txt

robalik_h_Page_042.txt

robalik_h_Page_012.txt

robalik_h_Page_070.txt

robalik_h_Page_092.txt

robalik_h_Page_148.txt

robalik_h_Page_067.txt

robalik_h_Page_151.txt


Full Text












STUDY ABROAD: AN EXPLORATION OF STUDENT DEVELOPMENT AND
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS















By

HEATHER ANNE ROBALIK


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Heather Anne Robalik

































I would like to dedicate this project in loving memory of my grandmother, Anna Mary
Leeper, who has inspired me to continually strive to be the best person I can be and not to
waste a single day.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

L IS T O F T A B L E S ........ .................... .. ........ .................................................... .. v ii

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................... ................................ viii

ABSTRACT .............. ......................................... ix

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

State ent of the P problem ............................................................................. ....... .5
Purpose of the Study ............... ................... ..............................7.
Theoretical Rationale .................. .............................. ....... ...............
R research Q u estion s............ ............................................................ ...... .. .......20

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................ ........................ 23

Evolution of Y outh Travel ......................................................................... 23
The G rand Tour ......................................... ........ ....... .. .......... .. 23
T ram p in g ....................................................... ................ 2 8
Long-Term Budget Travelers .................................................... ..................29
B ackpacker ............................................................... .. ... ......... 3 1
Stu dy A broad ................................................................................... 34
P personal D evelopm ent ........................................................................... ........... 44
G e n d e r ......................................................................... 4 6
Previous Overseas Experience ........................................ ........................ 48
Duration of Program .................. ........................ .... ...... ................. 49
S u m m a ry ............................................................................................................... 5 1

3 M E T H O D S ........................................................................................................... 5 2

D ata C o lle ctio n ..................................................................................................... 5 2
P a rtic ip a n ts ........................................................................................................... 5 5
Before Travel ............................................. ...................55
A fte r T rav e l ................................................................................................... 6 1
In strum ent ................................................... ........ ..................... 6 1
Michigan State University Study Abroad Inventory .......................................61
Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relationships Inventory ........................................63









Demographics and Open-Ended Questions.............. ....................................65
D ata A nalysis................................................... 65

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................6 8

Perceptions of the Study Abroad Experience..... ............................68
Pre-travel G group ........................................ ................. .... ....... 68
Post-travel Group ................................................... ........ .....71
Student Development and Study Abroad ....................................... ............... 72
Pre-travel Group: Tolerance Sub-scale .................................... ............... 72
Post-travel Group: Tolerance Sub-scale................................................... .....75
Pre-travel Group: Quality of Relationships Sub-scale .....................................76
Post-travel Group: Quality of Relationships Sub-scale................ .......... 79
Gender and Student Development.. ...................... ...................80
Tolerance Sub-scale.................. ........... ... ............ ..... ............. 80
Quality of Relationships Sub-scale .............. ............................... ................ 80
Previous Overseas Experience and Student Development .........................................81
Tolerance Sub-scale.................. ........... ... ............ ..... ............. 81
Quality of Relationships Sub-scale .............. ........... ......... ............... 81
Duration of Program and Student Development ................. ............ ............... 82
Tolerance Sub-scale .................. ........... ... ............ ..... ............. 82
Quality of Relationships Sub-scale .............. ........... ......... ............... 83
Open-ended Questions .................. ............................. ...... .. .......... .... 83
Pre-travel G group ........................................ ................. .... ....... 83
P o st-trav el G rou p ............. ............................................................ .. .... .. ... .. 86
S u m m a ry ............................................................................................................... 9 2

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................. ............... 93

Perceptions.......................................................................... ........ ...... 93
Student D evelopm ent .................. ........................................ .. ............ 96
G en d e r ...................................... .......................................................9 8
Previous O overseas Experience......................................................... ............... 99
D duration of Program ................................................................... 100
Sum m ary and Im plications ................................................................................. 100
Recommendations for Further Research ...................................... ............... 101
L im itatio n s .......................................................................................................... 1 0 2
D elim stations .................................................................................................. ......103
C onclu sion ..................................................................................................... 104

APPENDIX

A PRE-TEST QUESTIONN A IRE ...................................... ....................... .. .......... 105

B POST-TEST QUESTIONN AIRE .................................. ....................................... 117

C FIRST EMAIL CONTACT FOR STUDY ABROAD SURVEY............................128



v









D SECOND EMAIL CONTACT FOR STUDY ABROAD SURVEY .............129

E THIRD EMAIL CONTACT FOR STUDY ABROAD SURVEY................130

F FOURTH EMAIL CONTACT FOR STUDY ABROAD SURVEY .............131

G STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS PRIOR TO STUDYING ABROAD....................132

H STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS AFTER STUDYING ABROAD............................135

I RESPONSES TO ITEMS ON THE TOLERANCE SUB-SCALE BEFORE
STU D Y IN G A B R O A D ......... ................. ...................................... ...................... 138

J RESPONSES TO ITEMS ON THE TOLERANCE SUB-SCALE AFTER
STUDYING ABROAD ...................... ................................... ...............141

K RESPONSES TO THE QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIPS SUB-SCALE
BEFORE STUDYING AROAD ........................................ ......................... 144

L RESPONSES TO THE QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIPS SUB-SCALE AFTER
STUD YING ABROAD .............. ................................................................... 147

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ............................................ ........................... ....................150

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................................ ........................ 156
















LIST OF TABLES


Table pge

3-1 Respondent Profile for the Pre-test Sample .................................. ............... 55

3-2 Major or Intended Major Prior to Studying Abroad .............. ..........................56

3-3 Destinations Visited Prior to Studying Abroad.......................................... ....58

3-4 Countries to be Visited During Study Abroad ............................... ............... .59

4-1 Comparison of Impacts Before and After Studying Abroad...............................69

4-2 Comparison of Tolerance Sub-scale Before and After Studying Abroad................73

4-3 Comparison of Quality of Relationships Sub-scale Before and After Studying
A b ro a d ...................... .. .. ......... .. .. ..................................................7 7
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure pge

1-1 The Seven V sectors ................................................. ...............10

2-1 The Backpacker Phenomenon: An Evolutionary Framework...............................24
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

STUDY ABROAD: AN EXPLORATION OF STUDENT DEVELOPMENT AND
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS

By

Heather Anne Robalik

May 2006

Chair: Heather Gibson
Major Department: Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management

It is generally considered that study abroad programs are educationally beneficial to

students. However, while various aspects of studying abroad have been investigated, few

of these studies have been grounded in any form of developmental theory. The purpose

of this study was to investigate the relationship between study abroad participation and

student development. Furthermore, this study examined gender, previous overseas travel

experience, and duration of the study abroad experience.

Two groups were evaluated, a pre-travel group and a post-travel group. Student

perceptions were divided into five areas: personal development, academics, professional

development, global perspective, and intellectual development. Student development

was divided into two areas: tolerance and quality of relationships. Frequencies were the

primary analysis tools; content analysis was used to reveal patterns in the open-ended

questions.









Differences in level of development were found by gender within the pre-travel

group as well as in the post-travel group. Differences were also found by previous

overseas experience within the pre-travel group and in the post-travel group. Finally,

differences were found by duration of program within the pre-travel group but could not

be evaluated in the post-travel group. Results from the open-ended questions revealed

that language acquisition skills, self-exploration and the cultural experience in general

were the primary motivations for studying abroad. Participants also revealed that they

were most looking forward to experiencing a different culture, meeting new people, and

self-exploration during the study abroad trip. Based on participant responses, prior to

their study abroad programs students felt adequately prepared, while one third did not,

and the rest had mixed emotions. Participants felt most nervous about being far from

home, terrorism, and language barriers. Upon reflection, participants felt that cultural

immersion in general was the best experience of studying abroad. In comparison,

cultural differences and not being accepted by the locals were cited as the worst

experiences. Participants also felt that communication and adjustment issues were the

most challenging aspects of studying abroad. Students reported that the biggest impacts

from the study abroad experience were related to personal changes. Finally, self-

confidence and a sense of newfound independence were identified by the students as the

most important characteristics that they learned about themselves.

This study may be the first to consider a student development theory in a study

abroad context. Regarding the practical applications of this study, practitioners and

researchers alike will be able to use this information to support the benefits experienced

as a result of studying abroad.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The idea of travel as a form of education has a long history. Indeed, early

philosophers such as Mencius (372-289 B.C.) noted the importance of travel by saying,

"to see once is better than to read a hundred times" (cited in Brodsky-Porges, 1981,

p. 174). In the 17th Century Jan Amos Comenius proposed an education system in which

the last two years of study for students were spent seeking freedom and enrichment

through travel (Comenius Foundation, n.d.; Meyer, 1972), in fact, it was during the

1630's that the Grand Tour evolved. Over the next 150 years, young, wealthy

Englishmen were sent abroad on a Grand Tour. This time spent in other countries was

perceived as a finishing school beyond the formal classroom (Brodsky-Porges). While

the Grand Tour was regarded as an integral part of the formal education of young Britons,

in America, young males were discouraged from traveling to Europe. It was considered a

betrayal to the American spirit to send its sons to the old world. However, as the anti-

European sentiments declined with the termination of the Napoleonic hostilities, the

yearly transatlantic journeys to Europe commenced and are still part of the lifestyle of

many young college students today (Brodsky-Porges). In fact, since the 1991-1992

academic school year, the number of U.S. students studying abroad for credit has more

than doubled from 71,154 to 174,629, an increase of 145% (Gardner & Witherell, 2004).

Scholars such as Noy (2004), Graburn (1983) and Brodsky-Porges (1981) suggest

that youth travel may comprise a rite of passage into adulthood for young adults. Many

young people want to learn about themselves, other people and cultures. Vogt (1976)









supports this contention and suggests that such "travel experience is seen as providing the

necessary challenges and opportunities to expand oneself in areas valued by adventurous

youth; independence, adaptability, resourcefulness, open-mindedness..." (p. 28). Due to

the basic elements of living and learning in a foreign country, it is expected that a student

will grow and change from a study abroad experience (Inglis, Rolls, & Kristy, 1998).

Vogt suggests that through travel, growth is sought and achieved in four major ways;

stimulation and intensity in daily life, autonomy in decision-making, intense interpersonal

relations and learning about the world and self. In addition, hardships and difficulties

that are overcome while traveling allow youth to develop a heightened sense of

confidence (Noy, 2004). Vogt explains that the challenge of novel situations and

environments necessitates that the traveler must exist in a new way, thus questioning the

self and consequently learning more about his or her own identity and abilities.

Moreover, a benefit of travel when considered, as a form of physical and emotional

escape is that it can prompt a personal reawakening. This renaissance enables a person to

return to his/her established environment with fresh vivacity and alertness.

The literature shows that young travelers have a variety of feelings regarding their

travel experiences (Todd, 2001). There is a pervasive belief that international travel

changes people's lives both personally and professionally (STA Travel, n.d.).

International travel experiences clearly affect youth and the literature tends to support the

idea that travel is beneficial (Armstrong, 1984; Baty & Dold, 1977; Carsello & Greaser,

1976; Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Kuh & Kauffman, 1985; Martin, 1989; Nash, 1976; Noy,

2004; Todd). Students who participate in study abroad programs experience a heightened

international outlook and personal development (Barnhart & Groth, 1987; Carsello &









Greaser; Dukes, Lockwood, Oliver, Pezalila, & Wilker, 1994; Farrell & Suvedi; Inglis et

al., 1998). A review of the literature informs us that study abroad and its impacts is a

topic that is growing in importance and relevance. For example, the ways in which study

abroad affects alternative language acquisition, self-esteem, self-confidence, emotional

maturity, academic success, peer relationships, and many others have been evaluated

(Inglis et al.).

The participation rates suggest that the number of students studying abroad is

increasing (Gardner & Witherell, 2004; Stephenson, 1999). Particularly, American

students are beginning to recognize the value of study abroad in an internationally inter-

reliant world (Gardner & Witherell). While the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001

suppressed much international pleasure travel among Americans, in contrast, 9/11

stimulated interest in study abroad programs among U.S. students (Gardner & Witherell).

It appears among students that a legacy of this national tragedy has been an elevated need

to understand the importance of global affairs. During the first complete school year

following the attacks of 9/11 (academic year 2002-2003), the number of American

college and university students earning credit abroad increased by 8.5% from the

preceding academic year (Gardner & Witherell).

Not only are more and more American students studying abroad, but the diversity

in destinations visited is also increasing (Institute of International Education, 2003).

Historically, most students studied in Western Europe. While the United Kingdom, Italy

and Spain are still the top study abroad destinations for American students, less

traditional destinations are growing in popularity. During the 2001-2002 academic

school year, uncommon destinations like China saw a 33% increase in student visitors up









to a total of 3,911. Japan experienced a 21% increase to 3,168 students, and the Czech

Republic received 30% more student visitors totaling 1,659. In addition, since 1985

Latin America has seen their student visitor population more than double when compared

to the 2001-2002 academic school year (Gardner & Witherell, 2003).

The 8.5% increase in American students earning credit for study abroad during the

academic year 2002-2003 denotes stronger growth than the preceding year's 4.4%

increase. This increase is a strong indicator of the growing interest in studying abroad,

both in the face of, and in reaction to the shifting geopolitical climate subsequent to

September 11, 2001 (Boyd et al., 2001; Gardner & Witherell, 2004). However, although

the study abroad numbers are steadily increasing, still only 1% of all American students

study abroad. As a result, educators are calling for more support to encourage more

students to study abroad (Lane, 2003). One stated goal in higher education is to increase

student participation in study abroad to 20% by the year 2010 and 50% by the year 2040

(Lane). The Institute of International Education (n.d.) argues, "peace and prosperity in

the 21st Century depend on increasing the capacity of people to think and work on a

global and intercultural basis. As technology opens borders, educational and professional

exchange opens minds." The mission statement for the University of Florida's

International Center is consistent with this philosophy as it emphasizes the importance of

enhancing the educational experience and environment of its students by promoting a

global perspective (University of Florida International Center, n.d.). Therefore, not only

is student interest steadily increasing, the academic community is increasingly

recognizing the need to provide programs that allow their students opportunities to travel

abroad as they value global awareness.









Statement of the Problem

Chadee and Cutler (1996) assert, "international travel by students remains a

neglected area of research." A review of the literature indicates that the issue of study

abroad and the effects of such programs on students have been written about at length

(Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Inglis et al., 1998), however, very little of this research has been

grounded in any student development theory and overall, lacks systematic investigation

(Dukes et al., 1994). As a result, empirical studies that have utilized student development

theories in relation to study abroad are extremely scarce. A theoretical framework that

may be of specific use in enhancing our understanding of some of the effects on students

that accrue from studying abroad is located in psychosocial student development.

Conceivably the most widely accepted and influential theory of student development is

Chickering and Reisser's (1993) student development model. This model is based on

Chickering's (1969) work, although the revised version encompasses advances in

research and other theoretical influences over the last 25 years (Chickering & Reisser;

University of Calgary, n.d.). This theoretical perspective "provides a framework for

thinking systematically about students' developmental patterns and makes concrete

suggestions for fostering growth in areas such as interpersonal relationships, identity,

purpose and integrity" (Chickering & Reisser, inside cover). As a result, this framework

appears to be the most logical and meaningful way to assess student development and

study abroad. Despite the importance and wide use of Chickering and Reisser's student

development theory of identity in a variety of educational settings, it has never been used

to comprehensively assess the impact and outcomes as experienced by study abroad

participants. Consequently, the marriage of this robust and greatly utilized theoretical

framework with an increasingly popular form of alternative education (study abroad) may









provide some potentially valuable insights. Accordingly, this study attempted to take the

first steps to bridge a gap in the existing literature. However, due to the lack of survey

participants, an analysis of change in student development is not possible; descriptive

information only is provided for the pre-travel group and the post-travel group.

Most research on the benefits of study abroad is anecdotal; there is a need for

empirical research to illustrate the outcomes (Inglis et al., 1998). This study contributes

to the body of knowledge that exists regarding student outcomes and study abroad, while

being the first study to be guided by Chickering and Reisser's (1993) student

development theory of identity. Some of the literature suggests that gender and previous

international travel experience does not appear to influence the outcomes for students

from study abroad (Farrell & Suvedi, 2003). However, Chickering and Reisser suggest

that males and females develop at different rates. This study examined the impact of

gender on student development and study abroad. In addition, Inglis et al. report that the

length of the program abroad impacts the long-term benefits experienced by students. A

final aspect under consideration was previous overseas travel experience; Pearce (1988)

suggests that prior travel experiences impacts the choices and experience individuals

make when traveling. For example, more experienced travelers tend to be less concerned

about safety and security and more concerned with self-actualization needs. Indeed,

Sonmez and Graefe (1998) found that previous travel experiences impacts future

decisions as well as future experiences. Consequently, this study hoped to contribute to

the body of literature regarding developmental differences by gender, previous overseas

experience as well as differences by duration of program. Once again however, due to

the lack of survey participants, an analysis of differences before and after the travel









experience was not possible; descriptive information only is provided for the pre-travel

group and the post-travel group.

The results of such a study hold many potential implications for programming,

curriculum design, and recruitment among other facets for improving study abroad

experiences. Overall, most studies that consider study abroad and its effects on students

report participants are impacted in positive ways (Farrell & Suvedi, 2003). After

studying abroad, students are more likely to engage in on-campus programs that are

designed to broaden their international understanding (Gray, Murdock, & Stebbins,

2002). Additionally, study abroad participants experience a heightened interest in the

welfare of others, increased feelings of well-being and self-confidence, and an interest in

reflective thought (Kuh & Kauffman, 1985). Almost collectively, participants felt that

the study abroad experience helped them to realize their potential, and that they had a

deeper understanding of the world and its people (Dukes et al., 1994).

When a student development theory is adopted and applied to practice, the student

service being provided will be the most effective. Without a theoretical and an empirical

grounding, practitioners may design programs that do not help students reach their full

potential through study abroad.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between study abroad

participation and student development. Study abroad participation constituted

undergraduate and graduate students enrolled during the 2005 fall term that participated

in university sponsored study abroad programs. Student development was measured

according to the fourth vector of Chickering and Reisser's (1993) student development

theory: Developing Mature, Interpersonal Relationships. Furthermore, this study









examined the relationship between gender, previous overseas travel experience, and

duration of the study abroad experience on student development.

Theoretical Rationale

The student populations of the U.S. and the developmental tasks they face are more

varied and multifaceted than ever (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). One of the

most widely known and accepted psychosocial student development theories is

Chickering's (1969) student development theory of identity. In 1993, Chickering and

Reisser introduced a revised version of Chickering's theory based on 25 years of research

and theory development and advancement. This revised framework formed the

foundation for this study.

Chickering and Reisser's student development theory of identity suggests that

human development consists of seven "vectors," these are: Developing competence,

managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing

mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and

developing integrity.

The development of today's college student involves a complex process. Just as

the typical college student does not necessarily progress through their curriculum as

scheduled, neither does their development fit into an organized predictable path.

However, the seven vectors of development can be utilized as a map to help researchers

and practitioners determine the stage of a student's development as well at the direction

in which they are moving. The purpose of the vectors is that they explain key avenues

for journeying in the direction of individuation. This includes a person's discovery and

continual enhancement of themselves, of relationships, and of people around them and

around the world. Chickering and Reisser (1993) suggest that ultimately all students will









move through the seven vectors, despite the fact that each student will maneuver in a

different way, with varying modes and self-chosen diversions.

Movement along any single vector can take place at various rates and can

intermingle with advancement along the others. Every movement from "lower" to

"higher" produces greater skill, awareness, complexity, confidence, integration, and

stability, although it does not prohibit an unintentional or deliberate return to areas

already navigated. Chickering and Reisser (1993) presume that "higher" is better than

"lower," for the reason that in tallying the strengths and skills encompassed by the

vectors, students mature in strength, versatility, and the aptitude to adjust when

unanticipated obstacles or drawbacks emerge. Chickering and Reisser suggest that

university and college students carry out habitual themes: Learning control and

flexibility, gaining competence and self-awareness, finding one's vocation or voice,

balancing intimacy with freedom, making commitments as well as refining beliefs.

In terms of assessment it is especially important not to oversimplify the stages of

development a college student may go through. As previously stated, it is unlikely that a

person will fit neatly into one stage, instead there could be overlap or relapse (King,

1990). Therefore it is imperative to identify where a person is holistically, rather than to

identify the stage or vector of development within which a student is perceivably located.

Therefore, the seven vectors should be considered as building blocks to the foundation

for human development, rather than a limited linear model of sequential steps (Figure 1-

1). However, the measurement protocol for all seven vectors is extensive. This is due to

the time constraints of respondents, and in the anticipation of a higher response rate, this

study focused only on one of Chickering and Reisser's vectors. The fourth vector,









Developing Mature Personal Relationships was chosen due to its perceived relevant

relationship with some elements of studying abroad. For example, the development of

mature relationships includes acceptance and admiration of differences, and can be seen

in an intercultural context. The foundation for this vector is one's ability to react to

people based on them as individuals, rather than as typecasts. Eventually, the person may

value differences in close relationships. This may ultimately transfer to general

acquaintances and then to those from other countries and cultures.


Developing
Competence
Developing
Managing Emotions Purpose


Moving through Establishing Identity
Autonomy toward
Interdependence


Developing Mature Developing
Interpersonal Integrity
Relationships


-New Students- -Graduating Undergraduate Students- -Graduate Students-


Figure 1-1. The Seven Vectors

The Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relationships Inventory measured social development.

The Inventory was created to measure Chickering and Reisser's fourth vector (Hood &

Mines, 1997), Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships. The developmental phase

of interpersonal relationships is comprised of two areas: (1) improved tolerance and

respect for people of different values, backgrounds, and lifestyles, and (2) a change in the









quality of relationships with close family and friends, moving from dependence through

independence toward an interdependence that allows for a greater level of personal

freedom.

Although the seven vectors should not necessarily be viewed as a linear model, it is

helpful to recognize that there is a generally acceptable timeframe of development.

Figure 1-1 illustrates that first and second year college students usually progress through

the first four vectors, developing competence, managing emotions, moving through

autonomy toward interdependence and developing mature interpersonal relationships

(Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Third and fourth year college students usually experience

the fifth vector, establishing identity. The final vectors, the fifth and sixth, developing

purpose and developing integrity are typically experienced by graduate students or soon

after graduation.

First vector: Developing competence. Three types of competence are cultivated

during the college years, they are: intellectual competence, physical and manual skills,

and interpersonal competence. (a) Intellectual competence is proficiency in utilizing the

mind. It entails expanding artistic and intellectual sophistication, mastering subject

matter, and, primarily, constructing a range of skills to understand, evaluate, and

synthesize. Intellectual competence also involves cultivating new frames of reference so

as to assimilate additional points of view and function as more sufficient formations for

interpreting our experiences and observations. (b) Physical and manual competence may

include artistic and athletic achievements, making and designing intangible items, and

increasing fitness, self-discipline, and physical strength. Creation and competition

promote feelings to emerge as projects and performances are put on view for others'









endorsement or disapproval. Chickering and Reisser suggest that leisure activities may

develop into lasting interests and consequently become part of one's identity.

Interpersonal competence includes not just the abilities of communicating, listening, and

cooperating successfully, but in addition the more complex task of listening without

distraction to another person and providing a proper response, to bring into line

individual agendas along with the objectives of the group, and to select from numerous

strategies in order to aid in the prosperity of a relationship or a group meeting.

Consequently, when students' feelings of competence flourish as they realize how

to have faith in their capabilities, receive reliable comments from others, and are able to

put together their skills into a solid confidence, they have more than likely moved

through the first vector.

Second vector: Managing emotions. Regardless of whether a student is new or

returning back to school from time off, most experience feelings of anger, hurt, fear,

boredom, tension, and longing; these feelings have the potential to disrupt the educational

progression when they become overwhelming or extreme. However, these emotions

simply need to be managed. This can be accomplished by being responsive and

recognizing them as warning signs.

Chickering and Reisser explain that it may be a challenge to accept that a small

amount of boredom and tension is typical and that anxiety can help performance.

Development occurs when students learn to manage these emotions by dealing with fears

before they are immobilized, finding healthy channels to release irritation before they

blow up, and healing emotional damage before other relationships are contaminated. The

challenge is for the student to get in touch with their emotions and learn to exercise self-









regulation rather than repression. Some students are closed and need to open up, while

others may be considered an open book and their undertaking is to develop adaptable

controls. As self-discipline and self-expression acquire balance, perception and

integration ideally support each other.

Positive feelings must also be considered, although instead of learning to manage

them, they should be brought into the consciousness and permitted to exist. It is essential

that students learn to equalize self-assertive tendencies, which include surpassing the

boundaries of the individual self, recognizing or connecting with another, or feeling part

of bigger whole.

Third vector: Moving through autonomy toward interdependence. An

important step in the development process for college students is realizing how to

perform with relative self-sufficiency, to be less influenced by others' judgments, and to

take responsibility for following self-chosen goals. Advancement requires emotional and

instrumental independence, and subsequently acknowledgment and acceptance of

interdependence. (a) Emotional independence can be defined, as autonomy from repeated

and urgent needs for approval, affection, or reassurance. It commences with the parting

from parents and continues through dependence on friends, unrelated adults, and

institutional or professional reference groups. It concludes in the lessening of need for

such supports and improved willingness to jeopardize the loss of status or friends in

exchange for the pursuit of strong interests or position on beliefs. (b) Instrumental

independence is comprised of two chief factors: having the capacity to be mobile and the

aptitude to manage activities and to work out problems in a self-sufficient manner.

Additionally, it indicates developing that volitional piece of the self that is able to think









analytically and individually and can then decipher ideas into concentrated action. It also

entails learning to get from one destination to another without having to be handheld or

given specific instructions, as well as to locate the information or means essential in order

to realize personal desires and needs.

Achieving autonomy concludes in the realization that one cannot function in a

vacuum and that superior autonomy allows improved types of interdependence. New

relationships founded on reciprocity and equality substitutes the outdated, less

deliberately chosen ones. Relationships with parents are modified. Interpersonal

circumstances expand to consist of the world, society and the community. The yearning

for inclusion and the desire to be autonomous become better balanced. Interdependence

denotes respecting the independence of others and trying to discover ways to give and

take with an always-growing network of friends.

Fourth vector: Developing mature interpersonal relationships. The fourth

vector is the focus of this study. According to Chickering (1969), the fourth vector is

comprised of two elements, (1) improved tolerance and esteem for people of diverse

upbringings, values, and life styles, and (2) a change in the quality of relationships with

intimate friends and loved ones. Improved tolerance can be defined as an openness to

and acceptance of diversity, resulting in the expansion of a person's sensitivities and

options for rewarding relationships. The adjustment in the quality of relationships with

friends refers to moving from dependence through independence toward interdependence,

which gives a person a wider choice of freedom of movement and behavior (Mines,

1977). Young adults are influenced by friends, adults, and loved ones. As freeing of

interpersonal relationships evolves, people react differently to them. Friendships grow









stronger and people choose to spend more time with select friends rather than

participating in a large group activity. Additionally, relationships with adults become

easier.

The development of mature relationships entails acceptance and admiration of

differences, as well as having a capability for intimacy. Acceptance can be seen in an

interpersonal as well as an intercultural context. At its core is one's ability to react to

people based on them as individuals, rather than as typecasts. Eventually, valuing

differences in close relationships will transfer to general acquaintances and then to those

from other countries and cultures. Awareness, openness, breadth of experience,

inquisitiveness, and impartiality facilitate students' ability to cultivate first impressions,

minimize prejudice and ethnocentrism, foster empathy and selflessness, and get pleasure

from diversity.

As well as increased acceptance, the aptitude for healthy intimacy grows. For the

majority of youthful couples, each is the narcissus. Gratifying relationships usually

require geographic proximity, "so that each can nod to the other and in the reflection

observe himself or herself" (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 48). Cultivating mature

relationships encompasses selflessness, as well as the aptitude to choose relationships that

are healthy. Additionally, long-term commitments are based on unconditional regard,

responsiveness, and honesty. Better capacity for intimacy includes an adjustment in the

quality of relationships from too much dominance or dependence toward interdependence

amongst equals. Development can be defined as less clinging and more profound

sharing, being more selective in finding nurturing relationships, increased appreciation of









qualities and more acceptance of imperfections, and increased enduring relationships that

thrive through separation, crises, and distance.

Fifth vector: Establishing identity. Developing identity could be compared to the

putting together of a jigsaw puzzle. The formation of identity depends partially on the

four vectors previously mentioned. It is the progression of discovering at what degrees of

frequency and intensity, with what types of experience, we resound in satisfying, in

secure, or in self- detrimental ways. Seven components exist in the development of

identity: (1) contentment with body and appearance, (2) acceptance of sexual orientation

and gender, (3) sense of self in a historical, social, and cultural perspective, (4)

explanation of self-concept through life-style and roles, (5) sense of self in reaction to

feedback from esteemed friends, family and others, (6) self-esteem and self-acceptance,

and (7) individual stability and integration. A sound sense of self is clear when the

individual is comfortable and can harmonize all components of personality.

Establishing one's identity also consists of taking into account ethnic heritage and

family of origin, classifying self as part of a cultural or religious tradition, and

considering self within a historical and social context. It encompasses discovering roles

and methods at home, work and play that are authentic demonstrations of self and that

further delineate self-definition. It includes gaining an awareness of how he or she is

viewed by others. "It leads to clarity and stability and a feeling of warmth for this core

self as capable, familiar, worthwhile" (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 50).

Sixth vector: Developing purpose. Most students spend years in college to

prepare for a good job, not necessarily to broaden their philosophy on life. Developing

purpose includes an escalating capability to be purposeful, to evaluate interests and









choices, to clarify objectives, to formulate plans, and to persevere despite hurdles. It

necessitates devising action plans, and a set of priorities that incorporate three key

components: (1) vocational aspirations and plans, (2) personal interests, and (3) family

and interpersonal responsibilities. Also included, is the aptitude to bring together one's

varied goals within the framework of a bigger, more significant purpose, and to live

intentionally day-by-day.

The term vocational is used loosely, as it could be as precise as a career or as far-

reaching as a calling. Vocations are discovered by what is fulfilling and energizing, what

utilizes talents and what challenges a person to develop new ones, what causes joy in

doing, and what actualizes all a person's possibilities for success. The vocations can be

unpaid, paid or both. Preferably, they will surface as a result of intensifying curiosities,

and accordingly provide impetus to further ambitions that contain value and meaning. At

this time, concerns for family and life-style become significant. As long-term

partnerships become a part of the equation and formal education and vocational

explorations come to a close, the next moves must be determined. It is a challenge to

devise a course of action that balances standard of living considerations, vocational

desires, and extracurricular pursuits. Numerous compromises are necessary, and clearer

ideals assist in the decision-making process.

Seventh vector: Developing integrity. This vector entails three chronological,

however, overlapping phases: (1) humanizing values distancing oneself from automatic

use of adamant beliefs and utilizing ethical thinking as a means to balance personal self-

interest with the welfare of others, (2) personalizing values purposely upholding core









beliefs and values at the same time as regarding other viewpoints, and (3) developing

congruence harmonizing individual values with socially sensible actions.

Humanizing values entails a change from a literal application of rules, to a more

situational view resulting in the connection between the rules and the goals they are

meant to support. Rules regarding aggressiveness, honesty or sex may change with

situations and circumstances, while prevailing principles become the most important.

Personalizing of values takes place when the values to be lived are selected

individually as a result of the situations to be encountered, by the work expected to be

completed, and by the people who are viewed as important. In summary, persons select

guiding principles to suit themselves and the circumstances of their lives. Eventually

these elements are adopted as a permanent part of self and grow to be standards by which

to evaluate personal decisions.

The personalizing of values encourages the development of congruence, which is

the realization of behavior that is consistent with the individual values held. In this last

stage, internal debate is reduced. As results of the consequences of a situation are

inherent and the costs of alternative options are evident, the response is easily

determined; the choice is made with conviction, without debate or hedging.

No published study exists according to the author's knowledge that utilizes

Chickering and Reisser's (1993) theory of development to investigate the outcomes of a

study abroad experience. Therefore, a goal of this study was to examine the outcomes

experienced as a consequence of studying abroad guided by a widely used student

development theoretical framework. In addition, there has been a call to investigate the

ways in which cross-cultural and study abroad experiences impact males and females









differently (Baty & Dold, 1977; Crust, 1998; Herman, 1996). Baty and Dold found that

the study abroad experience affected men and women differently. These findings are

supported by studies of student development such as Chickering and Reisser's who found

that males and females develop at different rates. In contrast, several studies reported

there are no differences in personal development outcomes between males and females

(Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Herman). The commonality in all of these studies is the

documented recommendation to further investigate differences in outcomes as

experienced by males and females (Baty & Dold; Farrell & Suvedi; Herman; Noy, 2004).

As a result, this study examined outcomes as they relate to gender differences in the

hopes of providing clarification to this seemingly unclear issue. Another important

variable under consideration is that of previous travel experience. Farrell and Suvedi in a

study investigating the impacts of a study abroad program found that 77% of the

participants had traveled overseas previously. The authors reported that there were no

significant differences in outcomes reported by participants based on those that had

previous overseas experience and those that did not. They attributed these findings,

however, to the fact that the majority of their participants had traveled overseas before.

Therefore, by examining previous overseas experience in the current study the author

hoped to shed some light on the potential impacts) this variable may have on the

psychosocial development of the study abroad participants. Particularly, since there is

evidence in the tourism literature suggesting that pervious travel experiences, impacts,

future travel decisions and experience (Pearce, 1988; Sonmez & Graefe, 1998). A final

consideration in this study is that of length of the study abroad program. The literature

supports the notion that the longer the length of time a student is immersed in another









culture the greater the development (Herman). Nevertheless, published research on this

variable is minimal; therefore this study hoped to contribute to the body of knowledge

regarding the impacts of study abroad program as it pertains to length of program.

Consequently, the goal of this study was to consider Chickering and Reisser's fourth

vector in order to assess the development experienced as a result of the international

experience. However, due to the lack of responses to the questionnaire, the group that

responded prior to the travel experience and the group that responded after the travel

experience were evaluated independently.

Research Questions

The research questions addressed in this study were:

la. What perceptions do the students report before their study abroad experience as
measured by the Michigan State University study abroad questionnaire?

lb. What perceptions do the students report after their study abroad experience as
measured by the Michigan State University study abroad questionnaire?

2a. What level of development according to Chickering and Reisser's (1993) fourth
vector of development have the students achieved before their study abroad experience?

i. What level of development according to the Tolerance scale have the
students achieved before their study abroad experience?

ii. What level of development according to the Quality of Relationships scale
have the students achieved before their study abroad experience?

2b. What level of development according to Chickering and Reisser's (1993) fourth
vector of development have the students achieved after their study abroad experience?

i. What level of development according to the Tolerance scale have the
students achieved after their study abroad experience?

ii. What level of development according to the Quality of Relationships scale
have the students achieved after their study abroad experience?









3a. Do males and females differ in their development according to Chickering and
Reisser's fourth vector before their study abroad experience?

i. Do males and females differ in their development according to the
Tolerance scale before their study abroad experience?

ii. Do males and females differ in their development according to the Quality
of Relationships scale before their study abroad experience?

3b. Do males and females differ in their development according to Chickering and
Reisser's fourth vector after their study abroad experience?

i. Do males and females differ in their development according to the
Tolerance scale after their study abroad experience?

ii. Do males and females differ in their development according to the Quality
of Relationships scale after their study abroad experience?

4a. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those
with no previous overseas experience, regarding Chickering and Reisser's fourth vector
prior to their study abroad experience?

i. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously
and those with no previous overseas experience, and their level of
development as measured by the Tolerance scale prior to their study abroad
experience?

ii. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously
and those with no previous overseas experience, and their level of
development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale prior to
their study abroad experience?

4b. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those
with no previous overseas experience, regarding Chickering and Reisser's fourth vector
after their study abroad experience?

i. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously
and those with no previous overseas experience, and their level of
development as measured by the Tolerance scale after their study abroad
experience?

ii. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously
and those with no previous overseas experience, and their level of
development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale after their
study abroad experience?









5a. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program, regarding Chickering
and Reisser's fourth vector prior to their study abroad experience?

i. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program regarding
level of development as measured by the Tolerance scale prior to their study
abroad experience?

ii. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program regarding
level of development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale
prior to their study abroad experience?

5b. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program, regarding Chickering
and Reisser's fourth vector after their study abroad experience?

i. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program, and the
level of development measured by the Tolerance scale after their study
abroad experience?

ii. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program regarding
level of development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale
after their study abroad experience?














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Evolution of Youth Travel

Youth travel dates back to the Grand Tour of the 1630's. Loker-Murphy and

Pearce (1995) illustrate the evolution of youth travel through history (Figure 2-1). After

the Grand Tour phenomenon of the upper class faded, tramping by the working class

became popular; following this trend youth travelers typically were middle-class long-

term budget travelers. Today, the inclination of youth traveling on a budget still exists,

and is currently termed backpacking.

The Grand Tour

Education as a reason for travel was a philosophy that emerged during the medieval

period until around 1800. Charles Wm. Elliot, president of Harvard University said

during his inaugural address that travel is a "foolish beginning and" an "excellent sequel

to education" (cited in Brodsky-Porges, 1981, p.72). The origins of educational travel

can be traced back to the Grand Tour of wealthy British aristocrats. Educational

experiences, status seeking, adventure (Cohen, 1972), and a declaration of independence

have all been linked to the migration of youth travel to Europe (Brodsky-Porges).

Americans share many cultural and traditional ties with England, the idea of travel

as a form of education is one custom Americans have adopted from their ancestors.

Roeming (1971) suggested "the educated American insisted on contact with European

culture as a means of casting into the shadows of the past, coarseness and presumed

undesirability of his frontier origins" (p.70). Several early educators integrated travel










Key Motives


Education/self-
development


Employment/Training
Subsidiary Leisure


Temporary escape
from urban life/health
and fitness


The Grand Tour (travel
as education)


Craft Guilds

Tramping for work


Tramping for touristic
purposes


Youth movement/
wanderlust

Youth hostel
association (YHA)

YHA in Australia


Hitchhiking-Students
and Middle Class Youth
Defining features:
Activity/Transport
Mode

Drifters and Wonderers
Defining features: Low
social/spatial
organization

Long-term budget
travelers
Defining features:
Money/Extended time


Modem Youth Tourism


Defining features: Age/Increasing
degree of independence from family


Contemporary Backpackers


Defining features: Preference for
budget accommodations, Emphasis
on meeting other people,
Independently organized/Flexible
travel schedule, Longer rather than
brief holidays, Emphasis on
informal/participatory recreational
activities


Figure 2-1. The Backpacker Phenomenon: An Evolutionary Framework

into their set of courses, as they believed it increased learning. The Frenchman Michael

Eyquem was the leading voice against an education system that only utilized books.


17th Century


18th Century


19th Century


1910


1930's


1950's

1960's


1970's


1980's









During the 1500's he created a pedagogy that reflected his belief that "A mere bookish

learning is a paltry learning" (cited in Meyer, 1972, p.231). Eyquem also known as

Montaigne felt that students required "... some direct adventuring with the world, a steady

and lively interplay with common folk, supplemented and fortified with trips abroad"

(cited in Meyer, p.231). Another scholar at this time, who shared similar views, was Jan

Amos Comenius. During the 1600's Comenius declared that there was more to education

than what was simply found within the pages of a book. In order to rescue the student

from "degenerating into a mere bookworm, he was to relax his concentration during the

last two years by seeking breadth and enrichment in travel" (Meyer, p.250).

Travel has been a part of human existence since pre-historic times; those that

followed their herds season to season for food are evidence of this. In time, as social

systems developed, people traveled for religious, economic, health, political, recreation,

and finally educational reasons (Brodsky-Porges, 1981). The British government also

played a role in student travel during these earlier years. Often time's students acted as

informed spies and sent letters back to the crown describing social, military, and political

conditions of the places they were visiting. This information often resulted in

compensation usually in the form of a grant (Brodsky-Porges). The Grand Tour was

viewed as a rite of passage, to encourage separation from youth to adulthood (Adler,

1985; Loker-Murphy & Pearce, 1995; Nash, 1976). However, during this period of time,

youth travel was considered a political obligation more than anything else; self-discovery

was not at the forefront. The sons of the aristocracy used the opportunity of travel to

attend acclaimed universities, meet influential people and to experience the arts (Adler,

1985; Brodsky-Porges).









Three philosophies surrounded the Grand Tour. The first one placed the most

emphasis of travel on meeting the influential and the well known, rather than following

theoretical and scientific knowledge. This philosophy was called "Baconian;" it was

inspired by Francis Bacon who felt that young men should travel for the experience itself,

rather than explicit knowledge (Brodsky-Porges, 1981). The second philosophy placed

the emphasis of travel on fashion, parties, ballet, and the arts. The "Jacobean" traveler

was motivated by societal accomplishments and was to be considered a graduate of the

European finishing school. The combination of the two previously mentioned

philosophies, comprise the third. It promoted the importance of refining social skills, as

well as students attending the best universities.

The level of difficulty in travel, natural topography, religion and politics played

significant roles in determining an individual's route. Brodsky-Porges (1981) explained

that for approximately 30 years there was no predictable route for the Grand Tour,

however, a typical route emerged around 1630. The itinerary varied to some degree, but

usually the starting point was Dover, England. From there, the student crossed the

English Channel to France and would then travel through Switzerland and Italy.

Following extended stays in several Italian cities, the student traveled to Germany and

then back home via the English Channel.

The English are given credit for establishing travel as an educational modality;

however, the wealthy sons of Venice, France, Poland and others also traveled for

education. As a result, the typical tourist during the 1600's was the aristocratic male

(Brodsky-Porges, 1981; Loker-Murphy & Pearce, 1995). Traveling for education was

considered an essential part of a young man's education. The relative period of peace









during the 16th century allowed for civility among European nations to evolve, thus

making the Grand Tour possible (Brodsky-Porges).

America's youth began experiencing Europe first-hand in the late 1700's.

Brodsky-Porges (1981) explains that the American colonies during this time were very

primitive; accordingly colonial families felt the need to send their sons back to Europe to

enhance their education and social skills. Just a short time after the East to West

migration began, it quickly declined. As a result of America's independence, the

sentiment of sending its youth to England was regarded as a betrayal of the American

sprit. Noah Webster who supported the Grand Tour prior to the War of Independence

turned America's youth away from Europe and instead encouraged students to explore

their own country. Additionally, in 1785 Thomas Jefferson made it known that he

believed students would risk "moral infection" if they traveled to Europe. In time these

feelings subsided, and the tradition for American students to travel to Europe continues to

this day.

Around the middle of the 19th century the era of the Grand Tour was coming to an

end. The time period from 1821 through 1855 saw many changes. In 1821, the first

crossing of the English Channel by steam was made one year after the battle of Waterloo.

Austria, England and France experienced the beginning of the railway networks in 1828.

Later, in 1835 roads were built through the Alps. Karl Baedekor published the first

European guidebook in 1839. In 1841, Thomas Cook introduced "organized profitable

mass touring" (Trease, 1965, p.239), which Cohen (1972) defines as the "least

adventurous" as the traveler remains largely confined to their comfort zone (p. 167). The

timetables for the Continental Railway Guide were first published in 1847, and Napoleon









III held the Paris Exposition, the first world's fair in 1855. "The age of the Grand Tour

was over and the age of tourism had arrived" (Trease, p.239).

Tramping

In the mid 19th century the idea of the Grand Tour "was gradually democratized

and adopted in modified form by the middle classes" (Adler, 1985, p.335). Although

travel by the aristocracy was never constrained, the lower classes did not have the same

access. Their ability to travel freely needed to be justified. Adler explains if they did not

provide written statements from their parish priest regarding their travel, they would face

punishment, which included being whipped in public or arrested.

During this era, there was a shift from prevention by government agencies to

organization and accommodation as government controls changed. Throughout this time

of organization trade guilds, such as those for machine workers and bricklayers among

others started sending young tradesmen overseas to acquire beneficial hands-on training,

essentially "on tramp from town to town" (Adler, 1985, p.338). Upon presentation of an

employment I.D. card, tramps could find themselves ajob and a bed. At this point in

time, the term hostel was coined and utilized by craft associations. Adler explains in

addition to being a financial necessity, this type of travel was also seen as a "passage to

full male adulthood" (p.339), especially for the British.

World War I denoted the end of such travel sponsored by craft associations. The

European tramp phenomenon evolved into one with unskilled workers that were simply

relying on public charity rather than just hospitality for their work. This new movement

was perceived as a social problem that psychologists named wanderlust. Characteristics

of the new-age trampers included one's difficulty adjusting back into work, avoiding









work, and taking pleasure in travel, which led to repeat trips. Trampers used work as a

means to sustain travel, this phenomenon evolved into the long-term budget traveler.

Long-Term Budget Travelers

Long-term budget travelers consider travel as leisure, and sometimes view it as a

means to avoid or delay work (Adler, 1985; Riley, 1988). Riley explains the long-term

budget traveler is usually at a juncture in life, and many times a recent college graduate.

He or she is typically Australian, Canadian, European or from New Zealand, and prefers

to travel alone, and is single. Young adults frequently hope to delay the shift from being

a student to the responsibilities and lifestyle associated with the adult world. Ironically,

in an effort to pro-long the time he or she can stay abroad, the budget traveler commonly

seeks employment (Riley). Because this type of traveler travels for longer than the

typical holiday a tight budget has to be maintained. From this phenomenon, the phrase

"budget" traveler evolved. However, Riley points out that it is important to note that

being classified as a budget traveler does not signify that the traveler came from a low

socio-economic background, in fact, they more often than not had a middle-class

upbringing (Cohen, 1972; Riley).

In Cohen's (1972) groundbreaking article, he describes a typology comprised of

four tourist roles, one of these being the drifter. Traditionally, the long-term budget

traveler has been associated with the drifter role; however, over time as budget tourism

has become more institutionalized the long-term budget traveler can fit into one of two

categories described by Cohen, the Explorer or the Drifter. According to Cohen the

Explorer will organize his or her own trip, and seek comfortable accommodations while

attempting to travel "off the beaten track" (p. 168). The Explorer will try to speak the

native language and socialize with the locals. Although the Explorer actively seeks new









experiences, he or she is never far from familiarity of his or her home lifestyle. Similar,

although different is the Drifter. Cohen explains that this kind of tourist is most likely to

embark on a trip that is the farthest from home and his or her way of living. This tourist

attempts to live, eat and sleep like the indigenous people, rejecting all things that

resemble the mass tourist. The Drifter seeks novelty at the highest level, and life as he or

she used to live it is non-existent. The motivation of the Drifter is curiosity and hunger

for adventure.

Cohen (1973) describes the somewhat minor drifter phenomenon as experiencing

major attention after the publication of his 1972 article. Initially the concept of the drifter

was that of a "counter-culture" role (p.90). In contrast, Cohen argues that drifter tourism

is somewhat of a paradox. On the one hand it is closely aligned with non-routine forms

of travel, while at the same time it has become institutionalized in a way that is

completely separate from, although equivalent to that of the regular mass tourist, with its

own accommodations, food establishments and attractions. Although the drifter shares

several characteristics with other forms of youth travel such as an aversion to a dull and

scheduled way of life, there are also differences. Unlike the tramper who travels for

necessity, the drifter travels by choice; in contrast to the grand tour traveler who is in

pursuit of knowledge, the drifter has no instrumental purpose for traveling. Drifting, as it

is known first appeared several years after World War II when middle-class youth and

students first started to hitch hike in Western Europe and throughout the continent.

However, drifting experienced a major boom as a result of inexpensive airfares during the

late sixties and early seventies. As a result, youth flooded into Europe's hot spots like









London and Amsterdam in unprecedented numbers. Today, this type of tourism is still

popular, although this style of travel is more commonly called backpacking.

Backpacker

The backpacker is today's current youth traveler, and yesterday's budget traveler

(Loker-Murphy, 1996; Murphy, 2001). The backpacker encompasses many

characteristics from the grand tour participants, the trampers, the long-term budget

travelers, and the previously mentioned drifter travelers. Consistent with other forms of

youth travel, the backpacker is usually at a crossroads in life (Loker-Murphy & Pearce,

1992; Noy, 2004). Backpackers are typically between 18-33 years of age (Sorenson,

2003), budget-minded tourists who demonstrate a tendency to stay in low-priced

accommodations, maintain a preference for longer rather than shorter holidays, put an

emphasis on meeting other budget travelers and the indigenous people; they also have

flexible itineraries that are usually independently organized (Loker-Murphy; Loker-

Murphy & Pearce, 1995; Murphy).

Like the long-term budget traveler, backpackers often begin their journey by

traveling solo. However, due to the social climate of hostels and other budget

accommodations, meeting others along the way is easy and sometimes results in attaining

temporary travel companions (Loker-Murphy & Pearce, 1995). A priority for the

backpacker is to spend as little money as possible, as the length of time on the road for a

typical backpacker is usually three months to one year.

Backpackers typically see themselves as not the typical tourist, and especially not

like the mass tourist (Loker-Murphy, 1996; Sorenson, 2003) described by Cohen (1972).

Many backpackers consider themselves as filling a role that is different from that of the

mainstream tourist. In a study conducted by Murphy (2001), backpackers felt the main









difference between themselves and other travelers was the adherence to a tight budget,

that they had more flexibility in time compared to the other tourists, and that they had the

desire and actively sought out places away from the mainstream tourist routes. Recently,

new characteristics of backpackers have been identified that are reminiscent of drifters

(Cohen, 1973), these include: hedonistic tendencies, they tend to gather in groups with

other Westerners, and they are not socially conscious while overseas (Murphy).

Although it is important to note the accepted characteristics that define

backpacking, Sorenson (2003) questions the idea of backpacking as a homogeneous and

distinctive category. Sorenson asserts that to include all of the above mentioned traits in

one grouping would make it all but impractical to assign them an individual category; in

doing so numerous traits would make up such a broad category as to make it

insignificant. However, Sorenson also points out that if questioned, the majority of the

travelers would more than likely concede that they are backpackers; even those that

would not allow for such labels would still react or relate to them. Furthermore,

Sorenson deems it valuable to employ the concept of culture when attempting to

comprehend backpacker tourism, whereby a backpacker culture is recognized as

fundamental to this style of travel. Sorenson suggests, "instead of defining them

[backpackers] by means of fixed criteria, the cultural angle enables the backpacker to be

viewed as a socially construed category, involving both self-perception and peer

recognition" (p.862).

Sorenson suggests that one construct is consistent across all types of backpacking,

that being experience. Noy (2004) recounts self-change reported by youth travelers in a

study about Israeli backpackers and their shared experiences. Noy conducted 40 in-depth









conversation-interviews with backpackers within five weeks of their return home. Each

backpacker who was interviewed had traveled at least three months, half in Asia, and half

in South America. Noy contends that the unique experiences as a result of adventure and

authenticity inherent in their trips allow backpackers to self-reflect and realize the

changes within themselves. Noy explains that "experienced backpackers tell of their new

place in life in positive terms-they are wiser, more knowledgeable, more socially and

emotionally apt, etc., than they were prior to their journey" (p. 84). A consistent theme

among the narratives was that the backpackers continually portrayed profound and deep

personal changes that resulted from their trips abroad. Furthermore, the changes were

constantly positive, as one male backpacker recounted:

You see, when you leave the country you don't know that much, and when you
return you suddenly know everything. You also know yourself differently, because
you put yourself in may situations, like I told you-suddenly on top of the volcano
mountain, or in very strenuous conditions during the trek ... You extend your own
capabilities, and the limits of your knowledge of yourself. It's just like that. You
know yourself better (p.87).

Likewise one female backpacker said:

All in all, the journey changed me quite a bit. Not that I went searching for myself
and returned a different person-it's just really not like that. It's like I simply
traveled in order to enjoy myself and to have fun, and I was surprised, like-it was
much more fun than I initially thought I could ever experience. And I learned a lot
of things about myself (p.87).

Noy (2004) reported that 62% of the backpackers interviewed revealed that they

experienced significant changes as a result of the trip; the remaining participants

acknowledged the same changes through directed questions during the interview process.

Backpacking for young Israelis is considered a rite of passage. As a result, Noy suggests

that the expectation for positive self-change as a result of backpacking is not surprising.

However, he does believe that travel for young adults and immersion in a foreign culture









is a true catalyst for self-change. Following this line of thinking foreign travel and

cultural immersion may also be used to explain positive self-change and study abroad.

Study Abroad

Many believe that today's study abroad phenomenon shares many characteristics

with the grand tour, tramping, the long-term budget traveler, and the backpacker. Like

the Grand Tour, studying abroad is a form of educational travel (Dukes et al., 1994; Kuh

& Kauffman, 1985). While studying abroad, it is common for students to participate in

internship or practicum programs. Although, the student is not traveling from place to

place to improve their trade, the student is working in another country to improve their

job skills. Additionally, study abroad students encompass similar qualities with the long-

term budget traveler and the backpacker. Although the study abroad student is not on the

road traveling for an extended period of time, they live in another country anywhere from

a week to an academic year. During the study abroad program, it is common to have a

weeklong break from classes. During this time, a student will embody the attributes of

the long-term budget traveler and backpacker by celebrating on a long journey, adhering

to a strict budget, seeking out inexpensive lodging and eating local food.

In this study, the phrases exchange program and study abroad will be used

synonymously. Studying abroad is a vacation; it is an adventure, an opportunity to travel

and visit distant lands that have only been read about. It is a chance to encounter people

of different cultures and backgrounds. Studying abroad provides students an opportunity

to live without parental restrictions, even more so than when students are away from

home during college. Carsello and Greaser (1976) suggest that it is an opportunity to live

in a new and challenging environment. In summary, it is simply an exciting time for

college students.









Study abroad as a topic for research began in the middle of the 1950's (Herman,

1996). With the conclusion of the Second World War, an increased interest in

international understanding developed. As a result, U.S. citizens supported government

programs that promoted a global outlook. Through the years, the American government

has shown its support of study abroad in many ways. William J. Fulbright encouraged

Congress to pass a law for a program that fostered study abroad. Additionally, the G.I.

Bill of Rights to some degree provides grants for foreign study. As well, other

organizations that supply grants for foreign travel and study include: the American Field

Service Committee and the Experiment in International Living. Furthermore, the United

Nations sponsors international educational exchanges under the sponsorship of the United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Most recently,

the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Program asked Congress to

provide $125 million per year in funding by 2011 in order to reach the goal of sending

one million students abroad by the year 2017 (Commission on the Abraham Lincoln

Study Abroad Fellowship Program, 2005).

Since this time, scholarly inquiry related to study abroad has increased as the

number of participants who go abroad has done the same (Herman, 1996; Gardner &

Witherell, 2004). The necessity to understand how study abroad programs impact

students becomes increasingly important as student participation rates increased. The

Presidents Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies was created in

1979 in response to this need. The Commission recognized the importance of scholarly

investigation into international programs that foster global mindedness among U.S.

college students (Herman). Ever since, researchers have made an effort to learn what









personal and academic outcomes occur as a result of studying, living, and adjusting to life

in another country. Topics of interest have included: autonomy, self-awareness,

worldview, attitudes toward others, international understanding, future career orientation,

and academic and cultural interests among others (Baty & Dold, 1977; Carsello &

Greaser, 1976; Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Kuh & Kauffman, 1985; Nash, 1976; Todd,

2001). Additionally, international educators agree that due to the increasing number of

students studying abroad there must be some personal developmental changes, which in

turn will impact American society in general (Lamet & Lamet, 1982).

There are many benefits of studying abroad (Armstrong, 1984; Baty & Dold, 1977;

Carsello & Greaser, 1976; Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Kuh & Kauffman, 1985; Martin,

1989; Nash, 1976; Todd, 2001), and many methods have been used to evaluate them.

Numerous researchers have used standardized instruments (Carsello & Greaser; Kuh &

Kauffman; Marion, 1978; Nash). Others have used participant observation (Morgan,

1975), and others have made use of personal interviews (James, 1976; Pfinster, 1972).

The amount of literature related to study abroad is vast; this is evidenced by the more

than 300 page bibliography entitled "Research on U.S. Students Study Abroad: An

Update, Volume III, 2001-2003, With Updates to the 1989 and Volume II Editions 2000-

2003" produced by the Center for Global Education housed at Loyola Marymount

University in Los Angeles, California (Comp & Rhodes, 1989-2003). Consequently, the

review of every article that exists on the effects of study abroad is beyond the scope of

this project. However, the researcher will attempt to highlight key studies that elucidate

the many findings of the investigations that have examined the impacts of study abroad.









In general, studying abroad appears to have positive effects (Armstrong, 1984; Baty

& Dold, 1977; Carsello & Greaser, 1976; Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Kuh & Kauffman,

1985; Martin, 1989; Nash, 1976; Todd, 2001); however, there are also areas of concern

for future students and administrators regarding the influences of study abroad (Carsello

& Greaser). Carsello and Greaser suggest that college students probably give minimal

attention to the ways in which they change during their time overseas, as well as how

they will be different when they return home. Studying abroad provides diverse

experiences that may change a student's interests, personality, values, and attitudes. As a

result of studying abroad, their views on life in general may change as well as their

physical and mental health. A consequence of studying abroad may be that a student's

feelings on career and what he or she wants to do with their lives may adjust after being

exposed to new ways of thinking. Additionally, a college student's views on the visited

countries as well as the U.S., and their family may change.

Carsello and Greaser (1976) investigated the positive and negative changes

experienced during a study abroad trip. They surveyed 209 U.S. students in four Western

European countries. The college students were asked to specify whether they had

observed changes in their attitudes, interests, or skills relating to personal or academic

concerns. If the students reported a change, they were asked to assess whether the

change was considered to be positive or negative. The results showed there was a

negative correlation between positive and negative changes. In other words, the more

positive changes experienced by a student, the less negative ones were experienced. The

topics in which the most positive changes occurred were those related to the novel

experiences college students had in the foreign country and consisted of improved









interest in art, travel, history, foreign languages, meeting strangers, and architecture.

Almost 64% of the respondents felt they had experienced a positive change in their self-

concept, 42% experienced an improvement in their social life, more than 37% discovered

greater peace of mind, and 34% felt their emotional health improved. Additionally, 61%

of the students experienced a greater interest in the United States and 57% perceived a

greater interest in their families. Most of the negative experiences were related to health

and academic concerns. However, Carsello and Greaser suggested that this was probably

a transitory situation, produced by the distraction of new places, sights, and experiences.

It was also suggested that health deterioration was temporary, and may have been due to

ignoring normal health practices, or to the change in water or diet. A recommendation

was to better prepare the students in these areas of concern.

Living and studying abroad for an unlimited length of time may encourage personal

development because numerous elements of foreign culture create unique and compelling

challenges (Kuh & Kauffman, 1985). Kuh and Kauffman designed a study to determine

whether changes in selected aspects of personal development were associated with a

study abroad experience. The authors utilized two instruments to assess students, The

Omnibus Personality Inventory (OPI) Form F and the Debriefing Interview Guide. The

OPI was administered to 126 students who were preparing to study abroad during the fall

semester 1981, as well as to 90 comparable students who were not studying abroad; this

second group was used as a control group. Results indicated that study abroad students

experienced increases in beliefs toward the welfare of others, self-confidence, feelings of

well being, and in reflective thought. Significant increases in impulse expression and the

capacity to actively imagine and attend to sensual reactions were reported, as well as









increased interest in esthetic matters and emotional sensitivity. Decreased nervousness

and tension, in addition to less anxiety were found in the results. Thirty-seven percent

felt they became more self-reliant and better able to make decisions on their own, and all

but one respondent reported being more at peace after studying abroad, as opposed to

before. Thirty percent reported that the most significant aspect of personal development

was enhanced intellectualism and tolerance for ambiguity, while 22% of students

reported that sensitivity to the needs of others was most significant. The changes

recorded were still present one year after the study. The element of surviving different

situations presented by a different culture appeared to be a strong means for promoting

personal development in these college students. The results of this study imply that

differences in three dimensions of behavior performance were associated with study

abroad: (1) increased interest in the welfare of others; (2) increased self confidence and

sense of well being, and (3) increased interest in reflective thought and in the arts,

literature, and culture. The heightened acceptance for uncertainty and interest in deep

thought shared with better emotionality and sensitivity, and an amplified interest in the

esthetic suggest that study abroad may be an integral general education element of the

liberal arts curriculum. The outcomes of this study suggest that engagement in a different

culture may challenge students to develop a more mature, multifaceted view of the world

and themselves.

Growth is the outcome of experiencing significant connections with other people

and cultures (Dukes et al., 1994). It has been demonstrated that students grow from study

abroad experiences. An alternative to the traditional study abroad programs on land is

the Semester at Sea program offered through the University of Pittsburgh. The Semester









at Sea program provides 50 days of classes with 50 days of direct travel observation. The

2005 CEO of Semester at Sea refers to the international educational experience as one

that "is a life-altering learning adventure" (Tymitz, n.d.). Dukes et al. recognized that the

impacts of travel on the growth of meaning had yet to be investigated systematically;

consequently, their study evaluated the degree to which the educational travel experience

was a factor in the development of meaning among the participants. Originally, data

were collected at the commencement, during the middle, and at the conclusion of the

spring 1982 voyage. Students described their experiences, as well as completed the

Purpose in Life (PIL) test (Dukes et al.). One year following the voyage, a random

sample of 100 respondents was selected from the population of 390 participants for a

longitudinal study of 10 years in length. Eighty respondents were contacted by telephone

and through postal mail. The respondents finished a follow-up survey of life events since

the voyage as well as the Purpose in Life test. In 1986, a sub-sample of 40 cases was

drawn, and 26 respondents were surveyed. Results suggested that participants upheld a

worldly perspective; in addition, personal growth perpetuated beyond the conclusion of

the voyage. More or less all participants felt that the international expedition helped

them to come closer to realizing their potential. Most frequently, it was reported that

participants had a more meaningful understanding of the world and its inhabitants.

Respondents said they had experienced a greater level of confidence and self-assured

feelings. Additionally, they had learned to be more self-sufficient and make their own

decisions. The voyage assisted participants in the ability to set their own goals. The

authors concluded that the voyage continued to have an effect on personal growth beyond

the conclusion. The findings suggest that the meaning of a Semester at Sea or









educational travel experience reaches beyond the conclusion of the voyage. Indeed, other

types of international educational experiences produce changes in participants. It seems

therefore that educational travel makes a significant contribution to personal growth, and

that program participants can persistently make the most of the experience long after it is

over. However, it is important to explore these contributions systematically to determine

the significant programmatic impacts. The fundamental characteristic of programs like

Semester at Sea is that they bring together travel with study, and the core curriculum

offers an interpretive basis for the travel experience. Practitioners and administrators

alike should recognize that the international journey is a springboard for the development

of meaning as well as the increased personal growth in some participants.

Colleges and universities should focus on developing the individual student, and

encourage an identity founded on attributes including flexibility, openness to experiences,

creativity and individual accountability (Nash, 1976). Parents mention personal

development most frequently as the principle goal of study abroad programs. The student

that studies abroad should become more autonomous, as they have lived self-reliantly for

an extended period of time in a foreign land. The purpose of a study conducted by Nash

was to evaluate the effects of a year of study abroad on self-realization of a group of

junior-year students in France. Approximately 30 students in the experimental group

were compared with roughly 20 students in the control group. The study abroad

participants reported most frequently that an increased learning of the French language

was their main accomplishment. Multiple personal developments were mentioned almost

as frequently; these included personal growth, self-understanding, increased tolerance,

independence, greater openness, and a higher level of satisfaction. In addition, the degree









of autonomy increased for study abroad participants. Nash also found that self-

perception improved and decreased alienation for study abroad participants were

reported. However, improved tolerance and flexibility did not increase when compared

to the control group. There was also no significant change in the participant's feelings of

purpose and life-direction when compared with the control group. Furthermore, the

majority of the personality changes taken from the international experience did not

continue after the return home. However, Nash suggests that the results of this

exploratory study should only be taken as suggestive and generalizations should be made

very cautiously.

Study abroad practitioners should attempt to provoke within the students, the

ability to remain authentic to one's own beliefs while at the same time truly appreciating

those values of other cultures (Stephenson, 1999). Stephenson designed a study to

examine effects of the study abroad trip upon host families, professors, and students'

personal values and cultural perceptions. For the purposes of this paper only the details

regarding the students will be discussed. In 1998 during the first semester students were

asked to complete a questionnaire immediately upon arrival and shortly before departure

of their stay in Santiago, Chile; this consisted of a five-month duration. The aim of the

questionnaire was to determine two main issues, the first being if the students' original

expectations diverged from their actual experiences, and second, how the students' view

of Chilean culture varied during their stay. The questionnaire asked students to indicate

the difficulty or ease they were expecting (arrival) or what they had experienced

(departure) in adjusting to or adapting to a multitude of value orientations and situation.

The 40-item questionnaire consisted of five themes, opinions/beliefs, life in Santiago,









cultural differences, the host family environment, and the classroom/university

environment. The students anticipated language, academic environment, and making

Chilean friends to be the greatest challenges. Stephenson found however, that the study

abroad experience in general tended to be more stressful than reported upon arrival.

Additionally, the number of items that were reported as being challenging increased from

the first questionnaire. Three areas emerged as the most difficult for the students; these

included social interactions, the academic environment, and cultural/beliefs/values

differences. Stephenson also reported on the items that experienced the largest difference

between the arrival questionnaire and the departure questionnaire. Stephenson found that

keeping a clear concept of one's personal beliefs, maintaining an open mind regarding the

Chilean culture, and adjusting personal beliefs resulting from the study abroad experience

proved to be more challenging than originally anticipated. In an answer to an open-ended

question asking a students' biggest challenge to respecting Chilean values, numerous

students explained how problematical it was in answering the question. One said,

"Chileans tend to be just as diverse, complicated, simple, loving, selfish, brilliant,

ignorant, shy, loud, and fascinating as any other group of people" (p. 16). Another

respondent said, "Chileans are like everyone else in the world. They vary and I don't see

a lot of generalizations worth making" (p. 16). With these final statements the research

comes full circle to the overarching theme of the study, the importance of acknowledging

shared humanity.

When considering that most of the study abroad literature supports the notion that

positive impacts are experienced as a result of studying abroad, it should be noted that for

Americans, it is not the act of "studying abroad" that results in self-exploration and









identity evaluation, but that travel in and of itself is an expression of self-discovery. This

act is what prompts inner reflection and appraisal (Dolby, 2004). Since the 1991-1992

academic year the number of U.S. students who have studied abroad has more than

doubled (Gardner & Witherell, 2003). The trend has continued as the numbers have

increased or remained the same since fall 2003 (Institute of International Education,

2003). In fact, some students place such an importance on travel that it has driven many

into debt (Carr, 2004). In a study of 662 undergraduate students from a British

university, Carr found that the students who were all under the age of 25 were likely to

spend much of their money on travel. Carr reported that university students had a high

propensity for travel as well as a passionate yearning to participate in tourism

experiences. In essence, the study describes the importance of travel for British students,

and that regardless of financial means or the subsequent need to work after the trip, many

students will find a way to travel.

Evaluating the impacts of study abroad is not just an American phenomenon, quite

the opposite. The European education system also emphasizes the importance of being

citizens of the world (Osler, 1998). Osler suggested that the experience of living abroad

and observing another culture encouraged many to evaluate how well they know their

own culture. The American education system should consider the European's emphasis

on international education and view the benefits of the experience to assist in the

justification of program availability.

Personal Development

A primary goal in higher education is the well-rounded development of the whole

person (Evans, Fomey, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). During the 1982-1983 school year,

Koester (1986) studied applicants who purchased an International Student ID card (ISIC).









Of the 5,900 students who provided responses, the personal goal predominantly cited was

that of adding a new dimension to their schooling. Various studies over the years have

shown that studying abroad contributes to personal growth (Baty & Dold, 1977; Carsello

& Greaser, 1976; Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Kuh & Kauffman, 1985; Nash, 1976; Todd,

2001). In Farrell and Suvedi's study, one student expressed what he learned during his

study abroad program: "I learned the experience to be gained from cross-cultural

experiences is invaluable in the development of perspective, of self-fulfillment, and

educational exposure" (p.175). A female student said:

I plan on getting my doctorate so that I can teach college students. I want my
teaching to reflect the experiential basis that I received from my experiences
overseas. I have a wanderlust that led me into teaching so that others may
experience the value of life outside their comfort level and beyond their own
culture (p.181).

A male student in the same study experienced impacts related to career and worldviews,

he said:

This program has given my career a focus I could not have possibly foreseen prior
to my experience overseas. It has proved invaluable in my exposure to the
possibilities in the changing world, one policy at a time (p.181).

Finally, a second male student summarized his experience best when he said: "it was

easily the most powerful experience I've ever had. I learned that I could let myself go

around people and be accepted for who I am" (Farrell & Suvedi, p.181). James (1976)

reported that 52 students, who studied abroad in 1972 to 1973, experienced increased

self-confidence. They also reawakened their intellectual interest, enhanced their

interpersonal relationships, and improved their perception of the strengths and

weaknesses of American culture. Results of the studies outlined in this study suggest that

studying abroad and experiencing personal development are closely linked.









Gender

According to Chickering and Reisser (1993) the purpose of the vectors is that they

explain key avenues for journeying in the direction of individuation, changes in attitude

toward self, family, and other contributes to this journey. Furthermore, Chickering and

Reisser suggest that there may be differences in the rate of development between male

and female students. Certainly, in the study abroad literature on student development

gender differences have been found. In a study conducted by Baty and Dold (1977),

numerous differences were found between males and females in relation to their feelings

about their study abroad experience. The purpose of their study was to investigate the

effects of a cross-cultural program located in Mexico upon students' attitudes. Students

were asked to take the survey two to three days before the program began, and one week

after it ended. The findings suggested that the females were significantly more optimistic

than the males on both the pre- and post-test, although the difference between them was

reduced by the time of the post-test. Twenty-two percent showed a decrease in optimism

and an increase in tolerance. Sixteen percent decreased in both optimism and tolerance.

In most instances, females showed a greater increase than males. The greatest decrease

was associated with feelings of inadequacy; the greatest increases were associated with

anger and anxiety. The females reported greater emotional problems at the time of the

pre-test than did the males; however, at the time of the post-test the females reported

fewer emotional problems than the males. The differences in scores suggest that females

and males were affected differently by the cross-cultural experience. The females

changed in terms of greater stability, reflecting less depression regarding self and the

environment. The males reported more depression and alienation regarding themselves

and the environment. Generally speaking, it appears that the males' experience was more









distressful or upsetting than the females' experience. Baty and Dold (1977) suggested

that young adult men and women may exhibit different learning styles and this may

possibly explain their findings. For example, females may be more skilled in adapting to

new situations in which they are required, for a time, to be dependent. For the males,

such dependency could be more threatening.

In support of this supposition, Hood and Jackson (1997b), when validating the

Developing Competency Inventory, found that male students tend to report greater self-

confidence scores than female students. Furthermore, when the Emotional

Independence-Parents scale was correlated with gender it showed that males tended to

feel more emotionally independent from their parents than did females (Hood & Jackson,

1997a). Indeed, Martin and Rohrlich (1991) found women had more pre-departure

concerns than men before leaving for a study abroad program. On the other hand, some

of the literature suggests that gender does not appear to influence the outcomes for

students during study abroad (Farrell & Suvedi, 2003). For example, the results of the

previously mentioned Semester at Sea study revealed there to be no statistically

significant differences among male and female students (Dukes et al., 1994).

Similarly, Noy (2004) reported that variance in findings might be attributed to

gender differences. Male backpackers described a more distinct connection between

personal changes and their preference for taking part in risky activities. In contrast,

female interviewees rejected the more masculine themes of strenuous or risky activities

as a catalyst for self-change; instead, females tended to describe their experiences

holistically.









Although there is a lack of consistency in terms of gender and development, much

of the literature suggests that there are differences between males and females in terms of

their development. What is clear is that gender differences with regards to study abroad

experiences are inconclusive.

Previous Overseas Experience

Literature exists that implies previous travel experience has an impact on personal

experiences as well as future travel decisions (Stephenson, 1999). The concept of the

travel career ladder has been cited often since Pearce proposed it in 1988 (Ryan, 1998).

The travel career ladder (Pearce, 1988) is a concept based upon Maslow's hierarchy of

needs (1970) and consumer experience modeling (Ryan, 1998). The model postulates

that individuals possess a career in their travel activities; this reflects ones' travel motives

in a hierarchy (Pearce, 2003) as it offers an explanation for the impact of previous travel

behavior (Loker-Murphy, 1996; Pearce, 1988; Ryan). The initial form of the travel

career ladder kept Maslow's principles that lower levels of the ladder must be satisfied

prior to one advancing to higher levels on the ladder. Pearce (2003) hypothesized that

five distinct hierarchical levels which coincide with Maslow's hierarchy of needs affect

travel behavior. Pearce (1988) describes the travel career ladder as highlighting each of a

tourist's motives or patterns, as opposed to one specific reason for traveling. The five

levels beginning with the lowest include: (1) physiological needs, (2) safety/security

needs, (3) relationship needs, (4) self-esteem/development needs, and (5) fulfillment

needs. As lower order needs become fulfilled a person may move towards fulfillment,

the highest level. Pearce (1988) suggests that more experienced travelers concentrate

more on the higher order needs identified by Maslow like relationships, self-esteem

development, and personal fulfillment. Pearce (1988) hypothesized that less experienced









travelers may be more concerned with the lower order physiological needs, such as safety

and relaxation. With up to date and continued modifications, the revised model places

"less emphasis on the strict hierarchy of needs and more on changing patterns of

motives" (Pearce, 2003, p.254). Therefore, the extent of previous travel experiences a

student has prior to their study abroad trip may affect impacts felt by the student.

In a case study conducted by Ryan (1998) tourists from the United Kingdom were

asked at the end of their holiday several questions relating to satisfaction. He found that

the two most experienced groups of tourists showed higher scores in self-actualization

items than the less experienced ones. The travel career ladder concept implies that more

experienced tourists would value more highly the intellectual needs when compared with

the other needs located lower on the hierarchy, and it might be argued that the less

experienced might score higher on such "lower" needs through inexperience; people

ascend towards self actualization as lower needs become fulfilled (Ryan).

The pinnacle of the travel career ladder, the personal journey to self-actualization,

may be applied to the Grand Tour, tramping, long-term budget traveler, backpacking and

study abroad in that all of these young travelers in their various time periods are at a

crossroads in life and essentially looking for a higher sense of self-meaning. Pearce

(1988) advances the notion that holiday experiences enable people to psychologically

mature. The model puts forward a career goal in travel activities, and as tourists become

more skilled they continue to seek fulfillment of higher needs.

Duration of Program

Being exposed to the unique challenges of studying abroad for an extended period

of time may contribute to personal development (Inglis et al., 1998). Gardner and

Witherell (2004) shows that American students continue to study abroad in larger









numbers but for shorter time periods. They reported that more than 50% of U.S.

undergraduates and Master's degree students elect summer, January term, and other

programs of eight weeks or less; the longer-term programs continue to decline in terms of

enrollment numbers. The vast majority of American students who studied abroad in

2002/03 (92%) did so for one semester or less. Only 7% study abroad for a full academic

year, compared to 18% in 1985/86, with 9% studying overseas in very short programs

(eight weeks or less) usually held between semesters. The growth in these short-term

programs, often integrated in the home campus curriculum, allows more students who

were previously unable to study abroad due to financial or curricular constraints to

participate in an international education experience (Gardner & Witherell).

The justification to include duration of travel program in the current study is that it

has been suggested that the short-term study abroad experience is not enough time to

form an accurate opinion of their host country or people (Osler, 1998). This finding

suggests that the duration of the study abroad program may affect the impacts

experienced by students. Additionally, with the rapid growth in study abroad

enrollments, international educators are expressing growing concerns regarding the lack

of data for shorter-term programs. As more students choose shorter programs in winter

and summer terms, instead of enrolling in semester and year-long programs, it is

important to understand if there are differential developmental effects between shorter

and longer study abroad experiences. For example, a student who participates in a

month-long program may not have the opportunities for intercultural learning or foreign

language acquisition similar to that of a student enrolled in a semester program (Sideli,

Berg, Rubin, & Sutton, n.d.).









Summary

In summary, educational experiences (Cohen, 1972), and a declaration of

independence have all been linked to the migration of youth to travel (Brodsky-Porges,

1981). Lengthy overseas travel has also been seen as a passage to adulthood (Adler,

1985); with the travelers usually at a juncture in life, and many times a recent college

graduate (Riley, 1988).

Since the 1950's researchers have made an effort to learn what personal and

academic outcomes occur as a result of studying, living, and adjusting to life in another

country. International educators agree that due to the increasing number of students

studying abroad there must be some personal impacts experienced, which in turn will

impact American society in general (Lamet & Lamet, 1982).

Thus, although numerous studies have shown that students experience positive

change as a result of studying abroad, many are descriptive, and lack a theoretical

foundation. This study hoped to contribute to the body of literature by using a widely

used student development theory (Chickering & Reisser, 1993) to describe the

experiences by students in a systematic way. However, due to the lack of survey

participants, an analysis of change in student development was not possible; descriptive

information only is provided for the pre-travel group and the post-travel group.














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

A pre-test post-test quasi-experimental design was originally adopted for this study.

However, due to the small response rate, and the fact that so few participants who

completed the questionnaire before the travel experience completed it after the travel

experience, the design changed to a descriptive study both prior to travel and after travel.

The researcher evaluated responses from the entire group before their travel experience

and then responses from the entire group after their travel experience. Specifically, a

questionnaire was administered before (Appendix A) and after (Appendix B) students

participated in a university sponsored study abroad program. Both closed-ended and

open-ended questions were used.

Participants were students registered at the University of Florida and studied abroad

during the fall 2005 semester. The dependent variables were the perceptions of impacts

experienced by the students (Farell & Suvedi, 2003), as well as responses to the Mines

Jensen Interpersonal Relationship Inventory, which measures the development of mature

interpersonal relationships, the fourth vector of Chickering and Reisser's (1993) student

identity theory. The independent variables were the duration of the study abroad

program, gender, and previous overseas travel experience.

Data Collection

The University of Florida ranks 12th in the nation for doctoral/research institutions

that send students abroad (Gardner & Witherell, 2004). Contact with The University of

Florida's International Center (UFIC) was made in January 2005. The Coordinator for









Study Abroad Services was the primary liaison with the UFIC for this study. During

February 2005 the researcher met with the coordinator, explained the purpose of the

study and permission was given to survey program participants during fall 2005.

Prior to each student's overseas departure, summer and fall program participants

were required to attend one of two information sessions, each of which was held in April

2005. The researcher attended both of these information sessions. The purpose of

attending the sessions was to introduce the study and to explain the purpose of the

research to the study abroad students. Additionally, instructions were given as to how the

students would be contacted, how they would be able to access the on-line survey, and

the researcher's contact information was provided in the event there were any questions

or concerns.

All communication from the researcher to the study abroad participants was

through the Coordinator for Study Abroad Services; this ensured the full anonymity and

privacy of all program participants. Two emails were sent to students periodically prior

to the fall semester beginning and two emails were sent following the conclusion of the

semester. The first email (Appendix C) was sent approximately one week prior to

departure. It was an invitation to participate in the study including a link to the

instrument, as well as instructions for completing the questionnaire. The second email

(Appendix D) was a follow-up to the first. The purpose of the second email was to thank

those who had participated and to encourage those who had not participated; also

included was a link to the instrument, as well as instructions for completing the

questionnaire. The third email (Appendix E) was sent within one week after each student

arrived back in the U.S. This email welcomed students home and was used as a reminder









to complete the post-survey; also included was a link to the instrument, as well as

instructions for completing the questionnaire. The fourth and final email (Appendix F)

was a follow-up to the third, thanking those who had completed the post-travel group

questionnaire, and a reminder to those who had not completed the post-survey;

additionally, a link to the instrument as well as instructions for completion was included.

The survey was posted on the College of Health and Human Performance server at the

University of Florida.

Due to the logistics of this study, non-random sampling procedures were utilized to

obtain participants. Approximately 200 students were registered to study abroad during

the fall 2005 semester. Each study abroad student was invited to participate in the study

during the pre-departure orientation as well as via email. The estimated time to complete

the survey was five to ten minutes. The researcher anticipated a participation rate of at

least 30%. The actual response rate for the group before traveling was 30% (N = 60),

however only 56 surveys were completed fully resulting in an actual participation rate of

28% (N = 56). The initial response rate for the group after traveling was 14.5% (N = 29).

However, after blank surveys and duplicate entries were eliminated the actual

participation rate was reduced to 12% (N = 24).

Because only eight respondents completed questionnaires before traveling and after

traveling another difficulty emerged. The after travel questionnaire did not contain

demographic items as it was thought that this information would be collected using the

instrument administered before travel commenced. Thus, an attempt was made to re-

contact these students through the UFIC coordinator. Six students responded providing

their demographic and study abroad program characteristics.









Participants

Before Travel

Of the 56 students from the group before traveling who reported their gender the

majority 83.6% (N = 46) were female, and 14.5% (N = 8) were male. The participants

comprised 10.9% (N = 6) sophomores, 27.3% (N = 15) juniors, 38.2% (N = 21) seniors,

and 21.8% (N = 12) were graduate students. They ranged in age from 18-41 with a mean

age of 21.5 years; a more detailed demographic profile is presented in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Respondent Profile for the Pre-travel Sample
Characteristics Frequency Valid Percent1

Gender (N=54)
Male 8 14.5
Female 46 83.6

Class Standing (N=54)
Freshman 0 0.0
Sophomore 6 10.9
Junior 15 27.3
Senior 21 38.2
Graduate 12 21.8

Age (N=49)
18 1 2.0
19 9 18.4
20 12 24.5
21 11 22.4
22 4 8.2
23 5 10.2
24 2 4.1
25 1 2.0
26 3 6.1
41 1 2.0
N values may vary due to missing data.

Participants in this study were also asked to report their major or intended major.

The majority, 13.8% (N = 8) reported language based majors such as English 6.9% (N=

4), Spanish 3.5% (N = 2), French 1.7% (N = 1), and Russian 1.7% (N = 1). The second









most frequent response was International Business (10%, N = 6); a more detailed

breakdown of reported majors is presented in Table 3-2. Furthermore, participants were

asked if they spoke the native language of their study abroad country. Of those that

responded (N = 54), 46.3% (N = 25) reported speaking the native language, with the

majority 53.7% (N = 29) not speaking the native language of their study abroad country.

Table 3-2. Major or Intended Major prior to Studying Abroad
Major Frequency Valid Percent1

Agriculture and Life Sciences
Family, Youth and Community Sciences 1 1.7
Agricultural Extension Education 1 1.7
Environmental Science 1 1.7
Forestry 1 1.7
Nutrition 1 1.7

Business Administration
Business 2 3.4
Decision and Information Sciences 1 1.7
Finance 1 1.7
International Business 6 10.3
Management 1 1.7
Marketing 3 5.2

Design, Construction and Planning
Architecture 3 5.2
Landscape Architecture 2 3.4

English Education 1 1.7

Environmental Engineering 1 1.7

Theatre 1 1.7

Journalism and Communications
Advertising 1 1.7
Journalism 1 1.7
Magazine Journalism 1 1.7
Photojournalism 2 3.4









Table 3-2. Continued
Major Frequency Valid Percent1

Law 1 1.7

Liberal Arts and Sciences
Anthropology 1 1.7
Biology 1 1.7
Chemistry 1 1.7
Classical Civilizations 1 1.7
English 4 6.9
French 1 1.7
History 1 1.7
Linguistics 3 5.2
Political Sciences 3 5.2
Psychology 2 3.4
Public Relations 2 3.4
Russian 1 1.7
Spanish 2 3.4
Women's Studies 1 1.7
Zoology 1 1.7
Some reported more than one major N=131 representing number of responses.

When asked to identify their first language, the overwhelming majority 83.6% (N =

46) reported English, followed by Spanish 5.5% (N = 3), Chinese 3.6% (N = 2), and

lastly Polish with 1.8% (N = 1). Participants were also asked if they spoke a second

language, only 35.2% (N = 19) reported speaking a second language, with 64.8% (N =

35) of respondents not speaking a second language. Of those that reported speaking a

second language English (9.1%, N = 5) and Spanish (9.1%, N = 5) were equally

represented among those that reported a single language. However, 3.6% (N = 2) of

participants reported Spanish in addition to another language, thus making Spanish the

most popular second language. Furthermore, participants were asked if they spoke the

native language of the country they were going to study in, the responses were somewhat

equal, the majority 53.7% (N = 29) reported no, and 46.3% (N = 25) reported yes.









Participants were asked to provide details regarding their previous international

travel experience. Of those that responded, 22.2% (N = 12) had never traveled

internationally, 37% (N = 20) traveled internationally one to two times, 20.4% (N = 11)

three to four times, and 20.4% (N = 11) five or more times. When asked to report the

countries they had previously visited, destinations ranged from Africa to Australia. A

detailed profile of destinations visited is provided in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Destinations Visited prior to Studying Abroad
Destination Frequency Valid Percent1

Africa
Egypt 1 0.8
Ghana 1 0.8
Morocco 1 0.8

Americas
Canada 12 9.2
Colombia 2 1.5
Costa Rica 3 2.3
Ecuador 1 0.8
Honduras 2 1.5
Mexico 7 5.3
Peru 1 0.8

Asia
Cambodia 1 0.8
China 2 1.5
India 1 0.8
Japan 3 2.3
Russia 1 0.8
Singapore 1 0.8
South Korea 2 1.5
Thailand 1 08

Middle East
Israel 2 1.5
Jordan 1 0.8









Table 3-3. Continued
Destination Frequency Valid Percent1

Caribbean
Antigua 1 0.8
Bahamas 5 3.8
Cuba 1 0.8
Curacao 1 0.8
Jamaica 4 3.1
St. Maarten 1 0.8

Europe
Austria 1 0.8
Denmark 1 0.8
England 12 9.2
France 18 13.7
Germany 7 5.3
Greece 2 1.5
Ireland 4 3.1
Italy 10 7.6
Netherlands 2 1.5
Poland 1 0.8
Scotland 1 0.8
Spain 8 6.1
Sweden 1 0.8
Switzerland 3 2.3
Some reported more than one country N=131 representing number of responses.

Furthermore, participants were asked where they intended to travel while studying

abroad with responses ranging from Malaysia to Spain. The most frequent response was

Italy with 13.3% (N = 15), followed by France 12.4% (N = 14); England was the third

most reported country with 9.7% (N = 11). A more detailed description of destinations

can be found in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4. Countries to be Visited during Study Abroad
Destination Frequency Valid Percent1

Africa
Kenya 1 0.9
South Africa 1 0.9









Table 3-4. Continued
Destination Frequency Valid Percent1

Americas
Argentina 1 0.9
Belize 3 2.7
Bolivia 1 0.9
Brazil 1 0.9
Chile 1 0.9
Costa Rica 2 1.8
Mexico 2 1.8
Nicaragua 1 0.9

Asia
Cambodia 1 0.9
China 3 2.7
Hong Kong 1 0.9
India 1 0.9
Japan 1 0.9
Malaysia 1 0.9
Myanmar 1 0.9
Russia 1 0.9
Singapore 1 0.9
Thailand 1 0.9
Vietnam 1 0.9

South Pacific
Australia 3 2.7
Fiji 2 1.8
New Zealand 2 1.8

Caribbean
Bahamas 1 0.9

Europe
Belgium 1 0.9
Czech Republic 1 0.9
England 11 9.7
France 14 12.4
Germany 4 3.5
Greece 2 1.8
Ireland 4 3.5
Italy 15 13.3
Netherlands 5 4.4









Table 3-4. Continued
Destination Frequency Valid Percent1

Portugal 2 1.8
Spain 9 8.0
Switzerland 6 5.3
Venezuela 1 0.9
Wales 1 0.9
Some reported more than one country N= 113 representing number of responses.

Finally, participants were asked the duration of their study abroad program. Of

those that responded (N = 52), the majority of the students 78.8% (N = 41) were planning

to study abroad for three to five months, followed by one to three months 11.5% (N = 6),

and the most infrequent response was one month or less 9.6% (N = 5).

After Travel

Of the 24 students from the post-travel group who reported their gender (N = 14)

the majority 85.7% (N =12) were female, and 14.3% (N = 2) were male. Participants

were also asked to provide details regarding their previous international travel

experience. Of those that responded (N = 14), 21.4% (N = 3) had never traveled

internationally, 42.9% had (N = 6) traveled internationally 1 to 2 times, and 35.7% (N=

5) 5 or more times; there were no responses for 3 to 4 times. Finally, participants were

asked the duration of their study abroad program. Of those that responded (N = 13), all

of the students 100% (N = 13) studied abroad for three to five months.

Instrument

Michigan State University Study Abroad Inventory

The questionnaires used in this study consisted of three parts. The first part was an

inventory developed by the study abroad office at the Michigan State University (Farrell

& Suvedi, 2003). The purpose of Michigan State's instrument was to understand how the









Nepal study abroad experience that they had sponsored impacted its students and if the

results supported the learning objectives of the program. In the present study, the

researcher adapted this part of the instrument to future tense to assess the students'

perceived benefits prior to their study abroad experience and it was used as part of the

first instrument for the pre-travel group. A past tense version of the inventory was used

for the second instrument for the post-travel group.

The original Michigan State University instrument consisted of four open-ended

questions and 26 close-ended questions. For the purpose of this study, only the 26 close-

ended questions were utilized. The 26 ordinal-scaled questions measured the effects of a

study abroad program on students in five areas: personal development, academics,

professional development, global perspective, and intellectual development. Each

question is measured on a five point Likert-type scale ranging from one (not at all) to five

(very much). Cronbach's alpha was not reported in the original study for the

questionnaire as a whole or for the individual domains.

The personal development sub-scale contains nine items yielding possible scores

between nine and 45. In the present study, student scores for the pre-travel group ranged

between 20 and 45, and for the post-travel group between 20 and 40. The academics sub-

scale consists of two items yielding possible scores between two and 10. In the present

study, student scores for the pre-travel group ranged between two and eight, and for the

post-travel group between four and eight. The professional development sub-scale

contains three items yielding possible scores between three and 15. In the present study,

student scores for the pre-travel group ranged between three and 15, and for the post-

travel group between five and 15. The global perspective sub-scale consists of nine









items with a total possible score ranging from nine to 45. In the present study, student

scores for the pre-travel group ranged between 16 and 45 and for the post-travel group

between 28 and 44. The intellectual development sub-scale consists of three items with a

total possible score ranging from three to 15. In the present study, student scores for the

pre-travel group ranged between five and 15 and for the post-travel group between three

and 15.

Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relationships Inventory

The second part of the instrument consisted of the Mines-Jensen Interpersonal

Relationships Inventory. This scale was a component of a larger instrument collectively

known as The Iowa Student Development Inventories and are based on the seven vectors

of student development (Chickering, 1969). The Iowa Student Development Inventories

were intended to quantify development on the first six dimensions of Chickering's theory

of student development. However, because only the fourth vector Developing Mature

Interpersonal Relationships was measured in this study, only the fourth instrument from

the battery was used.

The Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relationships Inventory measures social

development. The Inventory was created to measure Chickering's fourth vector (Hood &

Mines, 1997), Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships. The developmental phase

of interpersonal relationships is comprised of two areas: (1) improved tolerance and

respect for people of different values, backgrounds, and lifestyles, and (2) a change in the

quality of relationships with close family and friends, moving from dependence through

independence toward an interdependence that allows for a greater level of personal

freedom. The Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relationships Inventory is a 42-item

instrument and includes some reverse coded items. The inventory evaluates interpersonal









relationships in four areas: peers, adults, friends, and significant others. The Inventory is

multi-dimensional as it contains two scales that measure two constructs: (1) the Tolerance

sub-scale measuring openness and acceptance of diversity, and (2) the Quality of

Relationships sub-scale measuring the transition in relationships with friends from

either extreme dependence or independence, toward a state of interdependence. Each

scale is measured on a four point Likert-type scale where students reply to a series of

statements regarding interpersonal and social behavior and attitudes from 1 (strongly

agree) to 4 (strongly disagree).

The Tolerance sub-scale consists of 20 items with a total possible score from 20 to

80 with students typically scoring in the 45 to 65 range. In the original study, student

scores for the pre-test ranged between 36 and 69, and for the post-test between 47 and 69.

Cronbach's alpha for all the items on the Tolerance scale was originally a = .76. A four-

month test-retest stability coefficient was reported as a = .66; longer-term test-retest

reliability measures were a = .44. The present study yielded a higher Cronbach's alpha

with a = .81 for the pre-travel group, and a = .68 for the post-travel group.

The Quality ofRelationships sub-scale contains 22 items yielding possible scores

between 22 and 88 with most students scoring between 55 and 75. In the original study,

student scores for the pre-test ranged between 37 and 80 and for the post-test between 57

and 80. Cronbach's alpha for the Quality of Relationships sub-scale was originally a =

.87; the four-month test-retest stability coefficient was reported as a = .68; longer-term

test-retest reliability measures were a = .72. The results from the present study yielded

a Cronbach's alpha of a = .84 for the pre-travel group, and a = .62 for the post-travel

group.









The correlation between the two scales was originally .25, which suggested

construct independence. Studies thus conducted have indicated construct validity for the

dimensions assessed by the inventory (Braverman, 1987; Hallowell, 1991; Long, 1995;

Smith-Eggeman, 1993; Taub, 1993 and White & Hood, 1989). Unfortunately, for this

study the sample size was not large enough to use factor analysis to establish the

construct validity of the instrument.

Demographics and Open-Ended Questions

The third part of the questionnaire differed between the pre-travel group and post-

travel group. For the pre-travel group, the third part of the instrument consisted of

demographic questions, such as gender and age, as well as a series of seven open-ended

questions, such as "why are you studying abroad," "what are you looking forward to

regarding your study abroad experience," and "do you feel adequately prepared for your

study abroad program?" These questions were incorporated primarily to gauge the mood

of the student before traveling overseas. The third part of the questionnaire on the post-

travel group was comprised of seven open-ended questions. For example, "what

was/were your best experiencess)" "what was the most challenging aspect of studying

abroad," "what did you learn about yourself," "is there anything else that you would like

to share with me about your study abroad experience?" These were used in an effort to

gain a better understanding of the effect the study abroad trip had on the students upon

their return, and provide some more insight to supplement the quantitative data.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences,

Version 11.0). Descriptive statistics were run for all the variables to generate

frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations. These statistics were used to









determine the demographics of the sample for the group prior to traveling and for the

group after traveling abroad, check for coding errors, and create a profile of the typical

study abroad student at the University of Florida.

Mean scores were used to sum the scores and provide a summary score to ease

interpretation for all of the research questions, a visual analysis was performed on the

group before traveling and the group after traveling to confirm there were no extreme

responses (Hunter & Brown, 1991). For the first research question, part a, the mean

scores were used to describe the students' perceptions before their study abroad

experience. For the first research question, part b, the mean scores were used to describe

the students' perceptions after their study abroad experience. For the second research

question, part a, the mean scores were used to describe the students' overall level of

development before studying abroad. For the second research question, part b, the mean

scores were used to describe the students' overall level of development after studying

abroad. For the third research question, part a, the mean scores were used to describe

differences by gender in terms of level of development before their study abroad

experience. For the third research question, part b, the mean scores were used to describe

differences by gender in terms of level of development after their study abroad

experience. For the fourth research question, part a, the mean scores were used to

describe differences by previous overseas experience and level of development before

studying abroad. For the fourth research question, part b, the mean scores were used to

describe differences by previous overseas experience and level of development after

studying abroad. For the fifth research question, part a, the mean scores were used to

describe differences by duration of study abroad program and level of development






67


before studying abroad. For the fifth research question, part b, the mean scores were used

to describe differences by duration of study abroad program and level of development

after studying abroad. Content analyses were used to group open-ended comments

according to similarity in response, and were used to supplement the findings for the pre-

travel group and the post-travel group.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Perceptions of the Study Abroad Experience

la. What perceptions do the students report before their study abroad experience as
measured by the Michigan State University questionnaire?

lb. What perceptions do the students report after their study abroad experience as
measured by the Michigan State University questionnaire?

Pre-travel Group

In the pre-travel group almost half (48%) of the individual questions regarding

perceived benefits show high mean scores of 4.0 and above (Table 4-1). Students

reported the highest levels of agreement with the statement that, studying abroad "will

contribute to my overall understanding of the country I will study in" (M = 4.65, SD =

.67) (Appendix G). The second most agreed upon statement was, studying abroad "will

contribute to my understanding of other cultures" (M = 4.60, SD = .74). Finally,

respondents agreed that studying abroad "will increase my ability to cope with unfamiliar

situations" (M = 4.44, SD = .90). The statement that students agreed with least was,

studying abroad "will distract me from my academic performance." (M = 1.87, SD =

1.76). The second least agreed upon statement was, studying abroad "will make me

reconsider my career plans" (M = 2.85, SD = 2.09). Finally, respondents tended to report

moderate agreement with the statement that, studying abroad "will lead to an

improvement of my academic performance" (M = 3.22, SD = 1.18).









Table 4-1. Student Perceptions of Study Abroad before and after the Travel Experience


Pre-Study Abroad


Study abroad...

Global Perspective2
Contributed to my overall
understanding of the country I
studied in.

Increased my desire to work
and/or study abroad in the
future.

Contributed to my
understanding of other
cultures.

Increased my curiosity about
other cultures.

Enhanced concern about
problems with developing
countries.

Enhanced my understanding
of international issues.

Increased my appreciation of
human difference.

Contributed and/or created a
new understanding of critical
social issues.

Increased my level of comfort
around people different from
me.

Personal Development
Enhanced my self-reliance.

Increased my ability to cope
with unfamiliar situations.


N Mean


55 4.65



55 4.05 1


55 4.60


54 4.00 1


55 3.60 1



55 4.07


55 4.22


55 3.85 1



55 4.09 1





55 4.24

55 4.44


SD


Post-Study Abroad
N Mean SD


.67 25 4.76



.04 25 4.12



.74 24 4.50



.94 25 4.24


25 3.52 1.09


25 3.88 1.05


25 3.84 1.03


25 3.84



25 4.12


.94 25 4.48

.90 25 4.48









Table 4-1. Continued


Study abroad...


Increased my open-
mindedness.

Enhanced my independence.

Increased my understanding
of my own culture.

Enhanced my desire to
interact with a stranger.

Increased my feeling of
personal effectiveness.

Encouraged me to seek out a
more diverse group of friends.

Helped develop my leadership
skills.

Intellectual Development
Increased my skills to
communicate in the language
of the host culture.

Enhanced my critical thinking
skills.

Improved my problem-solving
skills.

Professional Development
Will favorably impress
potential employers.

Made me reconsider my
career plans.

Helped me find professional
direction.


Pre-Study Abroad
N Mean1 SD


55 4.35


4.40

3.80


55 3.60 .97


55 3.69 1.00


55 3.49 1.09


55 3.44 1.05



55 4.00 1.37



55 3.60 1.07


54 3.33 1.94



54 3.98 2.00


55 2.85 2.09


54 3.29 2.08


Post-Study Abroad
N Mean SD


.78 25 4.52


4.56

3.96


25 3.64 1.11


25 4.08


25 3.84 1.14


25 3.36 1.08



25 4.00 1.32



25 3.60 1.16


24 3.63 1.14


25 4.36


25 3.36 1.32


25 2.96 1.43









Table 4-1. Continued
Pre-Study Abroad Post-Study Abroad
Study abroad... N Mean1 SD N Mean SD

Academics
Led to an improvement of my 55 3.22 1.18 25 3.00 1.08
academic performance.

Distracted me from my 54 1.87 1.76 25 2.40 1.19
academic performance.

Mean was based on a 1-5 scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = very little, 3 = some, 4 = quite a
lot, and 5 = very much.
2The italicized phrases describe the dimension being measured.

Post-travel Group

In the post-travel group almost half (48%) of the individual questions regarding

impacts illustrate high mean scores of 4.0 and above (Table 4-1). The statement that

students agreed with the most strongly was that studying abroad "contributed to my

overall understanding of the country I studied in" (M = 4.76, SD = .44) (Appendix H).

The second most agreed upon statement, was, studying abroad "enhanced my

independence" (M = 4.56, SD = .77). Finally, respondents agreed that studying abroad

"increased my open-mindedness" (M = 4.52, SD = .71). The statement that they agreed

with the least was that studying abroad "distracted me from my academic performance."

(M = 2.40, SD = 1.19). The second least agreed upon statement was studying abroad

"helped me find professional direction" (M = 2.96, SD = 1.43). Students moderately

agreed with the statement that, studying abroad "led to an improvement of my academic

performance" (M = 3.00, SD = 1.08).









Student Development and Study Abroad

2a. What level of development according to Chickering and Reisser's (1993) fourth
vector of development have the students achieved before their study abroad experience?

i. What level of development according to the Tolerance scale have the
students achieved before their study abroad experience?

ii. What level of development according to the Quality of Relationships scale
have the students achieved before their study abroad experience?

2b. What level of development according to Chickering and Reisser's (1993) fourth
vector of development have the students achieved after their study abroad experience?

i. What level of development according to the Tolerance scale have the
students achieved after their study abroad experience?

ii. What level of development according to the Quality of Relationships scale
have the students achieved after their study abroad experience?

Pre-travel Group: Tolerance Sub-scale

The responses to the pre-travel group statements on the Tolerance sub-scale, which

measures improved tolerance and respect for people with different values, backgrounds,

and lifestyles, ranged between (agreement) 2.00 and 3.33 (toward disagreement) on a

four point Likert-type scale, where one represents strongly agree and four represents

strongly disagree (Table 4-2). The statement (item reverse coded) which participants

agreed with the most was, "I do not get irritated when parents cannot accept their

children's friends or values" (M = 2.00, SD = .84) (Appendix I). The second most agreed

upon statement was, "my roommate has some habits that annoy and bother me very

much" (M = 2.04, SD = .88). Finally, respondents agreed, "students that get 'high' and

are caught should be treated like the lawbreakers they are" (M = 2.46, SD = 1.00).

The statement that was agreed upon least was, "I would discontinue my friendship

with a persons) I am close to if I found out my friends) was homosexual or bisexual"

(M = 3.33, SD = 1.11). Following this, the participants disagreed equally with the









statements: Students who live together before they are married definitely should be made

to realize what they are doing is wrong" (M = 3.22, SD = .99); the other statement (item

reverse coded) was, "it would not matter to me if someone I was going to marry had

sexual relations with another person before I met them" (M = 3.22, SD = 1.05); and the

final item (item reverse coded) was, "I think the person I am dating or 'going with'

should have friends outside of 'our crowd'" (M = 3.22, SD = .98).

Table 4-2. Responses for the Tolerance Sub-scale before and after the Travel Experience
Statement N Mean1 SD N Mean SD


I accept my friends as they
2
are.

In my classes, I have met two
kinds of people: those who are
for the truth and those who are
against the truth.

As I have talked with faculty
and adults about their
different philosophies, there is
probably only one which is
correct.

It would not matter to me if
someone I was going to marry
had sexual relations with
another person before I met
them. 2

When I talk to my friends
about my religious beliefs, I
am very careful not to
compromise with those who
believe differently than I do.


55 3.18


55 2.91





55 3.13






55 3.22


55 2.51


24 3.58


.82 24 3.17





1.00 24 3.46






1.05 24 3.13






8.79 24 2.46


i









Table 4-2. Continued
Statement N Mean1 SD N Mean SD


My roommate has some habits
that bother and annoy me very
much.

Most adults need to change
their values and attitudes.

Students who live together
before they are married
definitely should be made to
realize what they are doing is
wrong.

I would discontinue my
friendship with a persons) I
am close to if I found out my
friends) was homosexual or
bisexual.

One of the problems with my
fellow students is they were
not dealt with firmly when
they were younger.

I do not disapprove of faculty
or other adults getting drunk
or high at parties. 2

I would not discontinue a love
relationship if my partner did
something I disapproved of. 2

Most instructors teach as if
there is just one right way to
obtain a solution to a problem.

I personally find it sickening
to be around my friends when
they do not act in a mature
manner.


53 2.04



55 2.60


55 3.22





55 3.33






55 2.64




55 2.67


54 2.57



55 2.71



55 2.87


.88 24 2.25



5.83 23 2.74


.99 24 3.38





1.11 24 3.67






.80 24 2.92




8.62 24 2.29



.77 24 2.63


.85 24 3.00



.86 24 3.08










Table 4-2. Continued
Statement


Freedom of speech can be
carried too far in terms of the
ideal because some students
and their organizations should
have their freedom of speech
restricted.

I'm glad to see most of my
friends are not dressing like
"bums" anymore.

I do not get irritated when
parents cannot accept their
children's friends or values. 2

I only date people who are of
the same religious background
as me.

I think the person I am dating
or "going with" should have
friends outside of "our
crowd." 2

I think students that get
"high" and are caught should
be treated like the lawbreakers
they are.


Mean1

3.13


54 2.74



54 2.00



53 2.87



54 3.22





54 2.46


Mean

3.25


23 2.57


.84 24 1.79


24 2.71


.98 24 3.50





1.00 24 2.83


Mean was based on a 1-4 scale where 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4
= strongly disagree.
2Item was reverse coded

Post-travel Group: Tolerance Sub-scale

The post-travel group mean scores for statements on the Tolerance sub-scale

ranged between (agreement) 1.79 and 3.67 (toward disagreement) on a four point Likert-

type scale, where one represents strongly agree and four represents strongly disagree

(Table 4-2). The statement (item reverse coded) that participants agreed with the most


*


SD

.61







.84



.72



1.12



.59





.96









was, "I do not get irritated when parents cannot accept their children's friends or values"

(M = 1.79, SD = .72) (Appendix J). The second most agreed upon statement was, "my

roommate has some habits that bother and annoy me very much" (M = 2.25, SD = .61).

Finally, respondents agreed (item reverse coded) "I do not disapprove of faculty or other

adults getting drunk or high at parties" (M = 2.29, SD = .75). The statement that was

agreed upon least was, "I would discontinue my friendship with a persons) I am close to

if I found out my friends) was homosexual or bisexual" (M = 3.67, SD = .70). The

second most disagreed upon statement (item reverse coded) was, "I accept my friends as

they are" (M = 3.58, SD = .58). Finally, respondents disagreed (item reverse coded) that

"I think the person I am dating or 'going with' should have friends outside of 'our

crowd'" (M = 3.50, SD = .59).

Pre-travel Group: Quality of Relationships Sub-scale

The pre-travel group mean scores for the statements on the Quality of Relationships

sub-scale which measures a change in the quality of relationships with close family and

friends, moving from dependence through independence toward an interdependence that

allows for a greater level of personal freedom ranged between (agreement) 2.38 and 3.46

(toward disagreement) on a four point Likert-type scale, where one represents strongly

agree and four represents strongly disagree (Table 4-3). The statement that participants

agreed with the most was, "I get nervous when an instructor criticizes my work" (M =

2.38, SD = .71) (Appendix K). The second most agreed upon statement was, "I would

feel uncomfortable criticizing, to their face, someone I had dated a long time" (M = 2.62,

SD = .95). The third most agreed upon statement (item reverse coded) was, "my

relationships with members of the opposite sex have allowed me to explore some

behaviors that I had not felt comfortable with before" (M = 2.64, SD = .81). The









statement (item reverse coded) that participants disagreed with the least was, "my

roommate(s) and I feel free to come and go as we please" (M = 3.46, SD = 1.04). The

second most disagreed upon statement (item reverse coded) was, "I can just be with my

friends without having to be doing anything in particular" (M = 3.43, SD = .94). Finally,

respondents disagreed that "I do not view myself as an independent, outgoing person with

my friends" (M = 3.39, SD = .88).

Table 4-3. Responses to the Quality of Relationships Sub-scale before and after the
Travel Experience
Statement N Mean1 SD N Mean SD

I would feel uncomfortable 0.0 2.62 .95 24 2.88 .95
criticizing, to their face,
someone I had dated a long
time.

The instructors here do not 55 3.09 .82 24 3.33 .96
treat the students like they are
adults.

I relate to most students as an 55 2.85 .91 24 3.21 .66
equal. 2

I can enjoy myself without 55 3.31 .90 24 3.54 .72
needing to have someone with
2
me.

I have to go out on a day 55 2.73 1.11 24 2.65 1.03
every weekend.

I get nervous when an 55 2.38 .71 24 2.54 1.00
instructor criticizes my work.

Sometimes I feel I have to 54 3.09 .96 24 3.29 .75
make unnecessary apologies
for my appearance or conduct
to the persons) I live with.










Table 4-3. Continued
Statement N Mean1 SD N Mean SD


I can tell my friends just about
anything that is on my mind
and know they will accept me.
2
My social life is satisfying to
2
me.

I relate with my parents on an
adult-to-adult basis. 2

My relationship with my
roommate(s) is stagnating my
own growth and potential.

I feel comfortable about
telling a friend of the same
sex "I love you," without
worrying they might get the
wrong idea.2

My relationships with
members of the opposite sex
have allowed me to explore
some behaviors that I had not
felt comfortable with before. 2

My parents do not try to run
my life. 2

My friends view me as an
independent, outgoing person
in my relationship with them.
2


I always hold back when I am
at a party which consists of a
diverse group of people.

I encourage friends to drop in
informally. 2


55 3.05



55 3.07


55 2.85


54 3.06



54 3.13






53 2.64






55 2.98


54 3.19





54 2.94



54 3.04


.99



.77


.89


.98



1.16






.81






.97


.97





.86



.99


24 3.25



24 3.38


24 3.13


24 3.21



24 3.21






23 2.83






24 3.25


24 3.54





24 3.25


24 3.38 8.24


.90



.71


.90


.88



1.22






.89






.94


.59





.74









Table 4-3. Continued
Statement N Mean1 SD N Mean SD

My roommate(s) and I feel 54 3.46 1.04 24 3.79 .42
free to come and go as we
please. 2

I have gotten to know some 54 2.96 .95 24 2.83 .87
instructors as people-not just
as faculty members. 2

I worry about not dating 52 2.87 .95 24 2.79 1.02
enough.

I can just be with my friends 54 3.43 .94 24 3.67 .48
without having to be doing
anything in particular. 2

I do not view myself as an 54 3.39 .88 24 3.67 .57
independent, outgoing person
with my friends.

Mean was based on a 1-4 scale where 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4
= strongly disagree.
2Item was reverse coded

Post-travel Group: Quality of Relationships Sub-scale

The post-travel group mean scores for the statements on the Quality of

Relationships sub-scale ranged between (agreement) 2.54 and 3.79 (toward

disagreement) on a four point Likert-type scale, where one represents strongly agree and

four represents strongly disagree (Table 4-3). The statement that participants agreed with

the most was, "I get nervous when an instructor criticizes my work" (M = 2.54, SD =

1.00) (Appendix L). The second most agreed upon statement was, "I have to go out on a

day every weekend" (M = 2.65, SD = 1.03). Finally, respondents also agreed with the

statement (item reverse coded) "I worry about not dating enough" (M = 2.79, SD = 1.02).

The statement (item reverse coded) that was agreed upon least was, "my roommate(s) and









I feel free to come and go as we please" (M = 3.79, SD = .42). The next most disagreed

upon statements were equal (the first item was reverse coded), "I can just be with my

friends without having to be doing anything in particular" (M = 3.67, SD = .48); the next

statement was, "I do not view myself as an independent, outgoing person with my

friends" (M = 3.67, SD = .57).

Gender and Student Development

3a. Do males and females differ in their development according to Chickering and
Reisser's fourth vector before their study abroad experience?

i. Do males and females differ in their development according to the
Tolerance scale before their study abroad experience?

ii. Do males and females differ in their development according to the Quality
of Relationships scale before their study abroad experience?

3b. Do males and females differ in their development according to Chickering and
Reisser's fourth vector after their study abroad experience?

i. Do males and females differ in their development according to the
Tolerance scale after their study abroad experience?

ii. Do males and females differ in their development according to the Quality
of Relationships scale after their study abroad experience?

Tolerance Sub-scale

For the pre-travel group, the mean for the females was 56.33 (SD = 7.92) and for

the males the mean was 55.88 (SD = 12.64). For the post-travel group the mean for the

males was 65.50 (SD = 0.71) and for the females was 58.18 (SD = 5.60).

Quality of Relationships Sub-scale

When considering the Quality of Relationships sub-scale for the pre-travel group,

the mean for the females was 67.28 (SD = 8.89) and the mean for the males was 63.88

(SD = 13.42). The mean for the males was 75.00 (SD = 1.41) and the mean for the

females was 72.00 (SD = 6.25).









Previous Overseas Experience and Student Development

4a. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those
with no previous overseas experience, regarding Chickering and Reisser's fourth vector
prior to their study abroad experience?

i. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously
and those with no previous overseas experience, and their level of
development as measured by the Tolerance scale prior to their study abroad
experience?

ii. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously
and those with no previous overseas experience, and their level of
development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale prior to
their study abroad experience?

4b. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those
with no previous overseas experience, regarding Chickering and Reisser's fourth vector
after their study abroad experience?

i. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously
and those with no previous overseas experience, and their level of
development as measured by the Tolerance scale after their study abroad
experience?

ii. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously
and those with no previous overseas experience, and their level of
development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale after their
study abroad experience?

Tolerance Sub-scale

For the pre-travel group, the mean for the students with no previous overseas

experience was 56.75 (SD = 8.36) and the mean for those with previous overseas

experience was 56.10 (SD = 8.76). For the post-travel group, the mean for the students

with no previous overseas experience was 64.00 (SD = 3.46) and the mean for those with

previous overseas experience was 55.67 (SD = 3.88).

Quality of Relationships Sub-scale

For the pre-travel group, the mean for the students with no previous overseas

experience was 67.50 (SD = 11.30) and the mean for those with previous overseas









experience was 66.44 (SD = 9.27). For the post-travel group, the mean for the students

with no previous overseas experience was 76.00 (SD = 3.46) and the mean for those with

previous overseas experience was 71.66 (SD = 5.43).

Duration of Program and Student Development

5a. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program, regarding Chickering
and Reisser's fourth vector prior to their study abroad experience?

i. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program regarding
level of development as measured by the Tolerance scale prior to their study
abroad experience?

ii. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program regarding
level of development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale
prior to their study abroad experience?

5b. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program, regarding Chickering
and Reisser's fourth vector after their study abroad experience?

i. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program, and the
level of development measured by the Tolerance scale after their study
abroad experience?

ii. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program regarding
level of development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale
after their study abroad experience?

Tolerance Sub-scale

For the pre-travel group the mean for those whose program was one month or less

was 56.20 (SD = 4.55), for those whose program was one to three months the mean was

59.00 (SD = 4.69);, and the mean for those whose program was three to five months in

length was 56.07 (SD = 9.35). Of all the respondents that reported the duration of their

program in the post-travel group all of them reported their program as lasting three to five

months; the mean score was 59.83 (SD = 5.73).









Quality of Relationships Sub-scale

With regards to the Quality of Relationships sub-scale for the pre-travel group, the

mean for those whose program was one month or less was 67.20 (SD = 6.69), for those

whose program was one to three months the mean was 69.20 (SD = 1.79), and for those

whose programs were three to five months in length, the mean was 66.38 (SD = 10.78).

Of all the respondents that reported the duration of their program in the post-travel group

all of them reported their program as lasting three to five months; the mean score was

73.17 (SD = 5.48).

Open-ended Questions

Study abroad participants were asked a variety of open-ended questions both before

their travel experience and after their travel experience. This information was collected

to provide a greater understanding of their expectations and experiences of studying

abroad.

Pre-travel Group

When participants were asked, "why are you studying abroad?" the majority of

students responded with language acquisition skills, self-exploration and for the cultural

experience in general. A 22 year-old female who had never traveled internationally

before wrote "to increase my historical consciousness, to see what it is like to be in a

totally foreign place, not knowing a soul, to learn about myself and others through this

once in a lifetime opportunity." Another female student who was 21, but had traveled

overseas previously at least five times stated her reason for studying abroad was "to gain

a second language, challenge myself, meet new people, become more worldly, become

inspired, something for my resume." Another student who did not provide any

demographic information said, "to learn Spanish and broaden my horizons." Likewise a









20 year-old female student whose program was three to five months and had traveled

overseas three to four times wrote, "to master the language and learn more about the

culture."

Students were also asked to provide insights as to what they were looking forward

to regarding their study abroad experience. The majority of students responded with

responses pertaining to experiencing a different culture, meeting new people, and self-

exploration. A 20 year-old female who had never traveled overseas remarked "meeting

new people, seeing new things, learning about the world and more about myself." A 23

year-old female who had previously traveled overseas one to two times explained, "being

totally independent of family, meeting new/different people, experiencing new

adventures." A 22 year-old female who had never traveled overseas previously and

whose program was three to five months wrote "I am looking forward to meeting open-

minded, liberal people who are just interested in living, seeing, and experiencing a

different culture, and hope to learn to be a bit more ballsy and not as self-conscious."

Another 20 year-old female who had previously traveled overseas three to four times and

whose program was three to five months wrote "meeting new people and discovering a

culture very different from anything I've experienced." A 22 year-old female who had

previously traveled overseas one to two times and whose program was three to five

months wrote "just going to all these different places. I have dreamed about this since I

was a little kid...an African safari, scuba diving with great whites, paragliding, etc."

When participants were asked "do you feel adequately prepared for your study

abroad program?" the majority 52% (N = 26) said yes. A 19 year-old male who had

previously never traveled overseas and whose program was three to five months wrote









"yes, it doesn't take much, I feel you just need an open mind and a willingness to learn

something new and have fun." A female student who was 20 years old and had

previously traveled overseas one to two times explained:

Yes, I've traveled before and know how to pack light, but to include the things I'll
need most. I've had friends who have gone through the same program and have
given me advice about what to pack, where to travel, how to travel, and some
interesting sites to visit.

A 26 year-old male who had previously traveled overseas three to four times and whose

program lasted three to five months explained "yes, I feel comfortable in new places and

value the opportunity to learn about those places first hand."

In contrast, almost one third (N = 15) felt they were not prepared. Another 20 year-

old female student who had previously traveled overseas one to two times stated "not

really but I will try and brush up on my Spanish and learn how to be away from my

boyfriend." Likewise, a 19 year-old female who had no previous overseas experience

and whose program lasted three to five months exclaimed, "no, I feel as though I could

have been much more informed about the program that I was entering before I chose it."

Finally, 18% (N = 9) had mixed emotions. A 20 year-old female who had never traveled

overseas before mentioned:

No and Yes, I am a very open-minded person, but on the other hand I don't know
how I will be treated and accepted there. Plus I think that it is going to be hard
trying to learn the language. Because for the first time in my life I will be a
foreigner.

A 20 year-old female who had previously traveled overseas three to four times and whose

program was three to five months wrote "I am insecure about my speaking abilities, but I

am mentally prepared for the trip." Similarly, a 22 year-old female who had no previous

overseas experience and whose program lasted three to five months wrote "kind of. I feel

like I know what to pack, where to go, but I don't really know what I'm in for."









When asked, "what are you not looking forward to/and or feel nervous about?" the

majority of students were nervous about being far from home, terrorism, and language

barriers. A female participant who was 20 years old and had never traveled

internationally before commented "I'm just feeling nervous about being so far from home

away from my family and the fact that terrorists are bombing countries." Likewise, a 26

year-old female student who had previously traveled internationally three to four times

explained "I am a little worried about the acts of terrorism that have been committed in

Madrid and London. I just hope that nothing happens while I am studying abroad."

Another female student who was 20 and had traveled abroad three to four times

mentioned "my first week when I know I will have a pseudo nervous breakdown while I

adjust to things, also the fact that I can't even read the language is somewhat

frightening." A 22 year-old female who had never traveled overseas and whose program

lasted three to five months wrote "I'm nervous to speak Spanish in front of natives and

about learning my way around the city, I'm bad with directions, but I want to be able to

be self-sufficient while I am there." A 41 year-old female who had never traveled

overseas and whose program was three to five months stated "It's a lot of work, not

enough down time, having to leave home for an extended period, financial concerns."

Post-travel Group

When asked "what was/were your best experiencess)" the overwhelming response

related to cultural immersion in general. Another student who did not provide any

demographic information observed:

Being able to live in a kibbutz and meeting people around my age in the program I
did. Having the liberty to do what I wanted when I wanted without having to
answer to anyone or worry about my parents. Waking up everyday in my
superficial "bubble" life and knowing there was an amazing beach a walking
distance away, dogs running around freely, and being able to pick fruit off of trees









when I was hungry. Also being in Israel I got to travel around the area and see
amazing places like Sinai, Jordan and Greece.

A female student who had traveled internationally one to two times before her study

abroad trip, and whose program lasted three to five months commented "I had the

incredible opportunity of meeting my distant relatives in the North of Spain. I visited

them on several occasions and we have formed a life long bond. It is an amazing

experience learning about your history and background." Another female student who

had traveled overseas one to two times and whose program was three to five months

stated "simply walking around, soaking in the people, sights, sounds, and cultural

differences." While another student who did not provided demographic information

wrote "living in a completely different culture and adapting to a new way of life." A male

student who had previously traveled overseas five or more times and whose program was

three to five months cited "hiking through Fiord land with a group of people I had just

met."

Students were also asked "what was/were your worst experiencess)" with the

majority relating to cultural differences and being accepted. A female student who had

previously traveled overseas one to two times and whose program lasted three to five

months cited:

My worst experience has been dealing with drastic changes in my life while being
so far away from home. Having to let go of a very important relationship and not
having the support of my family and friends from home.

Another student felt, "the program was too structured, I felt that I was compromising my

personal interests for the program. I felt the program did not expect me to 'find my own

way' or act independently in the foreign culture." Another student voiced more concerns

about the threat of terrorism as being a downside of the experience. He or she wrote:









The knowledge that there were active terrorists that could strike anywhere. It did
not keep me from living my life there, but the thought of something happening was
always on the back of my mind anywhere I went. Also on a lesser note most things
in Israel are closed Saturday.

A female student who had not previously traveled internationally and whose

program lasted three to five months pointed out "the differences and inefficiencies of the

culture" while another student complained "being treated like a stupid American when

we knew what we were doing."

When participants were asked, "what was the most challenging aspect of studying

abroad?" communication and adjustment issues were most frequently cited. A female

student who had traveled internationally one to two times before her study abroad trip,

and whose program lasted three to five months commented "learning the language (which

I didn't know at all before) well enough to be confident in getting around and asking

questions." Another student explained "having to deal with communicating in a different

language and getting to know people and understand them through the language barrier.

Also not having a car and being able to drive was a slight annoyance." A female student

who had previously traveled overseas one to two times and whose program lasted three to

five months remarked:

The most challenging aspect is getting to know people from your host country. It is
incredible how easy it is to find people of your native tongue no matter where you
are. If you are interested in learning a different language it can be very difficult
when you are surrounded by people from your own country the majority of the
time.

In contrast, another student would have liked to be surrounded by people from home as

he/she was most challenged by "missing home, family, friends, and my old

lifestyle...missing things that my friends do that I used to be there for." Likewise, a

female student who had traveled overseas previously one to two times, and whose









program lasted three to five months wrote that "interacting with others from different

countries (difficulties communicating)" was the most challenging aspect of the program.

Students were asked to explain, "what ways do you feel the program impacted your

life?" The responses overwhelmingly supported the personal changes experienced as a

result of studying abroad. A male student who had previously traveled internationally

five or more times and whose program lasted three to five months remarked "this

experience has made me understand myself better. I am more patient, open-minded. I

also feel like I can deal with anything that I come in contact with that will challenge me

mentally or emotionally." A female student who had previously traveled internationally

five or more times and whose program lasted three to five months observed it "made me

strong and independent; I felt lonely very often but every time I overcame it I felt like I

became stronger." A male student who had previously traveled overseas three to four

times and whose program lasted three to five months wrote it "has made me much more

open to anything, willing to step outside of my boundaries." Similarly, a female student

who had previously traveled overseas one to two times and whose program lasted three to

five months felt that she had become more introspective, she wrote:

I am much more confident in my own abilities and strengths now than I ever have
been. I have also realized that I can enjoy simply being by myself, whereas prior to
studying abroad I tended to fill my minutes with plans and people. Now I love to sit
and observe.

These sentiments were also expressed by another student who wrote that "in every way

[the program was] a life changing experience. [It] freed my mind of nuances and made

me realize to live life to the fullest."

Another student felt that the experience has inspired them to see more of the world.

He or she wrote "the program has made me want to study abroad again or just travel in









general because it was so exciting going into a foreign culture and learning and

participating in it." Another student also felt that studying abroad had been a significant

experience for them. She/he wrote:

My eyes were opened to so many more ways of living and understanding my self.
For example I realized that I do not have to study immediately, that it is ok to
figure out what I want without having to rush into a university right after high
school. And also that it is ok. I learned a lot of things about myself, society, and
life.

Another female student who had previously traveled overseas five or more times and

whose program lasted three to five months commented "I met many good friends and was

able to grow personally through my experiences and conversations with these new

people."

When asked, "what did you learn about yourself?" the majority of responses

pertained to self-confidence and a sense of newfound independence. One student felt that

"I can survive and manage in a foreign country and on my own. That simple pleasures]

in life are some of the most wonderful. That it is ok not to know where the next step in

life is." A female student who had previously traveled internationally one to two times

and whose program lasted three to five months replied that she had learned a number of

things about herself. She felt she had learned "that I AM a confident person, that I love

to learn, love to travel, and can get along well with people from many different

backgrounds." A female student who had previously traveled overseas one to two times

and whose program lasted three to five months wrote:

I learned that I love visiting foreign countries and diving into the experience of new
cultures. In some ways going away has made me more grounded. I have never
been so appreciative of all the amazing people in my life. I have learned that I am
so loved and this has been the most valuable lesson.




Full Text

PAGE 1

STUDY ABROAD: AN EXPLORATION OF STUDENT DEVELOPMENT AND STUDENT PERCEPTIONS By HEATHER ANNE ROBALIK A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Heather Anne Robalik

PAGE 3

I would like to dedicate this project in loving memory of my grandmother, Anna Mary Leeper, who has inspired me to continually stri ve to be the best person I can be and not to waste a single day.

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................5 Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................................7 Theoretical Rationale....................................................................................................8 Research Questions.....................................................................................................20 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................................................23 Evolution of Youth Travel..........................................................................................23 The Grand Tour...................................................................................................23 Tramping.............................................................................................................28 Long-Term Budget Travelers..............................................................................29 Backpacker..........................................................................................................31 Study Abroad.......................................................................................................34 Personal Development................................................................................................44 Gender.................................................................................................................46 Previous Overseas Experience............................................................................48 Duration of Program............................................................................................49 Summary.....................................................................................................................51 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................52 Data Collection...........................................................................................................52 Participants.................................................................................................................55 Before Travel.......................................................................................................55 After Travel.........................................................................................................61 Instrument...................................................................................................................61 Michigan State University Study Abroad Inventory...........................................61 Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relationships Inventory..........................................63

PAGE 5

v Demographics and Open-Ended Questions.........................................................65 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................65 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................68 Perceptions of the Study Abroad Experience.............................................................68 Pre-travel Group..................................................................................................68 Post-travel Group.................................................................................................71 Student Development and Study Abroad...................................................................72 Pre-travel Group: Tolerance Sub-scale...............................................................72 Post-travel Group: Tolerance Sub-scale..............................................................75 Pre-travel Group: Quality of Relationships Sub-scale........................................76 Post-travel Group: Quality of Relationships Sub-scale.......................................79 Gender and Student Development..............................................................................80 Tolerance Sub-scale.............................................................................................80 Quality of Relationships Sub-scale.....................................................................80 Previous Overseas Experience and Student Development.........................................81 Tolerance Sub-scale.............................................................................................81 Quality of Relationships Sub-scale.....................................................................81 Duration of Program and Student Development........................................................82 Tolerance Sub-scale.............................................................................................82 Quality of Relationships Sub-scale.....................................................................83 Open-ended Questions................................................................................................83 Pre-travel Group..................................................................................................83 Post-travel Group.................................................................................................86 Summary.....................................................................................................................92 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION........................................................................93 Perceptions..................................................................................................................93 Student Development..................................................................................................96 Gender......................................................................................................................... 98 Previous Overseas Experience....................................................................................99 Duration of Program.................................................................................................100 Summary and Implications.......................................................................................100 Recommendations for Further Research..................................................................101 Limitations................................................................................................................102 Delimitations.............................................................................................................103 Conclusion................................................................................................................104 APPENDIX A PRE-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE...............................................................................105 B POST-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................117 C FIRST EMAIL CONTACT FOR STUDY ABROAD SURVEY............................128

PAGE 6

vi D SECOND EMAIL CONTACT FO R STUDY ABROAD SURVEY.......................129 E THIRD EMAIL CONTACT FOR STUDY ABROAD SURVEY...........................130 F FOURTH EMAIL CONTACT FO R STUDY ABROAD SURVEY.......................131 G STUDENTSÂ’ PERCEPTIONS PR IOR TO STUDYING ABROAD.......................132 H STUDENTSÂ’ PERCEPTIONS AFTER STUDYING ABROAD............................135 I RESPONSES TO ITEMS ON THE TOLERANCE SUBSCALE BEFORE STUDYING ABROAD............................................................................................138 J RESPONSES TO ITEMS ON THE TOLERANCE SUBSCALE AFTER STUDYING ABROAD............................................................................................141 K RESPONSES TO THE QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIPS SUB-SCALE BEFORE STUDYING AROAD..............................................................................144 L RESPONSES TO THE QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIPS SUB-SCALE AFTER STUDYING ABROAD............................................................................................147 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................150 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................156

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Respondent Profile fo r the Pre-test Sample.............................................................55 3-2 Major or Intended Major Prior to Studying Abroad................................................56 3-3 Destinations Visited Prior to Studying Abroad........................................................58 3-4 Countries to be Visi ted During Study Abroad.........................................................59 4-1 Comparison of Impacts Before and After Studying Abroad....................................69 4-2 Comparison of Tolerance Sub-scal e Before and After Studying Abroad................73 4-3 Comparison of Quality of Relationshi ps Sub-scale Before and After Studying Abroad......................................................................................................................77

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 The Seven Vectors...................................................................................................10 2-1 The Backpacker Phenomenon: An Evolutionary Framework..................................24

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science STUDY ABROAD: AN EXPLORATION OF STUDENT DEVELOPMENT AND STUDENT PERCEPTIONS By Heather Anne Robalik May 2006 Chair: Heather Gibson Major Department: Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management It is generally considered that study abroad programs are educationally beneficial to students. However, while various aspects of studying abroad have been investigated, few of these studies have been grounded in any form of developmental theory. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relati onship between study abro ad participation and student development. Furthermore, this st udy examined gender, previous overseas travel experience, and duration of th e study abroad experience. Two groups were evaluated, a pre-travel group and a post-travel group. Student perceptions were divided into five areas: pe rsonal development, academics, professional development, global perspective, and intelle ctual development. Student development was divided into two areas: tolerance and quali ty of relationships. Frequencies were the primary analysis tools; content analysis wa s used to reveal patte rns in the open-ended questions.

PAGE 10

x Differences in level of development we re found by gender within the pre-travel group as well as in the post -travel group. Differences were also found by previous overseas experience within the pre-travel group and in the post-travel group. Finally, differences were found by durati on of program within the pre-travel group but could not be evaluated in the post-travel group. Resu lts from the open-ended questions revealed that language acquisition skills, self-exploration and the cult ural experience in general were the primary motivations for studying abroa d. Participants also revealed that they were most looking forward to experiencing a different culture, mee ting new people, and self-exploration during the study abroad trip. Based on participant responses, prior to their study abroad programs students felt adequa tely prepared, while one third did not, and the rest had mixed emotions. Participan ts felt most nervous about being far from home, terrorism, and language barriers. Upon reflection, participants felt that cultural immersion in general was the best expe rience of studying abroad. In comparison, cultural differences and not being accepted by the locals were cited as the worst experiences. Participants also felt that communication and adjustment issues were the most challenging aspects of studying abroad. Students reported that the biggest impacts from the study abroad experience were rela ted to personal changes. Finally, selfconfidence and a sense of newfound independenc e were identified by the students as the most important characteristics that they learned about themselves. This study may be the first to consider a student development theory in a study abroad context. Regarding the practical a pplications of this study, practitioners and researchers alike will be able to use this in formation to support the benefits experienced as a result of studying abroad.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The idea of travel as a form of educa tion has a long history. Indeed, early philosophers such as Mencius (372-289 B.C.) noted the impor tance of travel by saying, “to see once is better than to read a hundred times” (cited in Brodsky-Porges, 1981, p.174). In the 17th Century Jan Amos Comenius proposed an education system in which the last two years of study for students were spent seeking freedom and enrichment through travel (Comenius Foundation, n.d.; Me yer, 1972), in fact, it was during the 1630’s that the Grand Tour evolved. Over the next 150 years, young, wealthy Englishmen were sent abroad on a Grand Tour This time spent in other countries was perceived as a finishing school beyond the fo rmal classroom (Brodsky-Porges). While the Grand Tour was regarded as an integral part of the formal education of young Britons, in America, young males were discouraged from traveling to Europe. It was considered a betrayal to the American spirit to send its s ons to the old world. However, as the antiEuropean sentiments declined with the te rmination of the Napoleonic hostilities, the yearly transatlantic journeys to Europe comm enced and are still part of the lifestyle of many young college students today (BrodskyPorges). In fact, since the 1991-1992 academic school year, the number of U.S. st udents studying abroad for credit has more than doubled from 71,154 to 174,629, an increas e of 145% (Gardner & Witherell, 2004). Scholars such as Noy (2004), Graburn ( 1983) and Brodsky-Porges (1981) suggest that youth travel may comprise a rite of passage into adulthood for young adults. Many young people want to learn about themselves, other people and cultu res. Vogt (1976)

PAGE 12

2 supports this contention and sugge sts that such “travel experien ce is seen as providing the necessary challenges and opportunities to expa nd oneself in areas valued by adventurous youth; independence, adaptability, resourcef ulness, open-mindedness…” (p. 28). Due to the basic elements of living and learning in a foreign country, it is e xpected that a student will grow and change from a study abroad experience (Inglis, Rolls, & Kristy, 1998). Vogt suggests that through travel, growth is sought and achieved in four major ways; stimulation and intensity in daily life, aut onomy in decision-making, intense interpersonal relations and learning about the world and se lf. In addition, hardships and difficulties that are overcome while traveling allow youth to develop a heightened sense of confidence (Noy, 2004). Vogt explains that the challenge of novel situations and environments necessitates that the traveler must exist in a new way, thus questioning the self and consequently learning more about his or her own identity and abilities. Moreover, a benefit of travel when consider ed, as a form of physical and emotional escape is that it can prompt a personal reawak ening. This renaissan ce enables a person to return to his/her established environmen t with fresh vivaci ty and alertness. The literature shows that young travelers have a variety of feelings regarding their travel experiences (Todd, 2001). There is a pervasive belief that international travel changes people’s lives both personally and professionally (STA Travel, n.d.). International travel experiences clearly affect youth and the li terature tends to support the idea that travel is benefici al (Armstrong, 1984; Baty & Dol d, 1977; Carsello & Greaser, 1976; Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Kuh & Kauf fman, 1985; Martin, 1989; Nash, 1976; Noy, 2004; Todd). Students who partic ipate in study abroad progra ms experience a heightened international outlook and personal developm ent (Barnhart & Groth, 1987; Carsello &

PAGE 13

3 Greaser; Dukes, Lockwood, Oliver, Pezalila, & Wilker, 1994; Farrell & Suvedi; Inglis et al., 1998). A review of the lite rature informs us that study abroad and its impacts is a topic that is growing in impor tance and relevance. For example, the ways in which study abroad affects alternative language acquisition, self-esteem self-confidence, emotional maturity, academic success, peer relationshi ps, and many others have been evaluated (Inglis et al.). The participation rates s uggest that the number of students studying abroad is increasing (Gardner & Witherell, 2004; St ephenson, 1999). Particularly, American students are beginning to recognize the value of study abroad in an internationa lly interreliant world (Gardner & Witherell). While the terrorist attack s of September 11, 2001 suppressed much international pleasure tr avel among Americans, in contrast, 9/11 stimulated interest in study abroad programs among U.S. students (Gardner & Witherell). It appears among students that a legacy of this national tragedy has been an elevated need to understand the importance of global affair s. During the first complete school year following the attacks of 9/11 (academic year 2002-2003), the number of American college and university students earning cr edit abroad increased by 8.5% from the preceding academic year (Gardner & Witherell). Not only are more and more American st udents studying abroad, but the diversity in destinations visited is also increasing (Inst itute of Internatio nal Education, 2003). Historically, most students st udied in Western Europe. Wh ile the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain are still the top study abroad destinations for American students, less traditional destinations are growing in popularity. During the 2001-2002 academic school year, uncommon destinations like China saw a 33% increase in student visitors up

PAGE 14

4 to a total of 3,911. Japan e xperienced a 21% increase to 3,168 students, and the Czech Republic received 30% more student visi tors totaling 1,659. In addition, since 1985 Latin America has seen their student visito r population more than double when compared to the 2001-2002 academic school year (Gardner & Witherell, 2003). The 8.5% increase in American students ea rning credit for study abroad during the academic year 2002-2003 denotes stronger growth than the preceding year’s 4.4% increase. This increase is a strong indicator of the growing interest in studying abroad, both in the face of, and in reaction to the shifting geopolitical climate subsequent to September 11, 2001 (Boyd et al., 2001; Gardner & Witherell, 2004). However, although the study abroad numbers are steadily increasi ng, still only 1% of all American students study abroad. As a result, educators are ca lling for more support to encourage more students to study abroad (Lane, 2003). One stat ed goal in higher education is to increase student participation in study abroad to 20% by the year 2010 and 50% by the year 2040 (Lane). The Institute of International Edu cation (n.d.) argues, “peace and prosperity in the 21st Century depend on increasing the capac ity of people to think and work on a global and intercultural basis. As technology opens borders, educational and professional exchange opens minds.” The mission statement for the University of Florida’s International Center is consis tent with this philosophy as it emphasizes the importance of enhancing the educational experience and environment of its st udents by promoting a global perspective (University of Florida International Center n.d.). Therefore, not only is student interest steadily increasing, the academic community is increasingly recognizing the need to provide programs that allow their students opportunities to travel abroad as they value global awareness.

PAGE 15

5 Statement of the Problem Chadee and Cutler (1996) assert, “interna tional travel by students remains a neglected area of research.” A review of the literature indicates that the issue of study abroad and the effects of such programs on students have been wr itten about at length (Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Inglis et al., 1998), however, very little of this research has been grounded in any student development theory a nd overall, lacks system atic investigation (Dukes et al., 1994). As a result, empirical st udies that have utilized student development theories in relation to study abroad are extr emely scarce. A theoretical framework that may be of specific use in enhancing our unders tanding of some of the effects on students that accrue from studying abroad is located in psychosocial student development. Conceivably the most widely accepted and infl uential theory of st udent development is Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) student development model. This model is based on Chickering’s (1969) work, although the revi sed version encompasses advances in research and other theoretical influences ove r the last 25 years (C hickering & Reisser; University of Calgary, n.d.). This theoreti cal perspective “provides a framework for thinking systematically about students’ de velopmental patterns and makes concrete suggestions for fostering growth in areas su ch as interpersonal re lationships, identity, purpose and integrity” (Chickering & Reisser, in side cover). As a result, this framework appears to be the most logical and meaningf ul way to assess student development and study abroad. Despite the importance and wide use of Chickering a nd Reisser’s student development theory of identity in a variety of educational set tings, it has never been used to comprehensively assess the impact a nd outcomes as experienced by study abroad participants. Consequently, the marriage of this robust and greatly utilized theoretical framework with an increasingly popular form of alternative educa tion (study abroad) may

PAGE 16

6 provide some potentially valuable insights. Accordingly, this study attempted to take the first steps to bridge a gap in the existing lite rature. However, due to the lack of survey participants, an analysis of change in student development is not possible; descriptive information only is provided for the pr e-travel group and the post-travel group. Most research on the benefits of study abroad is anec dotal; there is a need for empirical research to illustrate the outcomes (Inglis et al., 1998). This study contributes to the body of knowledge that exists regarding student out comes and study abroad, while being the first study to be guided by Ch ickering and ReisserÂ’s (1993) student development theory of identity. Some of the literature suggests that gender and previous international travel experience does not appe ar to influence the outcomes for students from study abroad (Farrell & Suvedi, 2003). However, Chickering and Reisser suggest that males and females develop at different rates. This study examined the impact of gender on student development and study abroad. In addition, Inglis et al. report that the length of the program abroad impacts the long -term benefits experi enced by students. A final aspect under considerati on was previous overseas trav el experience; Pearce (1988) suggests that prior travel e xperiences impacts the choices and experience individuals make when traveling. For example, more e xperienced travelers tend to be less concerned about safety and security and more concerne d with self-actualization needs. Indeed, Snmez and Graefe (1998) found that previous travel experiences impacts future decisions as well as future experiences. C onsequently, this study hoped to contribute to the body of literature regarding developmenta l differences by gender, previous overseas experience as well as differences by duration of program. Once again however, due to the lack of survey participants, an analysis of differences before and after the travel

PAGE 17

7 experience was not possible; de scriptive information only is provided for the pre-travel group and the post-travel group. The results of such a study hold many potential implicati ons for programming, curriculum design, and recruitment among other facets for improving study abroad experiences. Overall, most studies that cons ider study abroad and its effects on students report participants are impacted in positiv e ways (Farrell & Suvedi, 2003). After studying abroad, students are more likely to engage in on-campus programs that are designed to broaden their international understanding (Gray, Murdock, & Stebbins, 2002). Additionally, study abroad participants experience a heightened interest in the welfare of others, increased feelings of well-be ing and self-confidence, and an interest in reflective thought (Kuh & Kauffman, 1985). Almo st collectively, part icipants felt that the study abroad experience helped them to r ealize their potential, and that they had a deeper understanding of the world an d its people (Dukes et al., 1994). When a student development theory is adopt ed and applied to practice, the student service being provided will be th e most effective. Without a theoretical and an empirical grounding, practitioners may design programs that do not help students reach their full potential through study abroad. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to investigat e the relationship between study abroad participation and student development. Study abroad participation constituted undergraduate and graduate students enrolled during the 2005 fall term that participated in university sponsored study abroad program s. Student development was measured according to the fourth vector of Chickeri ng and ReisserÂ’s (1993) student development theory: Developing Mature, Interpersonal Relationships. Furthermore, this study

PAGE 18

8 examined the relationship between gender, previous overseas travel experience, and duration of the study abroad experience on student development. Theoretical Rationale The student populations of the U.S. and th e developmental tasks they face are more varied and multifaceted than ever (Evans, Fo rney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). One of the most widely known and accepted psychosocial student development theories is Chickering’s (1969) student development theory of identity. In 1993, Chickering and Reisser introduced a revised ve rsion of Chickering’s theory based on 25 years of research and theory development and advancement. This revised framework formed the foundation for this study. Chickering and Reisser’s student development theory of identity suggests that human development consists of seven “vect ors,” these are: Developing competence, managing emotions, moving through autonom y toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships, establ ishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity. The development of today’s college student involves a complex process. Just as the typical college student does not necessarily progress through their curriculum as scheduled, neither does their development f it into an organized predictable path. However, the seven vectors of development can be utilized as a map to help researchers and practitioners determine the stage of a student’s developmen t as well at the direction in which they are moving. The purpose of the vectors is that they explain key avenues for journeying in the direction of individuati on. This includes a pe rson’s discovery and continual enhancement of themselves, of re lationships, and of people around them and around the world. Chickering and Reisser (1993) suggest that ultimately all students will

PAGE 19

9 move through the seven vectors, despite the fact that each student will maneuver in a different way, with varying mode s and self-chosen diversions. Movement along any single vector can take place at various rates and can intermingle with advancement along the othe rs. Every movement from “lower” to “higher” produces greater skill, awarene ss, complexity, confidence, integration, and stability, although it does not prohibit an unint entional or deliberate return to areas already navigated. Chickering and Reisser (199 3) presume that “higher” is better than “lower,” for the reason that in tallying the strengths and skills encompassed by the vectors, students mature in strength, vers atility, and the aptitude to adjust when unanticipated obstacles or drawbacks emer ge. Chickering and Reisser suggest that university and college stude nts carry out habitual th emes: Learning control and flexibility, gaining competence and self-a wareness, finding one’s vocation or voice, balancing intimacy with freedom, making co mmitments as well as refining beliefs. In terms of assessment it is especially im portant not to oversimplify the stages of development a college student may go through. As previously stated, it is unlikely that a person will fit neatly into one stage, inst ead there could be overl ap or relapse (King, 1990). Therefore it is imperative to identify wh ere a person is holistically, rather than to identify the stage or vector of development within which a st udent is perceivably located. Therefore, the seven vectors should be cons idered as building bl ocks to the foundation for human development, rather than a limited linear model of sequential steps (Figure 11). However, the measurement protocol for all seven vectors is extensive. This is due to the time constraints of respondents, and in th e anticipation of a highe r response rate, this study focused only on one of Chickering and Re isser’s vectors. The fourth vector,

PAGE 20

10 Developing Mature Personal Re lationships was chosen due to its perceived relevant relationship with some elements of studying abroad. For example, the development of mature relationships includes acceptance and admiration of differences, and can be seen in an intercultural context. The foundation fo r this vector is oneÂ’s ability to react to people based on them as individuals, rather th an as typecasts. Eventually, the person may value differences in close relationships. This may ultimately transfer to general acquaintances and then to those fr om other countrie s and cultures. Figure 1-1. The Seven Vectors The Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relationships Inventory measured social development. The Inventory was created to measure Chicke ring and ReisserÂ’s fourth vector (Hood & Mines, 1997), Developing Mature Interperso nal Relationships. The developmental phase of interpersonal relationships is comprise d of two areas: (1) im proved tolerance and respect for people of different values, background s, and lifestyles, and (2) a change in the -New Students-Graduating U ndergraduate Students-Graduate StudentsDeveloping Competence Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships Moving through Autonomy toward Interdependence Managing Emotions Developing Purpose Developing Integrity Establishing Identity

PAGE 21

11 quality of relationships with close family and friends, moving from dependence through independence toward an interdependence that allows for a greater level of personal freedom. Although the seven vectors should not necessarily be viewed as a linear model, it is helpful to recognize that there is a genera lly acceptable timeframe of development. Figure 1-1 illustrates that first and second y ear college students usually progress through the first four vectors, developing comp etence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence and devel oping mature interpersonal relationships (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Third and fourth year colle ge students usually experience the fifth vector, establishing identity. The fi nal vectors, the fifth and sixth, developing purpose and developing integrity are typically experienced by graduate students or soon after graduation. First vector: Developing competence Three types of competence are cultivated during the college years, they are: intellect ual competence, physic al and manual skills, and interpersonal competence. (a) Intellectual competence is proficiency in utilizing the mind. It entails expanding artistic and in tellectual sophistication, mastering subject matter, and, primarily, constructing a range of skills to understand, evaluate, and synthesize. Intellectual compet ence also involves cultivating new frames of reference so as to assimilate additional points of view and function as more sufficient formations for interpreting our experiences and observations. (b) Physical and manual competence may include artistic and athletic achievements making and designing intangible items, and increasing fitness, self-discipline, and physical strength. Creation and competition promote feelings to emerge as projects a nd performances are put on view for othersÂ’

PAGE 22

12 endorsement or disapproval. Chickering and Reisser suggest that leisure activities may develop into lasting interests and conseque ntly become part of oneÂ’s identity. Interpersonal competence includes not just the abilities of comm unicating, listening, and cooperating successfully, but in addition the more complex task of listening without distraction to another person and providi ng a proper response, to bring into line individual agendas along with the objectives of the group, and to select from numerous strategies in order to aid in the prospe rity of a relationship or a group meeting. Consequently, when studentsÂ’ feelings of competence flourish as they realize how to have faith in their capabilities, receive re liable comments from others, and are able to put together their skills in to a solid confidence, they have more than likely moved through the first vector. Second vector: Managing emotions Regardless of whether a student is new or returning back to schoo l from time off, most experience feelings of anger, hurt, fear, boredom, tension, and longing; these feelings ha ve the potential to di srupt the educational progression when they become overwhelming or extreme. However, these emotions simply need to be managed. This can be accomplished by being responsive and recognizing them as warning signs. Chickering and Reisser explain that it may be a challenge to accept that a small amount of boredom and tension is typical a nd that anxiety can help performance. Development occurs when students learn to ma nage these emotions by dealing with fears before they are immobilized, finding healthy ch annels to release irri tation before they blow up, and healing emotional damage before other relationships are contaminated. The challenge is for the student to get in touch w ith their emotions and le arn to exercise self-

PAGE 23

13 regulation rather than repre ssion. Some students are closed and need to open up, while others may be considered an open book and their undertaking is to develop adaptable controls. As self-discipline and self-e xpression acquire bala nce, perception and integration ideally support each other. Positive feelings must also be considered, although instead of learning to manage them, they should be brought into the conscious ness and permitted to exist. It is essential that students learn to equaliz e self-assertive tendencies, which include surpassing the boundaries of the individual self recognizing or connecting with another, or feeling part of bigger whole. Third vector: Moving through autonomy toward interdependence An important step in the development process for college students is realizing how to perform with relative self-suffi ciency, to be less influenced by othersÂ’ judgments, and to take responsibility for following self-chosen goals. Advancement requires emotional and instrumental independence, and subse quently acknowledgment and acceptance of interdependence. (a) Emotiona l independence can be defined, as autonomy from repeated and urgent needs for approval, affection, or r eassurance. It commen ces with the parting from parents and continues through depende nce on friends, unrelated adults, and institutional or professional reference groups. It concludes in the lessening of need for such supports and improved willingness to jeopa rdize the loss of status or friends in exchange for the pursuit of strong interest s or position on beliefs. (b) Instrumental independence is comprised of two chief factors: having the capacity to be mobile and the aptitude to manage activities and to work out problems in a self-sufficient manner. Additionally, it indicates developing that volitional piece of the self that is able to think

PAGE 24

14 analytically and individually a nd can then decipher ideas into concentrated action. It also entails learning to get from one destination to another without having to be handheld or given specific instructions, as well as to locate the information or means essential in order to realize personal desires and needs. Achieving autonomy concludes in the rea lization that one cannot function in a vacuum and that superior autonomy allows improved types of interdependence. New relationships founded on reciprocity and equality substitutes the outdated, less deliberately chosen ones. Relationships w ith parents are modified. Interpersonal circumstances expand to consist of the worl d, society and the community. The yearning for inclusion and the desire to be autonom ous become better balanced. Interdependence denotes respecting the independe nce of others and trying to discover ways to give and take with an always-gro wing network of friends. Fourth vector: Developing mature interpersonal relationships The fourth vector is the focus of this study. Accordi ng to Chickering (1969), th e fourth vector is comprised of two elements, (l) improved to lerance and esteem for people of diverse upbringings, values, and life styles, and (2) a ch ange in the quality of relationships with intimate friends and loved ones. Improved to lerance can be defined as an openness to and acceptance of diversity, resulting in th e expansion of a personÂ’s sensitivities and options for rewarding relationships. The adjust ment in the quality of relationships with friends refers to moving from dependence th rough independence towa rd interdependence, which gives a person a wider choice of freed om of movement and behavior (Mines, 1977). Young adults are infl uenced by friends, adults, and loved ones. As freeing of interpersonal relationships evolves, people r eact differently to them. Friendships grow

PAGE 25

15 stronger and people choose to spend more time with select friends rather than participating in a large group activity. Additionally, relations hips with adults become easier. The development of mature relationshi ps entails acceptance and admiration of differences, as well as having a capability for intimacy. Acceptance can be seen in an interpersonal as well as an intercultural context. At its core is one’s ability to react to people based on them as individuals, rather than as typecasts. Eventually, valuing differences in close relationships will transfer to general acquaintances and then to those from other countries and cultures. Aware ness, openness, breadth of experience, inquisitiveness, and impa rtiality facilitate stude nts’ ability to cultiv ate first impressions, minimize prejudice and ethnocentrism, foster empathy and selflessness, and get pleasure from diversity. As well as increased acceptance, the aptit ude for healthy intimacy grows. For the majority of youthful couples, each is the na rcissus. Gratifying relationships usually require geographic proximity, “so that each can nod to the other and in the reflection observe himself or herself” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 48). Cultivating mature relationships encompasses selfle ssness, as well as the aptitude to choose relationships that are healthy. Additionally, long-term commitments are based on unconditional regard, responsiveness, and honesty. Better capacity for intimacy includes an adjustment in the quality of relationships from too much domi nance or dependence toward interdependence amongst equals. Development can be defi ned as less clinging and more profound sharing, being more selective in finding nurturi ng relationships, increa sed appreciation of

PAGE 26

16 qualities and more acceptance of imperfections, and increased enduring relationships that thrive through separatio n, crises, and distance. Fifth vector: Establishing identity Developing identity could be compared to the putting together of a jigsaw puzzle. The fo rmation of identity depends partially on the four vectors previously menti oned. It is the progression of discovering at what degrees of frequency and intensity, with what types of experience, we resound in satisfying, in secure, or in selfdetrimental ways. Se ven components exist in the development of identity: (1) contentment with body and appearance, (2) accepta nce of sexual orientation and gender, (3) sense of self in a historical, social, a nd cultural perspective, (4) explanation of self-conc ept through life-style and roles, (5 ) sense of self in reaction to feedback from esteemed friends, family and others, (6) self-esteem and self-acceptance, and (7) individual stability and integration. A sound sense of self is clear when the individual is comfortable and can ha rmonize all components of personality. Establishing one’s identity al so consists of taking into account ethnic heritage and family of origin, classifying self as part of a cultural or re ligious tradition, and considering self within a hist orical and social context. It encompasses discovering roles and methods at home, work and play that are authentic demonstrations of self and that further delineate self-definition. It includes gaining an awareness of how he or she is viewed by others. “It leads to clarity and stab ility and a feeling of warmth for this core self as capable, familiar, worthwh ile” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 50). Sixth vector: Developing purpose Most students spe nd years in college to prepare for a good job, not necessarily to broaden their philosophy on life. Developing purpose includes an escalating capability to be purposeful, to eval uate interests and

PAGE 27

17 choices, to clarify objectives, to formulate pl ans, and to persevere despite hurdles. It necessitates devising action plan s, and a set of priorities that incorporate three key components: (1) vocational aspirations and plan s, (2) personal intere sts, and (3) family and interpersonal responsibilities. Also include d, is the aptitude to bring together one’s varied goals within the fram ework of a bigger, more sign ificant purpose, and to live intentionally day-by-day. The term vocational is used loosely, as it c ould be as precise as a career or as farreaching as a calling. Vocations are discovere d by what is fulfilling and energizing, what utilizes talents and what ch allenges a person to develop ne w ones, what causes joy in doing, and what actualizes all a person’s possib ilities for success. The vocations can be unpaid, paid or both. Preferably, they will surf ace as a result of in tensifying curiosities, and accordingly provide impetus to further amb itions that contain value and meaning. At this time, concerns for family and life-style become significant. As long-term partnerships become a part of the equa tion and formal education and vocational explorations come to a close, the next moves must be determined. It is a challenge to devise a course of action that balances st andard of living considerations, vocational desires, and extracurricular pursuits. Numerous compromise s are necessary, and clearer ideals assist in the decision-making process. Seventh vector: Developing integrity This vector entails three chronological, however, overlapping phases: (1) humanizing va lues – distancing oneself from automatic use of adamant beliefs and util izing ethical thinking as a m eans to balance personal selfinterest with the we lfare of others, (2) personalizing values – purposely upholding core

PAGE 28

18 beliefs and values at the same time as re garding other viewpoints, and (3) developing congruence – harmonizing individual valu es with socially sensible actions. Humanizing values entails a change from a literal application of rules, to a more situational view resulting in the connection between the rules and the goals they are meant to support. Rules regarding aggre ssiveness, honesty or sex may change with situations and circumstances, while prevaili ng principles become the most important. Personalizing of values takes place when the values to be lived are selected individually as a result of the situations to be encountered, by the work expected to be completed, and by the people who are viewed as important. In summary, persons select guiding principles to suit themselves and the circumstances of their lives. Eventually these elements are adopted as a permanent part of self and grow to be standards by which to evaluate personal decisions. The personalizing of values encourages th e development of congruence, which is the realization of behavior that is consistent w ith the individual values held. In this last stage, internal debate is re duced. As results of the cons equences of a situation are inherent and the costs of alternative op tions are evident, the response is easily determined; the choice is made with conviction, without debate or hedging. No published study exists according to th e author’s knowledge that utilizes Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) theory of de velopment to investig ate the outcomes of a study abroad experience. Therefore, a goal of this study was to examine the outcomes experienced as a consequence of studying abroad guided by a widely used student development theoretical framew ork. In addition, there has be en a call to i nvestigate the ways in which cross-cultural and study ab road experiences impact males and females

PAGE 29

19 differently (Baty & Dold, 1977; Crust, 1998; Herman, 1996). Baty and Dold found that the study abroad experience affected men a nd women differently. These findings are supported by studies of student development such as Chickering and ReisserÂ’s who found that males and females develop at different ra tes. In contrast, se veral studies reported there are no differences in personal devel opment outcomes between males and females (Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Herman). The commo nality in all of th ese studies is the documented recommendation to further i nvestigate differences in outcomes as experienced by males and females (Baty & Do ld; Farrell & Suvedi; Herman; Noy, 2004). As a result, this study examined outcomes as they relate to gender differences in the hopes of providing clarification to this seem ingly unclear issue. Another important variable under consideration is that of previous travel experi ence. Farrell and Suvedi in a study investigating the impacts of a study abroad program found that 77% of the participants had travel ed overseas previously. The aut hors reported that there were no significant differences in outcomes reported by participants based on those that had previous overseas experience and those that did not. They attributed these findings, however, to the fact that the majority of thei r participants had traveled overseas before. Therefore, by examining previous overseas experience in the current study the author hoped to shed some light on the potential impact(s) this variable may have on the psychosocial development of the study abroad participants. Particularly, since there is evidence in the tourism literature suggesting th at pervious travel experiences, impacts, future travel decisions and experience (Pea rce, 1988; Snmez & Graefe, 1998). A final consideration in this study is that of length of the st udy abroad program. The literature supports the notion that the l onger the length of time a student is immersed in another

PAGE 30

20 culture the greater the development (Herman) Nevertheless, published research on this variable is minimal; theref ore this study hoped to contri bute to the body of knowledge regarding the impacts of study abroad program as it pertains to length of program. Consequently, the goal of this study was to consider Chickering and ReisserÂ’s fourth vector in order to assess the development e xperienced as a result of the international experience. However, due to the lack of responses to the questionnaire, the group that responded prior to the travel experience a nd the group that responde d after the travel experience were evaluated independently. Research Questions The research questions addr essed in this study were: 1a. What perceptions do the students report before their study abroad experience as measured by the Michigan State Univ ersity study abroad questionnaire? 1b. What perceptions do the students repor t after their study ab road experience as measured by the Michigan State Univ ersity study abroad questionnaire? 2a. What level of development according to Chickering and ReisserÂ’s (1993) fourth vector of development have the students ach ieved before their study abroad experience? i. What level of development according to the Tolerance scale have the students achieved before thei r study abroad experience? ii. What level of development according to the Quality of Relationships scale have the students achieved before their study abroad experience? 2b. What level of development according to Chickering and ReisserÂ’s (1993) fourth vector of development have the students achieved after their st udy abroad experience? i. What level of development according to the Tolerance scale have the students achieved after thei r study abroad experience? ii. What level of development according to the Quality of Relationships scale have the students achieved afte r their study abroad experience?

PAGE 31

21 3a. Do males and females differ in their development according to Chickering and ReisserÂ’s fourth vector before their study abroad experience? i. Do males and females differ in their development according to the Tolerance scale before thei r study abroad experience? ii. Do males and females differ in their development according to the Quality of Relationships scale before their study abroad experience? 3b. Do males and females differ in their development according to Chickering and ReisserÂ’s fourth vector after their study abroad experience? i. Do males and females differ in their development according to the Tolerance scale after thei r study abroad experience? ii. Do males and females differ in their development according to the Quality of Relationships scale after th eir study abroad experience? 4a. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those with no previous overseas expe rience, regarding Chickering a nd ReisserÂ’s fourth vector prior to their study abroad experience? i. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those with no previous oversea s experience, and their level of development as measured by the Tolera nce scale prior to their study abroad experience? ii. Is there a difference between students w ho have traveled abroad previously and those with no previous oversea s experience, and their level of development as measured by the Qualit y of Relationships scale prior to their study abroad experience? 4b. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those with no previous overseas expe rience, regarding Chickering a nd ReisserÂ’s fourth vector after their study abroad experience? i. Is there a difference between students w ho have traveled abroad previously and those with no previous oversea s experience, and their level of development as measured by the Tole rance scale after their study abroad experience? ii. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those with no previous oversea s experience, and their level of development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale after their study abroad experience?

PAGE 32

22 5a. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program, regarding Chickering and ReisserÂ’s fourth vector prior to their study abroad experience? i. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program regarding level of development as measured by th e Tolerance scale prior to their study abroad experience? ii. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program regarding level of development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale prior to their study abroad experience? 5b. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program, regarding Chickering and ReisserÂ’s fourth vector afte r their study abroad experience? i. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program, and the level of development measured by th e Tolerance scale after their study abroad experience? ii. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program regarding level of development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale after their study abroad experience?

PAGE 33

23 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Evolution of Youth Travel Youth travel dates back to the Gra nd Tour of the 1630’s. Loker-Murphy and Pearce (1995) illustrate the e volution of youth travel through history (Figure 2-1). After the Grand Tour phenomenon of the upper class faded, tramping by the working class became popular; following this trend youth trav elers typically were middle-class longterm budget travelers. Today, the inclinati on of youth traveling on a budget still exists, and is currently termed backpacking. The Grand Tour Education as a reason for travel was a ph ilosophy that emerged during the medieval period until around 1800. Charles Wm. Elliot, president of Harvard University said during his inaugural address that travel is a “foolish beginning and” an “excellent sequel to education” (cited in Brodsky-Porges, 1981, p.72). The origins of educational travel can be traced back to the Grand Tour of wealthy British aristocrats. Educational experiences, status seeking, adventure (Cohe n, 1972), and a declaration of independence have all been linked to the migration of youth travel to Europe (Brodsky-Porges). Americans share many cultural and traditional ties with England, the idea of travel as a form of education is one custom Amer icans have adopted from their ancestors. Roeming (1971) suggested “the educated Amer ican insisted on contact with European culture as a means of casting into the sha dows of the past, coarseness and presumed undesirability of his frontier or igins” (p.70). Several early ed ucators integrated travel

PAGE 34

24 Key Motives Education/selfdevelopment Employment/Training Subsidiary Leisure Temporary escape from urban life/health and fitness 17th Century The Grand Tour (travel as education) Craft Guilds 18th Century Tramping for work Youth movement/ wanderlust 19th Century Tramping for touristic purposes Youth hostel association (YHA) 1910 YHA in Australia 1930Â’s Hitchhiking-Students and Middle Class Youth Defining features: Activity/Transport Mode 1950Â’s Drifters and Wonderers 1960Â’s Defining features: Low social/spatial organization 1970Â’s Long-term budget travelers Defining features: Money/Extended time 1980Â’s Modern Youth Touris m Contemporary Backpackers Defining features: Age/Increasing degree of independence from family Defining features: Preference for budget accommodations, Emphasis on meeting other people, Independently organized/Flexible travel schedule, Longer rather than brief holidays, Emphasis on informal/participatory recreational activities Figure 2-1. The Backpacker Phenom enon: An Evolutionary Framework into their set of courses, as they believed it increased lear ning. The Frenchman Michael Eyquem was the leading voice against an educ ation system that only utilized books.

PAGE 35

25 During the 1500’s he created a pedagogy that reflected his belief that “A mere bookish learning is a paltry learning” (cited in Meyer, 1972, p.231). Eyquem also known as Montaigne felt that students re quired “…some direct advent uring with the world, a steady and lively interplay with common folk, suppl emented and fortified with trips abroad” (cited in Meyer, p.231). Another scholar at th is time, who shared similar views, was Jan Amos Comenius. During the 1600’s Comenius d eclared that there was more to education than what was simply found within the pages of a book. In order to rescue the student from “degenerating into a mere bookworm, he was to relax his concentration during the last two years by seeking breadth and enrichment in travel” (Meyer, p.250). Travel has been a part of human existen ce since pre-historic times; those that followed their herds season to season for food are evidence of this. In time, as social systems developed, people traveled for reli gious, economic, healt h, political, recreation, and finally educational reasons (Brodsky-Po rges, 1981). The British government also played a role in student travel during these ea rlier years. Often time’s students acted as informed spies and sent letters back to the crown describing social, military, and political conditions of the places they were visiti ng. This information often resulted in compensation usually in the form of a gran t (Brodsky-Porges). The Grand Tour was viewed as a rite of passage, to encourage separation from youth to adulthood (Adler, 1985; Loker-Murphy & Pearce, 1995; Nash, 1976). However, during this period of time, youth travel was considered a pol itical obligation more than anything else; self-discovery was not at the forefront. The sons of the ar istocracy used the opportunity of travel to attend acclaimed universities, meet influential people and to experien ce the arts (Adler, 1985; Brodsky-Porges).

PAGE 36

26 Three philosophies surrounded the Grand T our. The first one placed the most emphasis of travel on meeting the influentia l and the well known, ra ther than following theoretical and scien tific knowledge. This philosophy was called “Baconian;” it was inspired by Francis Bacon who felt that young me n should travel for the experience itself, rather than explicit knowledge (Brodsky-Po rges, 1981). The second philosophy placed the emphasis of travel on fashion, parties, ba llet, and the arts. The “Jacobean” traveler was motivated by societal accomplishments and was to be considered a graduate of the European finishing school. The combin ation of the two previously mentioned philosophies, comprise the third. It promoted the importance of refining social skills, as well as students attendin g the best universities. The level of difficulty in travel, natura l topography, religion and politics played significant roles in determining an individua l’s route. Brodsky-P orges (1981) explained that for approximately 30 years there was no predictable route for the Grand Tour, however, a typical route emerged around 1630. Th e itinerary varied to some degree, but usually the starting point was Dover, Engla nd. From there, the student crossed the English Channel to France and would then travel through Switzerland and Italy. Following extended stays in several Italian ci ties, the student traveled to Germany and then back home via the English Channel. The English are given credit for establishi ng travel as an educational modality; however, the wealthy sons of Venice, Fran ce, Poland and others also traveled for education. As a result, the typical touris t during the 1600’s was th e aristocratic male (Brodsky-Porges, 1981; Loker-Murphy & Pear ce, 1995). Traveling for education was considered an essential part of a young ma n’s education. The relative period of peace

PAGE 37

27 during the 16th century allowed for civility among European nations to evolve, thus making the Grand Tour possible (Brodsky-Porges). America’s youth began experiencing Eur ope first-hand in the late 1700’s. Brodsky-Porges (1981) explains that the American colonies during this time were very primitive; accordingly colonial families felt the need to send their sons back to Europe to enhance their education and social skills. Ju st a short time after the East to West migration began, it quickly declined. As a result of America’s independence, the sentiment of sending its youth to England was regarded as a betray al of the American sprit. Noah Webster who supported the Gra nd Tour prior to the War of Independence turned America’s youth away from Europe and instead encouraged students to explore their own country. Additionally, in 1785 Thomas Jefferson made it known that he believed students would risk “moral infection” if they traveled to Europe. In time these feelings subsided, and the tradit ion for American students to tr avel to Europe continues to this day. Around the middle of the 19th century the era of the Grand Tour was coming to an end. The time period from 1821 through 1855 saw many changes. In 1821, the first crossing of the English Channel by steam was ma de one year after the battle of Waterloo. Austria, England and France experienced the beginning of the railway networks in 1828. Later, in 1835 roads were built through the Alps. Karl Baedekor published the first European guidebook in 1839. In 1841, Thomas Cook introduced “org anized profitable mass touring” (Trease, 1965, p.239), which Cohen (1972) defines as the “least adventurous” as the traveler remains largely confined to their comfort zone (p.167). The timetables for the Continental Railway Guide were first published in 1847, and Napoleon

PAGE 38

28 III held the Paris Exposition, the first world’s fair in 1855. “The age of the Grand Tour was over and the age of tourism had arrived” (Trease, p.239). Tramping In the mid 19th century the idea of the Grand Tour “was gradually democratized and adopted in modified form by the middle classes” (Adler, 1985, p.335). Although travel by the aristocracy was never constraine d, the lower classes did not have the same access. Their ability to travel freely needed to be justified. Adler explains if they did not provide written statements from their parish pr iest regarding their tr avel, they would face punishment, which included being whipped in public or arrested. During this era, there was a shift from prevention by government agencies to organization and accommodation as government controls changed. Throughout this time of organization trade guilds, such as thos e for machine workers and bricklayers among others started sending young tradesmen oversea s to acquire benefici al hands-on training, essentially “on tramp from town to town ” (Adler, 1985, p.338). Upon presentation of an employment I.D. card, tramps could find themse lves a job and a bed. At this point in time, the term hostel was coined and utilized by craft associations. Adler explains in addition to being a financial necessity, this type of travel was also seen as a “passage to full male adulthood” (p.339), especially for the British. World War I denoted the end of such trav el sponsored by craft associations. The European tramp phenomenon evolved into one with unskilled workers that were simply relying on public charity rather than just hos pitality for their work. This new movement was perceived as a social problem that psyc hologists named wanderlust. Characteristics of the new-age trampers included one’s diffi culty adjusting back into work, avoiding

PAGE 39

29 work, and taking pleasure in travel, which led to repeat trips. Trampers used work as a means to sustain travel, this phenomenon e volved into the long-term budget traveler. Long-Term Budget Travelers Long-term budget travelers consider travel as leisure, and sometimes view it as a means to avoid or delay work (Adler, 1985; Riley, 1988). Riley expl ains the long-term budget traveler is usually at a juncture in li fe, and many times a recent college graduate. He or she is typically Australian, Canadian, European or from New Zealand, and prefers to travel alone, and is single. Young adults frequently hope to delay the shift from being a student to the responsibilitie s and lifestyle associated with the adult world. Ironically, in an effort to pro-long the time he or sh e can stay abroad, the budget traveler commonly seeks employment (Riley). Because this type of traveler travels for longer than the typical holiday a tight budget has to be maintained. From this phenomenon, the phrase “budget” traveler evolved. Howe ver, Riley points out that it is important to note that being classified as a budget traveler does not signify that the traveler came from a low socio-economic background, in fact, they mo re often than not had a middle-class upbringing (Cohen, 1972; Riley). In Cohen’s (1972) groundbreak ing article, he describes a typology comprised of four tourist roles, one of these being the drifter. Traditiona lly, the long-term budget traveler has been associated with the drif ter role; however, over time as budget tourism has become more institutionalized the long-te rm budget traveler can fit into one of two categories described by Cohen, th e Explorer or the Drifter. According to Cohen the Explorer will organize his or her own tri p, and seek comfortable accommodations while attempting to travel “off the beaten track” ( p. 168). The Explorer will try to speak the native language and socialize w ith the locals. Although the Explorer actively seeks new

PAGE 40

30 experiences, he or she is never far from familiarity of his or her home lifestyle. Similar, although different is the Drifter. Cohen explains that this kind of tourist is most likely to embark on a trip that is the farthest from ho me and his or her way of living. This tourist attempts to live, eat and sleep like the i ndigenous people, rejec ting all things that resemble the mass tourist. The Drifter seeks nove lty at the highest level, and life as he or she used to live it is non-existent. The motivation of the Drifte r is curiosity and hunger for adventure. Cohen (1973) describes the somewhat mi nor drifter phenomenon as experiencing major attention after the publica tion of his 1972 article. Initia lly the concept of the drifter was that of a “counter-culture” role (p.90). In contrast, Cohe n argues that drifter tourism is somewhat of a paradox. On the one hand it is closely aligned with non-routine forms of travel, while at the same time it has become institutionalized in a way that is completely separate from, although equivalent to that of the regular mass tourist, with its own accommodations, food establishments and attractions. Although the drifter shares several characteristics with other forms of youth travel such as an aversion to a dull and scheduled way of life, there are also diffe rences. Unlike the tramper who travels for necessity, the drifter travels by choice; in cont rast to the grand tour traveler who is in pursuit of knowledge, the drifter has no instru mental purpose for travel ing. Drifting, as it is known first appeared several years afte r World War II when middle-class youth and students first started to hitc h hike in Western Europe a nd throughout the continent. However, drifting experienced a major boom as a result of inexpensiv e airfares during the late sixties and early seventies. As a re sult, youth flooded into Europe’s hot spots like

PAGE 41

31 London and Amsterdam in unprecedented numbers. Today, this type of tourism is still popular, although this style of travel is more commonly called backpacking. Backpacker The backpacker is todayÂ’s current youth traveler, and yester dayÂ’s budget traveler (Loker-Murphy, 1996; Murphy, 2001). Th e backpacker encompasses many characteristics from the grand tour part icipants, the trampers, the long-term budget travelers, and the previously me ntioned drifter travelers. C onsistent with other forms of youth travel, the backpacker is usually at a crossroads in life (Loker-Murphy & Pearce, 1992; Noy, 2004). Backpackers are typically between 18-33 years of age (Sorenson, 2003), budget-minded tourists who demonstrat e a tendency to stay in low-priced accommodations, maintain a preference for longe r rather than shorter holidays, put an emphasis on meeting other budget travelers and the indigenous people; they also have flexible itineraries that are usually independently organized (Loker-Murphy; LokerMurphy & Pearce, 1995; Murphy). Like the long-term budget traveler, bac kpackers often begin their journey by traveling solo. However, due to the so cial climate of hostels and other budget accommodations, meeting others along the way is easy and sometimes results in attaining temporary travel companions (Loker-Murphy & Pearce, 1995). A priority for the backpacker is to spend as little money as po ssible, as the length of time on the road for a typical backpacker is usually three months to one year. Backpackers typically see themselves as not the typical tourist, and especially not like the mass tourist (Loker-Murphy, 1996; Sorenson, 2003) described by Cohen (1972). Many backpackers consider themselves as fillin g a role that is diffe rent from that of the mainstream tourist. In a study conducted by Murphy (2001) backpackers felt the main

PAGE 42

32 difference between themselves and other trav elers was the adheren ce to a tight budget, that they had more flexibility in time compared to the other tourists, and that they had the desire and actively sought out places away fr om the mainstream tourist routes. Recently, new characteristics of backpackers have been identified that are reminiscent of drifters (Cohen, 1973), these include: hedonistic tendencies, they tend to gather in groups with other Westerners, and they are not socially conscious while overseas (Murphy). Although it is important to note the ac cepted characteristics that define backpacking, Sorenson (2003) questions the idea of backpacking as a homogeneous and distinctive category. Sorenson asserts that to include all of the above mentioned traits in one grouping would make it all bu t impractical to assign them an individual category; in doing so numerous traits would make up such a broad category as to make it insignificant. However, Sorenson also points out that if questioned, the majority of the travelers would more than likely concede that they are backpackers; even those that would not allow for such labels would still react or relate to them. Furthermore, Sorenson deems it valuable to employ the concept of culture when attempting to comprehend backpacker tourism, whereby a backpacker culture is recognized as fundamental to this style of travel. So renson suggests, “instead of defining them [backpackers] by means of fixed criteria, the cu ltural angle enables the backpacker to be viewed as a socially construed catego ry, involving both self-perception and peer recognition” (p.862). Sorenson suggests that one construct is c onsistent across all ty pes of backpacking, that being experience. Noy (2004) recounts self-change repo rted by youth travelers in a study about Israeli backpackers and their shared experiences Noy conducted 40 in-depth

PAGE 43

33 conversation-interviews with backpackers within five weeks of their return home. Each backpacker who was interviewed had traveled at least three months, ha lf in Asia, and half in South America. Noy conte nds that the unique experiences as a result of adventure and authenticity inherent in their trips allow backpackers to self-ref lect and realize the changes within themselves. Noy explains that “experienced backpackers tell of their new place in life in positive termsthey are wiser, more knowledgeable, more socially and emotionally apt, etc., than they were prior to their journey” (p. 84) A consistent theme among the narratives was that the backpacker s continually portrayed profound and deep personal changes that resulted from their trip s abroad. Furthermore, the changes were constantly positive, as one male backpacker recounted: You see, when you leave the country you don’t know that much, and when you return you suddenly know ever ything. You also know yourself differently, because you put yourself in may situ ations, like I told you—suddenly on top of the volcano mountain, or in very strenuous conditions during the trek … You extend your own capabilities, and the limits of your knowledge of yourself. It’s just like that. You know yourself better (p.87). Likewise one female backpacker said: All in all, the journe y changed me quite a b it. Not that I went searching for myself and returned a different person—it’s just r eally not like that. It’s like I simply traveled in order to enjoy myself and to have fun, and I was surprised, like—it was much more fun than I initia lly thought I could ever experience. And I learned a lot of things about myself (p.87). Noy (2004) reported that 62% of the backp ackers interviewed revealed that they experienced significant changes as a result of the trip; the remaining participants acknowledged the same changes through directed questions during the interview process. Backpacking for young Israelis is considered a rite of passage. As a result, Noy suggests that the expectation for positive self-change as a result of backpacking is not surprising. However, he does believe that travel for young adults and im mersion in a foreign culture

PAGE 44

34 is a true catalyst for self-change. Followi ng this line of thinking foreign travel and cultural immersion may also be used to explain positive self-change and study abroad. Study Abroad Many believe that todayÂ’s study abroad phenomenon shares many characteristics with the grand tour, tramping, the long-term budget traveler, and the backpacker. Like the Grand Tour, studying abroad is a form of educational travel (Dukes et al., 1994; Kuh & Kauffman, 1985). While studying abroad, it is common for students to participate in internship or practicum programs. Although, the student is not traveling from place to place to improve their trade, the student is working in another count ry to improve their job skills. Additionally, study abroad student s encompass similar qualities with the longterm budget traveler and the backpacker. Alt hough the study abroad st udent is not on the road traveling for an extended period of time, they live in a nother country anywhere from a week to an academic year. During the st udy abroad program, it is common to have a weeklong break from classes. During this time, a student will em body the attributes of the long-term budget traveler and backpack er by celebrating on a long journey, adhering to a strict budget, seeking out ine xpensive lodging and eating local food. In this study, the phrases exchange program and study abroad will be used synonymously. Studying abroad is a vacation; it is an adventure, an opportunity to travel and visit distant lands that have only been read about. It is a chan ce to encounter people of different cultures and backgrounds. Studyi ng abroad provides students an opportunity to live without parental restrictions, even more so than when students are away from home during college. Carsello and Greaser (1976 ) suggest that it is an opportunity to live in a new and challenging environment. In summary, it is simply an exciting time for college students.

PAGE 45

35 Study abroad as a topic for research be gan in the middle of the 1950Â’s (Herman, 1996). With the conclusion of the Second World War, an increased interest in international understanding developed. As a result, U.S. citizens supported government programs that promoted a global outlook. Th rough the years, the American government has shown its support of study abroad in ma ny ways. William J. Fulbright encouraged Congress to pass a law for a program that fo stered study abroad. Additionally, the G.I. Bill of Rights to some degree provides grants for foreign study. As well, other organizations that supply grants for forei gn travel and study include: the American Field Service Committee and the Experiment in Inte rnational Living. Furthermore, the United Nations sponsors internationa l educational exchanges under th e sponsorship of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultu ral Organization (UNESCO). Most recently, the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln St udy Abroad Program asked Congress to provide $125 million per year in funding by 2011 in order to reach the goal of sending one million students abroad by the year 2017 (Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, 2005). Since this time, scholarly inquiry relate d to study abroad has increased as the number of participants w ho go abroad has done the same (Herman, 1996; Gardner & Witherell, 2004). The necessity to understand how study abroad programs impact students becomes increasingly important as st udent participation ra tes increased. The Presidents Commission on Fore ign Languages and Internationa l Studies was created in 1979 in response to this need. The Commi ssion recognized the impor tance of scholarly investigation into in ternational programs that fo ster global mindedness among U.S. college students (Herman). Ever since, res earchers have made an effort to learn what

PAGE 46

36 personal and academic outcomes occur as a re sult of studying, living, and adjusting to life in another country. Topics of interest have included: autonomy, self-awareness, worldview, attitudes toward ot hers, international understandi ng, future career orientation, and academic and cultural interests among others (Baty & Dold, 1977; Carsello & Greaser, 1976; Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; K uh & Kauffman, 1985; Nash, 1976; Todd, 2001). Additionally, internationa l educators agree that due to the increasing number of students studying abroad there must be some personal developmenta l changes, which in turn will impact American society in general (Lamet & Lamet, 1982). There are many benefits of studying abro ad (Armstrong, 1984; Baty & Dold, 1977; Carsello & Greaser, 1976; Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Kuh & Kauffman, 1985; Martin, 1989; Nash, 1976; Todd, 2001), and many methods ha ve been used to evaluate them. Numerous researchers have used standardiz ed instruments (Carsello & Greaser; Kuh & Kauffman; Marion, 1978; Nash). Others ha ve used participant observation (Morgan, 1975), and others have made use of personal interviews (James, 1976; Pfinster, 1972). The amount of literature relate d to study abroad is vast; this is evidenced by the more than 300 page bibliography entitled “Research on U.S. Students Study Abroad: An Update, Volume III, 2001-2003, With Updates to the 1989 and Volume II Editions 20002003” produced by the Center for Global Education housed at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California (C omp & Rhodes, 1989-2003). Consequently, the review of every article that exists on the effects of study abroad is beyond the scope of this project. However, the researcher will attempt to highlight key studies that elucidate the many findings of the invest igations that have examined the impacts of study abroad.

PAGE 47

37 In general, studying abroad appears to ha ve positive effects (Armstrong, 1984; Baty & Dold, 1977; Carsello & Greaser, 1976; Fa rrell & Suvedi, 2003; Kuh & Kauffman, 1985; Martin, 1989; Nash, 1976; Todd, 2001); howeve r, there are also areas of concern for future students and administrators regard ing the influences of study abroad (Carsello & Greaser). Carsello and Greaser suggest that college students probably give minimal attention to the ways in which they cha nge during their time overseas, as well as how they will be different when they retu rn home. Studying abroad provides diverse experiences that may change a studentÂ’s interest s, personality, values, and attitudes. As a result of studying abroad, their views on lif e in general may change as well as their physical and mental health. A consequence of studying abroad may be that a studentÂ’s feelings on career and what he or she wants to do with their lives may adjust after being exposed to new ways of thinking. Additiona lly, a college studentÂ’s views on the visited countries as well as the U.S., and their family may change. Carsello and Greaser (1976) investig ated the positive and negative changes experienced during a study abroad trip. They surveyed 209 U.S. students in four Western European countries. The college students were asked to specif y whether they had observed changes in their attitudes, interests, or skills relating to personal or academic concerns. If the students reported a cha nge, they were asked to assess whether the change was considered to be positive or negative. The results showed there was a negative correlation between pos itive and negative changes. In other words, the more positive changes experienced by a student, the less negative ones were experienced. The topics in which the most positive changes occurred were those related to the novel experiences college students had in the foreign country and consisted of improved

PAGE 48

38 interest in art, travel, hist ory, foreign languages, meeting strangers, and architecture. Almost 64% of the respondents felt they had experienced a positive change in their selfconcept, 42% experienced an improvement in their social life, more than 37% discovered greater peace of mind, and 34% felt their em otional health improved. Additionally, 61% of the students experienced a greater interest in the Unite d States and 57% perceived a greater interest in their families. Most of the negative experiences were related to health and academic concerns. However, Carsello a nd Greaser suggested that this was probably a transitory situation, produced by the distrac tion of new places, sights, and experiences. It was also suggested that health deteriora tion was temporary, and may have been due to ignoring normal health practices, or to the change in water or diet. A recommendation was to better prepare the stude nts in these areas of concern. Living and studying abroad for an unlimite d length of time may encourage personal development because numerous elements of foreign culture create unique and compelling challenges (Kuh & Kauffman, 1985). Kuh and Kauffman designed a study to determine whether changes in selected aspects of pe rsonal development were associated with a study abroad experience. The authors utili zed two instruments to assess students, The Omnibus Personality Inventory (OPI) Form F and the Debriefing Interview Guide. The OPI was administered to 126 students who were preparing to study abroad during the fall semester 1981, as well as to 90 comparable st udents who were not studying abroad; this second group was used as a control group. Re sults indicated that study abroad students experienced increases in beliefs toward the we lfare of others, self-c onfidence, feelings of well being, and in reflective t hought. Significant increases in impulse expression and the capacity to actively imagine and attend to se nsual reactions were reported, as well as

PAGE 49

39 increased interest in esthetic matters and emotional sensit ivity. Decreased nervousness and tension, in addition to less anxiety were found in the results. Thirty-seven percent felt they became more self-reliant and better able to make decisions on their own, and all but one respondent reported being more at peace after studying abroad, as opposed to before. Thirty percent reported that the mo st significant aspect of personal development was enhanced intellectualism and toleran ce for ambiguity, while 22% of students reported that sensitivity to the needs of others was most significant. The changes recorded were still present one year after the study. The el ement of surviving different situations presented by a different culture a ppeared to be a strong means for promoting personal development in these college students. The results of this study imply that differences in three dimensions of behavi or performance were associated with study abroad: (1) increased interest in the welfare of others; (2) increased self confidence and sense of well being, and (3) in creased interest in reflect ive thought and in the arts, literature, and culture. The heightened accepta nce for uncertainty a nd interest in deep thought shared with better emotionality and se nsitivity, and an amplified interest in the esthetic suggest that study abroad may be an integral general edu cation element of the liberal arts curriculum. The outcomes of this study suggest that engagement in a different culture may challenge students to develop a more mature, multifaceted view of the world and themselves. Growth is the outcome of experiencing si gnificant connections with other people and cultures (Dukes et al., 1994). It has been demonstrated that students grow from study abroad experiences. An alternative to th e traditional study abro ad programs on land is the Semester at Sea program offered through the University of Pittsburgh. The Semester

PAGE 50

40 at Sea program provides 50 days of classes with 50 days of direct travel observation. The 2005 CEO of Semester at Sea refers to the international educati onal experience as one that “is a life-altering learning adventure” (Tymitz, n.d.). Duke s et al. recognized that the impacts of travel on the growth of meaning had yet to be investigated systematically; consequently, their study evaluated the degree to which the educational travel experience was a factor in the development of meani ng among the participants Originally, data were collected at the commencement, during the middle, and at the conclusion of the spring 1982 voyage. Students described thei r experiences, as we ll as completed the Purpose in Life (PIL) test (Dukes et al.). One year following the voyage, a random sample of 100 respondents was selected fr om the population of 390 participants for a longitudinal study of 10 years in length. Ei ghty respondents were c ontacted by telephone and through postal mail. The respondents finish ed a follow-up survey of life events since the voyage as well as the Purpose in Life te st. In 1986, a sub-sample of 40 cases was drawn, and 26 respondents were surveyed. Resu lts suggested that participants upheld a worldly perspective; in a ddition, personal growth perpet uated beyond the conclusion of the voyage. More or less all participants felt that the in ternational expe dition helped them to come closer to realizing their poten tial. Most frequentl y, it was reported that participants had a more meaningful understa nding of the world a nd its inhabitants. Respondents said they had experienced a gr eater level of confid ence and self-assured feelings. Additionally, they had learned to be more self-sufficient and make their own decisions. The voyage assisted participants in the ability to set their own goals. The authors concluded that the voya ge continued to have an e ffect on personal growth beyond the conclusion. The findings suggest that the meaning of a Semester at Sea or

PAGE 51

41 educational travel experience reaches beyond the conclusion of the voyage. Indeed, other types of international educational experiences produce changes in participants. It seems therefore that educational trav el makes a significant contribu tion to personal growth, and that program participants can pe rsistently make the most of th e experience long after it is over. However, it is important to explore th ese contributions systematically to determine the significant programmatic impacts. The fundamental characteristic of programs like Semester at Sea is that they bring together tr avel with study, and the core curriculum offers an interpretive basis for the travel e xperience. Practitioners and administrators alike should recognize that the international journey is a sp ringboard for the development of meaning as well as the increased pe rsonal growth in some participants. Colleges and universities should focus on developing the individual student, and encourage an identity founded on attributes in cluding flexibility, openness to experiences, creativity and individual accountability (Nash, 1976). Parents mention personal development most frequently as the principle goal of study abroad programs. The student that studies abroad should become more aut onomous, as they have lived self-reliantly for an extended period of time in a foreign la nd. The purpose of a study conducted by Nash was to evaluate the effects of a year of study abroad on self-realization of a group of junior-year students in Fran ce. Approximately 30 student s in the experimental group were compared with roughly 20 students in the control group. The study abroad participants reported most fre quently that an increased l earning of the French language was their main accomplishment. Multiple pers onal developments were mentioned almost as frequently; these included personal grow th, self-understanding, in creased tolerance, independence, greater openness, and a higher level of satisfac tion. In addition, the degree

PAGE 52

42 of autonomy increased for study abroad part icipants. Nash also found that selfperception improved and decreased alienati on for study abroad pa rticipants were reported. However, improved tolerance and fl exibility did not increase when compared to the control group. There was also no significa nt change in the par ticipantÂ’s feelings of purpose and life-direction when compared with the contro l group. Furthermore, the majority of the personality changes taken from the international experience did not continue after the return ho me. However, Nash suggests that the results of this exploratory study should only be taken as suggestive and gene ralizations should be made very cautiously. Study abroad practitioners should attemp t to provoke within the students, the ability to remain authentic to oneÂ’s own beliefs while at th e same time truly appreciating those values of other cultures (Steph enson, 1999). Stephenson designed a study to examine effects of the study abroad trip upon host families, professors, and studentsÂ’ personal values and cultural perceptions. For the purposes of this paper only the details regarding the students will be discussed. In 1998 during the first semester students were asked to complete a questionnaire immediatel y upon arrival and shortl y before departure of their stay in Santiago, Chile; this consis ted of a five-month durat ion. The aim of the questionnaire was to determine two main issues, the first being if the studentsÂ’ original expectations diverged from their actual e xperiences, and second, how the studentsÂ’ view of Chilean culture varied during their stay. The questionnaire asked students to indicate the difficulty or ease they were expecting (arrival) or what they had experienced (departure) in adjusting to or adapting to a multitude of value orientations and situation. The 40-item questionnaire cons isted of five themes, opinions /beliefs, life in Santiago,

PAGE 53

43 cultural differences, the host family e nvironment, and the classroom/university environment. The students anticipated language, academic environment, and making Chilean friends to be the gr eatest challenges. Stephenson found however, that the study abroad experience in general tended to be more stressful than reported upon arrival. Additionally, the number of items that were reported as being chal lenging increased from the first questionnaire. Three areas emerged as the most difficult for the students; these included social interactions, the academic environment, and cultural/beliefs/values differences. Stephenson also reported on the items that experienced the largest difference between the arrival questionnaire and the depa rture questionnaire. Stephenson found that keeping a clear concept of one’s personal be liefs, maintaining an open mind regarding the Chilean culture, and adjusting personal belief s resulting from the study abroad experience proved to be more challenging than originally anticipated. In an an swer to an open-ended question asking a students’ biggest challeng e to respecting Chilean values, numerous students explained how problem atical it was in answering the question. One said, “Chileans tend to be just as diverse, co mplicated, simple, loving, selfish, brilliant, ignorant, shy, loud, and fascinating as a ny other group of people” (p.16). Another respondent said, “Chileans are li ke everyone else in the world. They vary and I don’t see a lot of generalizations worth making” (p. 16). With these final statements the research comes full circle to the overarching them e of the study, the importance of acknowledging shared humanity. When considering that most of the study abroad literature suppor ts the notion that positive impacts are experienced as a result of studying abroad, it should be noted that for Americans, it is not the act of “studying ab road” that results in self-exploration and

PAGE 54

44 identity evaluation, but that trav el in and of itself is an expr ession of self-discovery. This act is what prompts inner reflection a nd appraisal (Dolby, 2004) Since the 1991-1992 academic year the number of U.S. students who have studied abroad has more than doubled (Gardner & Witherell, 2003). The tr end has continued as the numbers have increased or remained the same since fa ll 2003 (Institute of Inte rnational Education, 2003). In fact, some students place such an im portance on travel that it has driven many into debt (Carr, 2004). In a study of 662 undergraduate students from a British university, Carr found that the st udents who were all under th e age of 25 were likely to spend much of their money on travel. Carr repo rted that university students had a high propensity for travel as well as a passi onate yearning to participate in tourism experiences. In essence, the study describes the importance of travel for British students, and that regardless of financial means or the subsequent need to work after the trip, many students will find a way to travel. Evaluating the impacts of study abroad is not just an American phenomenon, quite the opposite. The European education system also emphasizes the importance of being citizens of the world (Osler, 1998). Osler s uggested that the experi ence of living abroad and observing another culture encouraged ma ny to evaluate how well they know their own culture. The American education system should consider the EuropeanÂ’s emphasis on international educa tion and view the benefits of th e experience to assist in the justification of program availability. Personal Development A primary goal in higher education is th e well-rounded develo pment of the whole person (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrit o, 1998). During the 1982-1983 school year, Koester (1986) studied applicants who purchased an International Student ID card (ISIC).

PAGE 55

45 Of the 5,900 students who provided responses, th e personal goal predominantly cited was that of adding a new dimension to their sc hooling. Various studies over the years have shown that studying abroad contributes to pe rsonal growth (Baty & Dold, 1977; Carsello & Greaser, 1976; Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Kuh & Kauffman, 1985; Nash, 1976; Todd, 2001). In Farrell and Suvedi’s study, one stude nt expressed what he learned during his study abroad program: “I learned the experi ence to be gained from cross-cultural experiences is invaluable in the developmen t of perspective, of self-fulfillment, and educational exposure” (p.175). A female student said: I plan on getting my doctorate so that I can teach college students. I want my teaching to reflect the experiential basis that I received from my experiences overseas. I have a wanderlust that led me into teaching so that others may experience the value of life outside their comfort level and beyond their own culture (p.181). A male student in the same study experienced impacts related to career and worldviews, he said: This program has given my career a focus I could not have possibly foreseen prior to my experience overseas. It has proved invaluable in my exposure to the possibilities in the changing wo rld, one policy at a time (p.181). Finally, a second male student summarized hi s experience best when he said: “it was easily the most powerful experience I’ve ever ha d. I learned that I could let myself go around people and be accepted for who I am” (Farrell & Suvedi, p.181). James (1976) reported that 52 students, who studied abro ad in 1972 to 1973, experienced increased self-confidence. They also reawakened th eir intellectual interest, enhanced their interpersonal relationships, and improved their perception of the strengths and weaknesses of American culture. Results of the studies outlined in this study suggest that studying abroad and experiencing pers onal development are closely linked.

PAGE 56

46 Gender According to Chickering and Reisser (1993) the purpose of the vectors is that they explain key avenues for journe ying in the direction of indi viduation, changes in attitude toward self, family, and other contributes to this journey. Furthe rmore, Chickering and Reisser suggest that there may be difference s in the rate of development between male and female students. Certainly, in the st udy abroad literature on student development gender differences have been found. In a study conducted by Baty and Dold (1977), numerous differences were found between males and females in relation to their feelings about their study abroad experience. The pur pose of their study was to investigate the effects of a cross-cultural pr ogram located in Mexico upon st udentsÂ’ attitudes. Students were asked to take the survey two to three days before the program began, and one week after it ended. The findings suggested that th e females were significa ntly more optimistic than the males on both the preand post-te st, although the difference between them was reduced by the time of the post-test. Twenty-t wo percent showed a decrease in optimism and an increase in tolerance. Sixteen percen t decreased in both optimism and tolerance. In most instances, females showed a greater in crease than males. The greatest decrease was associated with feelings of inadequacy; the greatest increases were associated with anger and anxiety. The females reported great er emotional problems at the time of the pre-test than did the males; however, at th e time of the post-test the females reported fewer emotional problems than the males. Th e differences in scores suggest that females and males were affected differently by the cross-cultural experience. The females changed in terms of greater stability, reflecting less depres sion regarding self and the environment. The males reported more depr ession and alienation regarding themselves and the environment. Generally speaking, it ap pears that the malesÂ’ experience was more

PAGE 57

47 distressful or upsetting than the femalesÂ’ experience. Ba ty and Dold (1977) suggested that young adult men and women may exhibit different learning styles and this may possibly explain their findings. For example, females may be more skilled in adapting to new situations in which they are required, fo r a time, to be dependent. For the males, such dependency could be more threatening. In support of this supposition, Hood and Jackson (1997b), when validating the Developing Competency Invent ory, found that male students tend to report greater selfconfidence scores than female students. Furthermore, when the Emotional Independence-Parents scale was correlated w ith gender it showed that males tended to feel more emotionally independent from th eir parents than did females (Hood & Jackson, 1997a). Indeed, Martin and Rohrlich ( 1991) found women had more pre-departure concerns than men before leaving for a st udy abroad program. On the other hand, some of the literature suggests that gender does not appear to influe nce the outcomes for students during study abroad (Far rell & Suvedi, 2003). For ex ample, the results of the previously mentioned Semester at Sea st udy revealed there to be no statistically significant differences among male and female students (Dukes et al., 1994). Similarly, Noy (2004) reported that varian ce in findings might be attributed to gender differences. Male backpackers desc ribed a more distinct connection between personal changes and their preference for taki ng part in risky activities. In contrast, female interviewees rejected the more masc uline themes of strenuous or risky activities as a catalyst for self-change; instead, fema les tended to describe their experiences holistically.

PAGE 58

48 Although there is a lack of consistency in terms of ge nder and development, much of the literature suggests that there are differences between ma les and females in terms of their development. What is cl ear is that gender differences with regards to study abroad experiences are inconclusive. Previous Overseas Experience Literature exists that implies previous travel experience has an impact on personal experiences as well as future travel decisions (Stephens on, 1999). The concept of the travel career ladder has been cited ofte n since Pearce proposed it in 1988 (Ryan, 1998). The travel career ladder (Pearce, 1988) is a concept based upon MaslowÂ’s hierarchy of needs (1970) and consumer experience m odeling (Ryan, 1998). The model postulates that individuals possess a career in their travel activities; this reflects onesÂ’ travel motives in a hierarchy (Pearce, 2003) as it offers an explanation for the impact of previous travel behavior (Loker-Murphy, 1996; Pearce, 1988; Ryan ). The initial form of the travel career ladder kept MaslowÂ’s principles that lower levels of the ladder must be satisfied prior to one advancing to hi gher levels on the ladder. P earce (2003) hypothesized that five distinct hierarchical leve ls which coincide with Maslow Â’s hierarchy of needs affect travel behavior. Pearce (1988) describes the tr avel career ladder as highlighting each of a touristÂ’s motives or patterns, as opposed to one specific reason for traveling. The five levels beginning with the lowest include: (1) physiological needs, (2) safety/security needs, (3) relationship needs, (4) self-e steem/development needs, and (5) fulfillment needs. As lower order needs become fulfilled a person may move towards fulfillment, the highest level. Pearce (1988) suggests that more experienced travelers concentrate more on the higher order needs identified by Maslow like relationships, self-esteem development, and personal fulfillment. P earce (1988) hypothesized that less experienced

PAGE 59

49 travelers may be more concerned with the lowe r order physiological need s, such as safety and relaxation. With up to date and conti nued modifications, the revised model places “less emphasis on the strict hierarchy of needs and more on changing patterns of motives” (Pearce, 2003, p.254). Therefore, the ex tent of previous tr avel experiences a student has prior to their study abroad tr ip may affect impacts felt by the student. In a case study conducted by Ryan (1998) t ourists from the United Kingdom were asked at the end of their holiday several ques tions relating to satisfa ction. He found that the two most experienced groups of tourists showed higher scores in self-actualization items than the less experienced ones. The trav el career ladder concept implies that more experienced tourists would value more highly the intellectual needs when compared with the other needs located lower on the hierar chy, and it might be argued that the less experienced might score higher on such “low er” needs through in experience; people ascend towards self actualization as lower needs become fulfilled (Ryan). The pinnacle of the travel ca reer ladder, the personal jo urney to self-actualization, may be applied to the Grand Tour, trampi ng, long-term budget traveler, backpacking and study abroad in that all of these young travel ers in their various time periods are at a crossroads in life and essentially looking for a higher sense of self-meaning. Pearce (1988) advances the notion th at holiday experiences enab le people to psychologically mature. The model puts forward a career goal in travel activities, and as tourists become more skilled they continue to seek fulfillment of higher needs. Duration of Program Being exposed to the unique challenges of studying abroad for an extended period of time may contribute to pe rsonal development (Inglis et al., 1998). Gardner and Witherell (2004) shows that American stude nts continue to study abroad in larger

PAGE 60

50 numbers but for shorter time periods. They reported that more than 50% of U.S. undergraduates and MasterÂ’s degree student s elect summer, January term, and other programs of eight weeks or less ; the longer-term programs conti nue to decline in terms of enrollment numbers. The vast majority of American students who studied abroad in 2002/03 (92%) did so for one semester or less. Only 7% study abroad for a full academic year, compared to 18% in 1985/86, with 9% studying overseas in ve ry short programs (eight weeks or less) usually held between se mesters. The growth in these short-term programs, often integrated in the home cam pus curriculum, allows more students who were previously unable to study abroad due to financial or curric ular constraints to participate in an international edu cation experience (Gardner & Witherell). The justification to include duration of travel program in the current study is that it has been suggested that the short-term study abroad experience is not enough time to form an accurate opinion of their host country or people (Osler, 1998). This finding suggests that the duration of the study abroad program may affect the impacts experienced by students. Additionally, w ith the rapid growth in study abroad enrollments, international educators are expr essing growing concerns regarding the lack of data for shorter-term programs. As more students choose shorter programs in winter and summer terms, instead of enrolling in semester and year-long programs, it is important to understand if there are differen tial developmental effects between shorter and longer study abroad experiences. For ex ample, a student who participates in a month-long program may not have the opportuni ties for intercultural learning or foreign language acquisition similar to that of a student enrolled in a semester program (Sideli, Berg, Rubin, & Sutton, n.d.).

PAGE 61

51 Summary In summary, educational experiences (Cohen, 1972), and a declaration of independence have all been linked to the mi gration of youth to tr avel (Brodsky-Porges, 1981). Lengthy overseas travel has also been seen as a passage to adulthood (Adler, 1985); with the travelers usually at a juncture in life, a nd many times a recent college graduate (Riley, 1988). Since the 1950Â’s researchers have made an effort to learn what personal and academic outcomes occur as a result of studyi ng, living, and adjusting to life in another country. International educat ors agree that due to the increasing number of students studying abroad there must be some personal impacts experienced, which in turn will impact American society in general (Lamet & Lamet, 1982). Thus, although numerous studies have shown that students experience positive change as a result of studying abroad, ma ny are descriptive, and lack a theoretical foundation. This study hoped to contribute to the body of literature by using a widely used student development theory (Chicker ing & Reisser, 1993) to describe the experiences by students in a systematic way. However, due to the lack of survey participants, an analysis of change in student development was not possible; descriptive information only is provided for the pr e-travel group and the post-travel group.

PAGE 62

52 CHAPTER 3 METHODS A pre-test post-test quasi-experimental de sign was originally adopted for this study. However, due to the small response rate, a nd the fact that so few participants who completed the questionnaire before the travel experience completed it after the travel experience, the design changed to a descriptiv e study both prior to travel and after travel. The researcher evaluated responses from the entire group before their travel experience and then responses from the entire group afte r their travel experience. Specifically, a questionnaire was administered before (A ppendix A) and after (Appendix B) students participated in a university sponsored st udy abroad program. Both closed-ended and open-ended questions were used. Participants were students registered at th e University of Florida and studied abroad during the fall 2005 semester. The dependent va riables were the perceptions of impacts experienced by the students (F arell & Suvedi, 2003), as well as responses to the Mines Jensen Interpersonal Relationship Inventory, which measures the development of mature interpersonal relationships, the fourth vector of Chickering and Re isserÂ’s (1993) student identity theory. The inde pendent variables were the duration of the study abroad program, gender, and previous overseas travel experience. Data Collection The University of Florida ranks 12th in the nation for doctoral/research institutions that send students abroad (Gardner & Witherel l, 2004). Contact with The University of FloridaÂ’s International Center (UFIC) was made in January 2005. The Coordinator for

PAGE 63

53 Study Abroad Services was the primary liais on with the UFIC for this study. During February 2005 the researcher met with the coordinator, explained the purpose of the study and permission was given to survey program participan ts during fall 2005. Prior to each studentÂ’s overseas departure, summer and fall program participants were required to attend one of two informati on sessions, each of which was held in April 2005. The researcher attended both of these information sessions. The purpose of attending the sessions was to introduce the study and to e xplain the purpose of the research to the study abroad students. Additi onally, instructions were given as to how the students would be contacted, how they woul d be able to access the on-line survey, and the researcherÂ’s contact information was provi ded in the event there were any questions or concerns. All communication from the researcher to the study abroad participants was through the Coordinator for Study Abroad Services; this ensu red the full anonymity and privacy of all program participants. Two ema ils were sent to students periodically prior to the fall semester beginning and two emails were sent following the conclusion of the semester. The first email (Appendix C) wa s sent approximately one week prior to departure. It was an invitation to part icipate in the study including a link to the instrument, as well as instru ctions for completing the ques tionnaire. The second email (Appendix D) was a follow-up to the first. The purpose of the second email was to thank those who had participated and to encour age those who had not participated; also included was a link to the instrument, as well as instructions for completing the questionnaire. The third email (Appendix E) wa s sent within one week after each student arrived back in the U.S. This email welcomed students home and was used as a reminder

PAGE 64

54 to complete the post-survey; also included was a link to the instrument, as well as instructions for completing the questionnaire. The fourth and final email (Appendix F) was a follow-up to the third, thanking those who had completed the post-travel group questionnaire, and a reminder to those who had not completed the post-survey; additionally, a link to the inst rument as well as instructions for completion was included. The survey was posted on the College of Hea lth and Human Performance server at the University of Florida. Due to the logistics of this study, non-random sampling procedures were utilized to obtain participants. Approximately 200 stude nts were registered to study abroad during the fall 2005 semester. Each study abroad stude nt was invited to par ticipate in the study during the pre-departure orientation as well as via email. The estimated time to complete the survey was five to ten minutes. The resear cher anticipated a par ticipation rate of at least 30%. The actual response rate for the group before traveling was 30% (N = 60), however only 56 surveys were completed fully re sulting in an actual pa rticipation rate of 28% (N = 56). The initial response rate fo r the group after traveli ng was 14.5% (N = 29). However, after blank surveys and duplicat e entries were elim inated the actual participation rate was reduced to 12% (N = 24). Because only eight respondents completed qu estionnaires before traveling and after traveling another difficulty emerged. The after travel questionnaire did not contain demographic items as it was thought that this information would be collected using the instrument administered befo re travel commenced. Thus, an attempt was made to recontact these students through the UFIC coordi nator. Six students responded providing their demographic and study abro ad program characteristics.

PAGE 65

55 Participants Before Travel Of the 56 students from the group before traveling who reported their gender the majority 83.6% (N = 46) were female, and 14.5% (N = 8) were male. The participants comprised 10.9% (N = 6) sophomores, 27.3% (N = 15) juniors, 38.2% (N = 21) seniors, and 21.8% (N = 12) were graduate students. They ranged in age from 18-41 with a mean age of 21.5 years; a more detailed demogra phic profile is presented in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. Respondent Profile for the Pre-travel Sample Characteristics Frequency Valid Percent1 Gender (N=54) Male 8 14.5 Female 46 83.6 Class Standing (N=54) Freshman 0 0.0 Sophomore 6 10.9 Junior 15 27.3 Senior 21 38.2 Graduate 12 21.8 Age (N=49) 18 1 2.0 19 9 18.4 20 12 24.5 21 11 22.4 22 4 8.2 23 5 10.2 24 2 4.1 25 1 2.0 26 3 6.1 41 1 2.0 1N values may vary due to missing data. Participants in this study were also asked to report their major or intended major. The majority, 13.8% (N = 8) reported language based majors such as English 6.9% (N = 4), Spanish 3.5% (N = 2), French 1.7% (N = 1), and Russian 1.7% (N = 1). The second

PAGE 66

56 most frequent response was International Business (10%, N = 6); a more detailed breakdown of reported majors is presented in Table 3-2. Furthermore, participants were asked if they spoke the nativ e language of their study abroad country. Of those that responded (N = 54), 46.3% (N = 25) reporte d speaking the native language, with the majority 53.7% (N = 29) not speaking the nati ve language of their study abroad country. Table 3-2. Major or Intended Ma jor prior to Studying Abroad Major Frequency Valid Percent1 Agriculture and Life Sciences Family, Youth and Community Sciences 1 1.7 Agricultural Extension Education 1 1.7 Environmental Science 1 1.7 Forestry 1 1.7 Nutrition 1 1.7 Business Administration Business 2 3.4 Decision and Information Sciences 1 1.7 Finance 1 1.7 International Business 6 10.3 Management 1 1.7 Marketing 3 5.2 Design, Construction and Planning Architecture 3 5.2 Landscape Architecture 2 3.4 English Education 1 1.7 Environmental Engineering 1 1.7 Theatre 1 1.7 Journalism and Communications Advertising 1 1.7 Journalism 1 1.7 Magazine Journalism 1 1.7 Photojournalism 2 3.4

PAGE 67

57 Table 3-2. Continued Major Frequency Valid Percent1 Law 1 1.7 Liberal Arts and Sciences Anthropology 1 1.7 Biology 1 1.7 Chemistry 1 1.7 Classical Civilizations 1 1.7 English 4 6.9 French 1 1.7 History 1 1.7 Linguistics 3 5.2 Political Sciences 3 5.2 Psychology 2 3.4 Public Relations 2 3.4 Russian 1 1.7 Spanish 2 3.4 WomenÂ’s Studies 1 1.7 Zoology 1 1.7 1Some reported more than one major N=131 representing number of responses. When asked to identify their first langua ge, the overwhelming majority 83.6% (N = 46) reported English, followed by Spanish 5.5% (N = 3), Chinese 3.6% (N = 2), and lastly Polish with 1.8% (N = 1). Participan ts were also asked if they spoke a second language, only 35.2% (N = 19) reported sp eaking a second language, with 64.8% (N = 35) of respondents not speaking a second la nguage. Of those that reported speaking a second language English (9.1%, N = 5) a nd Spanish (9.1%, N = 5) were equally represented among those that reported a singl e language. However, 3.6% (N = 2) of participants reported Spanish in addition to another language, thus making Spanish the most popular second language. Furthermore, pa rticipants were aske d if they spoke the native language of the country they were going to study in, th e responses were somewhat equal, the majority 53.7% (N = 29) reported no, and 46.3% (N = 25) reported yes.

PAGE 68

58 Participants were asked to provide details regarding their previous international travel experience. Of those that re sponded, 22.2% (N = 12) had never traveled internationally, 37% (N = 20) traveled internationally one to two times, 20.4% (N = 11) three to four times, and 20.4% (N = 11) five or more times. When asked to report the countries they had previously visited, destin ations ranged from Afri ca to Australia. A detailed profile of destinations visited is provided in Table 3-3. Table 3-3. Destinations Visite d prior to Studying Abroad Destination Frequency Valid Percent1 Africa Egypt 1 0.8 Ghana 1 0.8 Morocco 1 0.8 Americas Canada 12 9.2 Colombia 2 1.5 Costa Rica 3 2.3 Ecuador 1 0.8 Honduras 2 1.5 Mexico 7 5.3 Peru 1 0.8 Asia Cambodia 1 0.8 China 2 1.5 India 1 0.8 Japan 3 2.3 Russia 1 0.8 Singapore 1 0.8 South Korea 2 1.5 Thailand 1 08 Middle East Israel 2 1.5 Jordan 1 0.8

PAGE 69

59 Table 3-3. Continued Destination Frequency Valid Percent1 Caribbean Antigua 1 0.8 Bahamas 5 3.8 Cuba 1 0.8 Curacao 1 0.8 Jamaica 4 3.1 St. Maarten 1 0.8 Europe Austria 1 0.8 Denmark 1 0.8 England 12 9.2 France 18 13.7 Germany 7 5.3 Greece 2 1.5 Ireland 4 3.1 Italy 10 7.6 Netherlands 2 1.5 Poland 1 0.8 Scotland 1 0.8 Spain 8 6.1 Sweden 1 0.8 Switzerland 3 2.3 1Some reported more than one country N=131 representing number of responses. Furthermore, participants were asked wh ere they intended to travel while studying abroad with responses ranging from Malaysia to Spain. The most frequent response was Italy with 13.3% (N = 15), followed by Fran ce 12.4% (N = 14); E ngland was the third most reported country with 9.7% (N = 11). A more detailed descrip tion of destinations can be found in Table 3-4. Table 3-4. Countries to be Visited during Study Abroad Destination Frequency Valid Percent1 Africa Kenya 1 0.9 South Africa 1 0.9

PAGE 70

60 Table 3-4. Continued Destination Frequency Valid Percent1 Americas Argentina 1 0.9 Belize 3 2.7 Bolivia 1 0.9 Brazil 1 0.9 Chile 1 0.9 Costa Rica 2 1.8 Mexico 2 1.8 Nicaragua 1 0.9 Asia Cambodia 1 0.9 China 3 2.7 Hong Kong 1 0.9 India 1 0.9 Japan 1 0.9 Malaysia 1 0.9 Myanmar 1 0.9 Russia 1 0.9 Singapore 1 0.9 Thailand 1 0.9 Vietnam 1 0.9 South Pacific Australia 3 2.7 Fiji 2 1.8 New Zealand 2 1.8 Caribbean Bahamas 1 0.9 Europe Belgium 1 0.9 Czech Republic 1 0.9 England 11 9.7 France 14 12.4 Germany 4 3.5 Greece 2 1.8 Ireland 4 3.5 Italy 15 13.3 Netherlands 5 4.4

PAGE 71

61 Table 3-4. Continued Destination Frequency Valid Percent1 Portugal 2 1.8 Spain 9 8.0 Switzerland 6 5.3 Venezuela 1 0.9 Wales 1 0.9 1Some reported more than one country N=113 representing number of responses. Finally, participants were asked the durat ion of their study abroad program. Of those that responded (N = 52), the majority of the students 78.8% (N = 41) were planning to study abroad for three to five months, followed by one to three months 11.5% (N = 6), and the most infrequent response wa s one month or less 9.6% (N = 5). After Travel Of the 24 students from the post-travel group who reported their gender (N = 14) the majority 85.7% (N =12) were female, a nd 14.3% (N = 2) were male. Participants were also asked to provide details regarding their previous international travel experience. Of those that responded (N = 14), 21.4% (N = 3) had never traveled internationally, 42.9% had (N = 6) traveled internationally 1 to 2 times, and 35.7% (N = 5) 5 or more times; there were no responses for 3 to 4 times. Finally, participants were asked the duration of their study abroad program Of those that responded (N = 13), all of the students 100% (N = 13) studied abroad for three to five months. Instrument Michigan State University Study Abroad Inventory The questionnaires used in this study consiste d of three parts. The first part was an inventory developed by the study abroad office at the Michigan Stat e University (Farrell & Suvedi, 2003). The purpose of Michigan St ateÂ’s instrument was to understand how the

PAGE 72

62 Nepal study abroad experience that they had sponsored impacted its students and if the results supported the learning objectives of the program. In the present study, the researcher adapted this part of the instrume nt to future tense to assess the studentsÂ’ perceived benefits prior to th eir study abroad experience and it was used as part of the first instrument for the pre-travel group. A past tense version of the inventory was used for the second instrument for the post-travel group. The original Michigan State University instrument consisted of four open-ended questions and 26 close-ended que stions. For the purpose of this study, only the 26 closeended questions were utilized. The 26 ordina l-scaled questions measured the effects of a study abroad program on students in five areas: personal development, academics, professional development, global perspectiv e, and intellectual development. Each question is measured on a five point Likert-type scale ranging from one ( not at all ) to five ( very much ). CronbachÂ’s alpha was not repor ted in the original study for the questionnaire as a whole or for the individual domains. The personal development sub-scale contains nine items yielding possible scores between nine and 45. In the present study, stude nt scores for the pre-travel group ranged between 20 and 45, and for the post-tr avel group between 20 and 40. The academics subscale consists of two items yiel ding possible scores between two and 10. In the present study, student scores for the pre-travel group ranged between two and eight, and for the post-travel group between four and eight. The professional development sub-scale contains three items yielding possible scores between three and 15. In the present study, student scores for the pre-travel group ranged between three and 15, and for the posttravel group between five and 15. The global perspective sub-scale consists of nine

PAGE 73

63 items with a total possible sc ore ranging from nine to 45. In the present study, student scores for the pre-travel gr oup ranged between 16 and 45 and for the post-travel group between 28 and 44. The intellectual development sub-scale consists of three items with a total possible score ranging from three to 15. In the present study, student scores for the pre-travel group ranged between five and 15 an d for the post-travel group between three and 15. Mines-Jensen Interpersona l Relationships Inventory The second part of the instrument consis ted of the Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relationships Inventory. This scale was a component of a larger instrument collectively known as The Iowa Student Development Inve ntories and are based on the seven vectors of student development (Chickering, 1969). The Iowa Student Development Inventories were intended to quantify development on the first six dimensions of ChickeringÂ’s theory of student development. However, because only the fourth vector Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships was measured in this study, only the fourth instrument from the battery was used. The Mines-Jensen Interpersonal Relati onships Inventory measures social development. The Inventory was created to measure ChickeringÂ’s fourth vector (Hood & Mines, 1997), Developing Mature Interperso nal Relationships. The developmental phase of interpersonal relationships is comprise d of two areas: (1) im proved tolerance and respect for people of different values, background s, and lifestyles, and (2) a change in the quality of relationships with close family and friends, moving from dependence through independence toward an interdependence that allows for a greater level of personal freedom. The Mines-Jensen Interpersona l Relationships Inventory is a 42-item instrument and includes some reverse coded it ems. The inventory ev aluates interpersonal

PAGE 74

64 relationships in four areas: p eers, adults, friends, and significa nt others. The Inventory is multi-dimensional as it contains two scales th at measure two constructs: (1) the Tolerance sub-scale – measuring openness and acceptance of diversity, and (2) the Quality of Relationships sub-scale – meas uring the transition in rela tionships with friends from either extreme dependence or independence, to ward a state of interdependence. Each scale is measured on a four point Likert-type scale where students reply to a series of statements regarding interpersonal and so cial behavior and attitudes from 1 ( strongly agree ) to 4 ( strongly disagree ). The Tolerance sub-scale consists of 20 items with a total possible score from 20 to 80 with students typically sc oring in the 45 to 65 range. In the original study, student scores for the pre-test ranged between 36 a nd 69, and for the post-test between 47 and 69. Cronbach’s alpha for all the items on the Tolerance scale was originally = .76. A fourmonth test-retest stability coefficient was reported as = .66; longer-term test-retest reliability measures were = .44. The present study yielded a higher Cronbach’s alpha with = .81 for the pre-travel group, and = .68 for the post-travel group. The Quality of Relationships sub-scale contains 22 items yielding possible scores between 22 and 88 with most students scoring between 55 and 75. In the original study, student scores for the pre-test ranged between 37 and 80 and for the post-test between 57 and 80. Cronbach’s alpha for the Quality of Relationships sub-scale was originally = .87; the four-month test-retest stab ility coefficient was reported as = .68; longer-term test-retest reliability measures were = .72. The results from the present study yieleded a Cronbach’s alpha of = .84 for the pre-travel group, and = .62 for the post-travel group.

PAGE 75

65 The correlation between the two scales was originally .25, which suggested construct independence. Studies thus conducte d have indicated construct validity for the dimensions assessed by the inventory (B raverman, 1987; Hallowell, 1991; Long, 1995; Smith-Eggeman, 1993; Taub, 1993 and White & Hood, 1989). Unfortunately, for this study the sample size was not large enough to use factor analysis to establish the construct validity of the instrument. Demographics and Open-Ended Questions The third part of the questionnaire diffe red between the pre-travel group and posttravel group. For the pre-travel group, the third part of the instrument consisted of demographic questions, such as gender and ag e, as well as a series of seven open-ended questions, such as “why are you studying ab road,” “what are you looking forward to regarding your study abroad experience,” and “do you feel adequately prepared for your study abroad program?” These questions were incorporated primarily to gauge the mood of the student before traveling overseas. Th e third part of the que stionnaire on the posttravel group was comprised of seven openended questions. For example, “what was/were your best experience(s),” “what was the most challenging aspect of studying abroad,” “what did you learn a bout yourself,” “is there anyt hing else that you would like to share with me about your study abroad experi ence?” These were used in an effort to gain a better understanding of the effect the study abroad trip had on the students upon their return, and provide some more insi ght to supplement the quantitative data. Data Analysis The data were analyzed using SPSS (Statist ical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 11.0). Descriptive statistics were run for all the variables to generate frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations. These sta tistics were used to

PAGE 76

66 determine the demographics of the sample for the group prior to traveling and for the group after traveling abroad, check for coding er rors, and create a profile of the typical study abroad student at the University of Florida. Mean scores were used to sum the scores and provide a summary score to ease interpretation for all of the research ques tions, a visual analysis was performed on the group before traveling and the group after traveling to c onfirm there were no extreme responses (Hunter & Brown, 1991). For the fi rst research question, part a, the mean scores were used to describe the studen tsÂ’ perceptions before their study abroad experience. For the first resear ch question, part b, the mean sc ores were used to describe the studentsÂ’ percepti ons after their study abroad experi ence. For the second research question, part a, the mean scores were used to describe the stude ntsÂ’ overall level of development before studying abroad. For th e second research question, part b, the mean scores were used to describe the students Â’ overall level of deve lopment after studying abroad. For the third research question, part a, the mean sc ores were used to describe differences by gender in terms of level of development before their study abroad experience. For the third research question, part b, the mean scores were used to describe differences by gender in terms of level of development after their study abroad experience. For the fourth research questi on, part a, the mean scores were used to describe differences by previous overseas e xperience and level of development before studying abroad. For the fourth research questio n, part b, the mean scores were used to describe differences by previous overseas experience and level of development after studying abroad. For the fifth research questi on, part a, the mean scores were used to describe differences by duration of study ab road program and level of development

PAGE 77

67 before studying abroad. For the fifth research question, part b, the mean scores were used to describe differences by duration of st udy abroad program and level of development after studying abroad. Cont ent analyses were used to group open-ended comments according to similarity in response, and were used to supplement the findings for the pretravel group and the post-travel group.

PAGE 78

68 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Perceptions of the Study Abroad Experience 1a. What perceptions do the students report before their study abroad experience as measured by the Michigan State University questionnaire? 1b. What perceptions do the students repor t after their study ab road experience as measured by the Michigan State University questionnaire? Pre-travel Group In the pre-travel group almost half (48 %) of the individual questions regarding perceived benefits show high mean scores of 4.0 and above (Table 4-1). Students reported the highest levels of agreement with the statement that, studying abroad “will contribute to my overall unders tanding of the country I will study in” (M = 4.65, SD = .67) (Appendix G). The second most agreed upon statement was, studying abroad “will contribute to my understanding of other cu ltures” (M = 4.60, SD = .74). Finally, respondents agreed that studying abroad “will in crease my ability to c ope with unfamiliar situations” (M = 4.44, SD = .90). The statemen t that students agreed with least was, studying abroad “will distract me from my academic performance.” (M = 1.87, SD = 1.76). The second least agreed upon statem ent was, studying abroad “will make me reconsider my career plans” (M = 2.85, SD = 2.09). Finally, responde nts tended to report moderate agreement with the statement that, studying abroad “will lead to an improvement of my academic performance” (M = 3.22, SD = 1.18).

PAGE 79

69 Table 4-1. Student Perceptions of Study Abroad before and after the Travel Experience Pre-Study Abroad Post-Study Abroad Study abroadÂ… N Mean1 SD N Mean SD Global Perspective2 Contributed to my overall understanding of the country I studied in. 55 4.65 .67 25 4.76 .44 Increased my desire to work and/or study abroad in the future. 55 4.05 1.04 25 4.12 .97 Contributed to my understanding of other cultures. 55 4.60 .74 24 4.50 .72 Increased my curiosity about other cultures. 54 4.00 1.94 25 4.24 .88 Enhanced concern about problems with developing countries. 55 3.60 1.03 25 3.52 1.09 Enhanced my understanding of international issues. 55 4.07 .98 25 3.88 1.05 Increased my appreciation of human difference. 55 4.22 .85 25 3.84 1.03 Contributed and/or created a new understanding of critical social issues. 55 3.85 1.03 25 3.84 .99 Increased my level of comfort around people different from me. 55 4.09 1.06 25 4.12 .88 Personal Development Enhanced my self-reliance. 55 4.24 .94 25 4.48 .77 Increased my ability to cope with unfamiliar situations. 55 4.44 .90 25 4.48 .65

PAGE 80

70 Table 4-1. Continued Pre-Study Abroad Post-Study Abroad Study abroadÂ… N Mean1 SD N Mean SD Increased my openmindedness. 55 4.35 .78 25 4.52 .71 Enhanced my independence. 55 4.40 .81 25 4.56 .77 Increased my understanding of my own culture. 55 3.80 .99 25 3.96 .94 Enhanced my desire to interact with a stranger. 55 3.60 .97 25 3.64 1.11 Increased my feeling of personal effectiveness. 55 3.69 1.00 25 4.08 .95 Encouraged me to seek out a more diverse group of friends. 55 3.49 1.09 25 3.84 1.14 Helped develop my leadership skills. 55 3.44 1.05 25 3.36 1.08 Intellectual Development Increased my skills to communicate in the language of the host culture. 55 4.00 1.37 25 4.00 1.32 Enhanced my critical thinking skills. 55 3.60 1.07 25 3.60 1.16 Improved my problem-solving skills. 54 3.33 1.94 24 3.63 1.14 Professional Development Will favorably impress potential employers. 54 3.98 2.00 25 4.36 .81 Made me reconsider my career plans. 55 2.85 2.09 25 3.36 1.32 Helped me find professional direction. 54 3.29 2.08 25 2.96 1.43

PAGE 81

71 Table 4-1. Continued Pre-Study Abroad Post-Study Abroad Study abroad… N Mean1 SD N Mean SD Academics Led to an improvement of my academic performance. 55 3.22 1.18 25 3.00 1.08 Distracted me from my academic performance. 54 1.87 1.76 25 2.40 1.19 1Mean was based on a 1-5 scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = very little, 3 = some, 4 = quite a lot, and 5 = very much. 2The italicized phrases describe the dimension being measured. Post-travel Group In the post-travel group almost half (48 %) of the individual questions regarding impacts illustrate high mean scores of 4.0 a nd above (Table 4-1). The statement that students agreed with the most strongly was that studying abroad “contributed to my overall understanding of the country I studi ed in” (M = 4.76, SD = .44) (Appendix H). The second most agreed upon statement, was, studying abroad “enhanced my independence” (M = 4.56, SD = .77). Finall y, respondents agreed that studying abroad “increased my open-mindedness” (M = 4.52, SD = .71). The statement that they agreed with the least was that studying abroad “dis tracted me from my academic performance.” (M = 2.40, SD = 1.19). The second least ag reed upon statement was studying abroad “helped me find professional direction” (M = 2.96, SD = 1.43). Students moderately agreed with the statement that, studying abro ad “led to an improvement of my academic performance” (M = 3.00, SD = 1.08).

PAGE 82

72 Student Development and Study Abroad 2a. What level of development according to Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) fourth vector of development have the students ach ieved before their study abroad experience? i. What level of development according to the Tolerance scale have the students achieved before thei r study abroad experience? ii. What level of development according to the Quality of Relationships scale have the students achieved before their study abroad experience? 2b. What level of development according to Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) fourth vector of development have the students achieved after their st udy abroad experience? i. What level of development according to the Tolerance scale have the students achieved after thei r study abroad experience? ii. What level of development according to the Quality of Relationships scale have the students achieved afte r their study abroad experience? Pre-travel Group: Tolerance Sub-scale The responses to the pre-trav el group statements on the Tolerance sub-scale, which measures improved tolerance and respect for people with different values, backgrounds, and lifestyles, ranged between (agreemen t) 2.00 and 3.33 (toward disagreement) on a four point Likert-type scale, where one repr esents strongly agree and four represents strongly disagree (Table 4-2). The statement (item reverse coded) which participants agreed with the most was, “I do not get irritated when parents cannot accept their children’s friends or values” (M = 2.00, SD = .84) (Appendix I). Th e second most agreed upon statement was, “my roommate has some habits that annoy and bother me very much” (M = 2.04, SD = .88). Finally, respondent s agreed, “students that get ‘high’ and are caught should be treated like the la wbreakers they are” (M = 2.46, SD = 1.00). The statement that was agreed upon least wa s, “I would discontinue my friendship with a person(s) I am close to if I found out my friend(s) was ho mosexual or bisexual” (M = 3.33, SD = 1.11). Following this, the participants disagreed equally with the

PAGE 83

73 statements: Students who live together before they are married definitely should be made to realize what they are doi ng is wrong” (M = 3.22, SD = .99); the other statement (item reverse coded) was, “it would not matter to me if someone I was going to marry had sexual relations with another person before I met them” (M = 3.22, SD = 1.05); and the final item (item reverse coded) was, “I think the person I am dating or ‘going with’ should have friends outside of ‘our crowd’” (M = 3.22, SD = .98). Table 4-2. Responses for the Tolerance Sub-sc ale before and after the Travel Experience Statement N Mean1 SD N Mean SD I accept my friends as they are. 2 55 3.18 .88 24 3.58 .58 In my classes, I have met two kinds of people: those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. 55 2.91 .82 24 3.17 .87 As I have talked with faculty and adults about their different philosophies, there is probably only one which is correct. 55 3.13 1.00 24 3.46 .83 It would not matter to me if someone I was going to marry had sexual relations with another person before I met them. 2 55 3.22 1.05 24 3.13 .99 When I talk to my friends about my religious beliefs, I am very careful not to compromise with those who believe differently than I do. 55 2.51 8.79 24 2.46 .88

PAGE 84

74 Table 4-2. Continued Statement N Mean1 SD N Mean SD My roommate has some habits that bother and annoy me very much. 53 2.04 .88 24 2.25 .61 Most adults need to change their values and attitudes. 55 2.60 6.83 23 2.74 .55 Students who live together before they are married definitely should be made to realize what they are doing is wrong. 55 3.22 .99 24 3.38 .65 I would discontinue my friendship with a person(s) I am close to if I found out my friend(s) was homosexual or bisexual. 55 3.33 1.11 24 3.67 .70 One of the problems with my fellow students is they were not dealt with firmly when they were younger. 55 2.64 .80 24 2.92 .78 I do not disapprove of faculty or other adults getting drunk or high at parties. 2 55 2.67 8.62 24 2.29 .75 I would not discontinue a love relationship if my partner did something I disapproved of. 2 54 2.57 .77 24 2.63 .65 Most instructors teach as if there is just one right way to obtain a solution to a problem. 55 2.71 .85 24 3.00 .51 I personally find it sickening to be around my friends when they do not act in a mature manner. 55 2.87 .86 24 3.08 .78

PAGE 85

75 Table 4-2. Continued Statement N Mean1 SD N Mean SD Freedom of speech can be carried too far in terms of the ideal because some students and their organizations should have their freedom of speech restricted. 54 3.13 .97 24 3.25 .61 I’m glad to see most of my friends are not dressing like “bums” anymore. 54 2.74 .92 23 2.57 .84 I do not get irritated when parents cannot accept their children’s friends or values. 2 54 2.00 .84 24 1.79 .72 I only date people who are of the same religious background as me. 53 2.87 1.09 24 2.71 1.12 I think the person I am dating or “going with” should have friends outside of “our crowd.” 2 54 3.22 .98 24 3.50 .59 I think students that get “high” and are caught should be treated like the lawbreakers they are. 54 2.46 1.00 24 2.83 .96 1Mean was based on a 1-4 scale where 1 = strong ly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree. 2Item was reverse coded Post-travel Group: Tolerance Sub-scale The post-travel group mean scores for statements on the Tolerance sub-scale ranged between (agreement) 1.79 and 3.67 (towar d disagreement) on a four point Likerttype scale, where one represents strongly ag ree and four represents strongly disagree (Table 4-2). The statement (item reverse code d) that participants agreed with the most

PAGE 86

76 was, “I do not get irritated when parents ca nnot accept their children’s friends or values” (M = 1.79, SD = .72) (Appendix J). The sec ond most agreed upon statement was, “my roommate has some habits th at bother and annoy me very much” (M = 2.25, SD = .61). Finally, respondents agreed (item reverse coded) “I do not disapprove of faculty or other adults getting drunk or high at parties” (M = 2.29, SD = .75). The statement that was agreed upon least was, “I would discontinue my friendship with a person(s) I am close to if I found out my friend(s) was homosexua l or bisexual” (M = 3.67, SD = .70). The second most disagreed upon statement (item reve rse coded) was, “I accept my friends as they are” (M = 3.58, SD = .58). Finally, respond ents disagreed (item reverse coded) that “I think the person I am dating or ‘going w ith’ should have friends outside of ‘our crowd’” (M = 3.50, SD = .59). Pre-travel Group: Quality of Relationships Sub-scale The pre-travel group mean scores for the st atements on the Quality of Relationships sub-scale which measures a change in the qual ity of relationships with close family and friends, moving from dependence through indepe ndence toward an interdependence that allows for a greater level of personal fr eedom ranged between (agreement) 2.38 and 3.46 (toward disagreement) on a four point Likert -type scale, where one represents strongly agree and four represents str ongly disagree (Table 4-3). Th e statement that participants agreed with the most was, “I get nervous wh en an instructor cri ticizes my work” (M = 2.38, SD = .71) (Appendix K). The second most agreed upon statement was, “I would feel uncomfortable criticizi ng, to their face, someone I ha d dated a long time” (M = 2.62, SD = .95). The third most agreed upon st atement (item reverse coded) was, “my relationships with members of the opposite sex have allowed me to explore some behaviors that I had not felt comfortable with before” (M = 2.64, SD = .81). The

PAGE 87

77 statement (item reverse coded) that partic ipants disagreed with the least was, “my roommate(s) and I feel free to come and go as we please” (M = 3.46, SD = 1.04). The second most disagreed upon statement (item reve rse coded) was, “I can just be with my friends without having to be doing anything in particular” (M = 3.43, SD = .94). Finally, respondents disagreed that “I do not view myself as an i ndependent, outgoing person with my friends” (M = 3.39, SD = .88). Table 4-3. Responses to the Quality of Relationships Sub-scale before and after the Travel Experience Statement N Mean1 SD N Mean SD I would feel uncomfortable criticizing, to their face, someone I had dated a long time. 0.0 2.62 .95 24 2.88 .95 The instructors here do not treat the students like they are adults. 55 3.09 .82 24 3.33 .96 I relate to most students as an equal. 2 55 2.85 .91 24 3.21 .66 I can enjoy myself without needing to have someone with me. 2 55 3.31 .90 24 3.54 .72 I have to go out on a day every weekend. 55 2.73 1.11 24 2.65 1.03 I get nervous when an instructor criticizes my work. 55 2.38 .71 24 2.54 1.00 Sometimes I feel I have to make unnecessary apologies for my appearance or conduct to the person(s) I live with. 54 3.09 .96 24 3.29 .75

PAGE 88

78 Table 4-3. Continued Statement N Mean1 SD N Mean SD I can tell my friends just about anything that is on my mind and know they will accept me. 2 55 3.05 .99 24 3.25 .90 My social life is satisfying to me. 2 55 3.07 .77 24 3.38 .71 I relate with my parents on an adult-to-adult basis. 2 55 2.85 .89 24 3.13 .90 My relationship with my roommate(s) is stagnating my own growth and potential. 54 3.06 .98 24 3.21 .88 I feel comfortable about telling a friend of the same sex “I love you,” without worrying they might get the wrong idea. 2 54 3.13 1.16 24 3.21 1.22 My relationships with members of the opposite sex have allowed me to explore some behaviors that I had not felt comfortable with before. 2 53 2.64 .81 23 2.83 .89 My parents do not try to run my life. 2 55 2.98 .97 24 3.25 .94 My friends view me as an independent, outgoing person in my relationship with them. 2 54 3.19 .97 24 3.54 .59 I always hold back when I am at a party which consists of a diverse group of people. 54 2.94 .86 24 3.25 .74 I encourage friends to drop in informally. 2 54 3.04 .99 24 3.38 8.24

PAGE 89

79 Table 4-3. Continued Statement N Mean1 SD N Mean SD My roommate(s) and I feel free to come and go as we please. 2 54 3.46 1.04 24 3.79 .42 I have gotten to know some instructors as people—not just as faculty members. 2 54 2.96 .95 24 2.83 .87 I worry about not dating enough. 52 2.87 .95 24 2.79 1.02 I can just be with my friends without having to be doing anything in particular. 2 54 3.43 .94 24 3.67 .48 I do not view myself as an independent, outgoing person with my friends. 54 3.39 .88 24 3.67 .57 1Mean was based on a 1-4 scale where 1 = strong ly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree. 2Item was reverse coded Post-travel Group: Quality of Relationships Sub-scale The post-travel group mean scores for the statements on the Quality of Relationships sub-scale ranged betw een (agreement) 2.54 and 3.79 (toward disagreement) on a four point Likert-type scale, where one represents strongly agree and four represents strongly disagree (Table 4-3). The statement th at participants agreed with the most was, “I get nervous when an inst ructor criticizes my work” (M = 2.54, SD = 1.00) (Appendix L). The second most agreed up on statement was, “I have to go out on a day every weekend” (M = 2.65, SD = 1.03). Fi nally, respondents also agreed with the statement (item reverse coded) “I worry a bout not dating enough” (M = 2.79, SD = 1.02). The statement (item reverse coded) that wa s agreed upon least was, “my roommate(s) and

PAGE 90

80 I feel free to come and go as we please” (M = 3.79, SD = .42). The next most disagreed upon statements were equal (the first item was reverse coded), “I can just be with my friends without having to be doing anything in particular” (M = 3.67, SD = .48); the next statement was, “I do not view myself as an independent, outgoing person with my friends” (M = 3.67, SD = .57). Gender and Student Development 3a. Do males and females differ in their development according to Chickering and Reisser’s fourth vector before their study abroad experience? i. Do males and females differ in their development according to the Tolerance scale before thei r study abroad experience? ii. Do males and females differ in their development according to the Quality of Relationships scale before their study abroad experience? 3b. Do males and females differ in their development according to Chickering and Reisser’s fourth vector after their study abroad experience? i. Do males and females differ in their development according to the Tolerance scale after thei r study abroad experience? ii. Do males and females differ in their development according to the Quality of Relationships scale after th eir study abroad experience? Tolerance Sub-scale For the pre-travel group, the mean for the females was 56.33 (SD = 7.92) and for the males the mean was 55.88 (SD = 12.64). For the post-travel group the mean for the males was 65.50 (SD = 0.71) and for the females was 58.18 (SD = 5.60). Quality of Relationships Sub-scale When considering the Quality of Relations hips sub-scale for the pre-travel group, the mean for the females was 67.28 (SD = 8.89) and the mean for the males was 63.88 (SD = 13.42). The mean for the males was 75.00 (SD = 1.41) and the mean for the females was 72.00 (SD = 6.25).

PAGE 91

81 Previous Overseas Experience and Student Development 4a. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those with no previous overseas expe rience, regarding Chickering a nd ReisserÂ’s fourth vector prior to their study abroad experience? i. Is there a difference between students w ho have traveled abroad previously and those with no previous oversea s experience, and their level of development as measured by the Tolera nce scale prior to their study abroad experience? ii. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those with no previous oversea s experience, and their level of development as measured by the Qualit y of Relationships scale prior to their study abroad experience? 4b. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those with no previous overseas expe rience, regarding Chickering a nd ReisserÂ’s fourth vector after their study abroad experience? i. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those with no previous oversea s experience, and their level of development as measured by the Tole rance scale after their study abroad experience? ii. Is there a difference between students who have traveled abroad previously and those with no previous oversea s experience, and their level of development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale after their study abroad experience? Tolerance Sub-scale For the pre-travel group, the mean for th e students with no previous overseas experience was 56.75 (SD = 8.36) and the mean for those with previous overseas experience was 56.10 (SD = 8.76). For the posttravel group, the mean for the students with no previous overseas e xperience was 64.00 (SD = 3.46) and the mean for those with previous overseas experience was 55.67 (SD = 3.88). Quality of Relationships Sub-scale For the pre-travel group, the mean for th e students with no previous overseas experience was 67.50 (SD = 11.30) and the mean for those with previous overseas

PAGE 92

82 experience was 66.44 (SD = 9.27). For the posttravel group, the mean for the students with no previous overseas e xperience was 76.00 (SD = 3.46) and the mean for those with previous overseas experience was 71.66 (SD = 5.43). Duration of Program and Student Development 5a. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program, regarding Chickering and ReisserÂ’s fourth vector prior to their study abroad experience? i. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program regarding level of development as measured by th e Tolerance scale prior to their study abroad experience? ii. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program regarding level of development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale prior to their study abroad experience? 5b. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program, regarding Chickering and ReisserÂ’s fourth vector afte r their study abroad experience? i. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program, and the level of development measured by th e Tolerance scale after their study abroad experience? ii. Is there a difference between duration of study abroad program regarding level of development as measured by the Quality of Relationships scale after their study abroad experience? Tolerance Sub-scale For the pre-travel group the mean for t hose whose program was one month or less was 56.20 (SD = 4.55), for those whose program was one to three months the mean was 59.00 (SD = 4.69);, and the mean for those whos e program was three to five months in length was 56.07 (SD = 9.35). Of all the respon dents that reported the duration of their program in the post-travel group a ll of them reported their progr am as lasting three to five months; the mean score was 59.83 (SD = 5.73).

PAGE 93

83 Quality of Relationships Sub-scale With regards to the Quality of Relationshi ps sub-scale for the pre-travel group, the mean for those whose program was one m onth or less was 67.20 (SD = 6.69), for those whose program was one to three months the mean was 69.20 (SD = 1.79), and for those whose programs were three to five months in length, the mean was 66.38 (SD = 10.78). Of all the respondents that repo rted the duration of their pr ogram in the post-travel group all of them reported their program as lasti ng three to five months; the mean score was 73.17 (SD = 5.48). Open-ended Questions Study abroad participants were asked a vari ety of open-ended questions both before their travel experience and afte r their travel experience. This information was collected to provide a greater understa nding of their expectations and experiences of studying abroad. Pre-travel Group When participants were asked, “why are you studying abroad?” the majority of students responded with language acquisition sk ills, self-exploration and for the cultural experience in general. A 22 year-old fema le who had never traveled internationally before wrote “to increase my hi storical consciousness, to see what it is like to be in a totally foreign place, not knowing a soul, to learn about myself and others through this once in a lifetime opportunity.” Another fe male student who was 21, but had traveled overseas previously at least five times stated her reason for studying abroad was “to gain a second language, challenge myself, meet new people, become more worldly, become inspired, something for my resume.” A nother student who did not provide any demographic information said, “to learn Span ish and broaden my hor izons.” Likewise a

PAGE 94

84 20 year-old female student whose program wa s three to five months and had traveled overseas three to four times wrote, “to ma ster the language and learn more about the culture.” Students were also asked to provide insights as to what they were looking forward to regarding their study abroad experience. The majority of students responded with responses pertaining to experi encing a different culture, m eeting new people, and selfexploration. A 20 year-old female who had never traveled overs eas remarked “meeting new people, seeing new things, learning about the world and more about myself.” A 23 year-old female who had previously traveled overseas one to two times explained, “being totally independent of family, meeting new/different people, experiencing new adventures.” A 22 year-old female who ha d never traveled overseas previously and whose program was three to five months wr ote “I am looking forward to meeting openminded, liberal people who are just intere sted in living, seein g, and experiencing a different culture, and hope to learn to be a bit more ballsy and not as self-conscious.” Another 20 year-old female who had previously traveled overs eas three to four times and whose program was three to five months wrote “meeting new people and discovering a culture very different from anything I’ve experienced.” A 22 year-old female who had previously traveled overseas one to two times and whose program was three to five months wrote “just going to al l these different places. I ha ve dreamed about this since I was a little kid...an African safari, scuba di ving with great whites, paragliding, etc.” When participants were asked “do you feel adequately prepared for your study abroad program?” the majority 52% (N = 26) said yes. A 19 year-old male who had previously never traveled overseas and whos e program was three to five months wrote

PAGE 95

85 “yes, it doesn’t take much, I feel you just need an open mind and a willingness to learn something new and have fun.” A female student who was 20 years old and had previously traveled overseas one to two times explained: Yes, I’ve traveled before and know how to pack light, but to include the things I’ll need most. I’ve had friends who have gone through the same program and have given me advice about what to pack, wher e to travel, how to travel, and some interesting sites to visit. A 26 year-old male who had previously travel ed overseas three to four times and whose program lasted three to five months explaine d “yes, I feel comfortable in new places and value the opportunity to learn about those places first hand.” In contrast, almost one third (N = 15) felt they were not prepared. Another 20 yearold female student who had previously travel ed overseas one to two times stated “not really but I will try and brush up on my Span ish and learn how to be away from my boyfriend.” Likewise, a 19 year-old female who had no previous overseas experience and whose program lasted three to five m onths exclaimed, “no, I feel as though I could have been much more informed about the progr am that I was entering before I chose it.” Finally, 18% (N = 9) had mixed emotions. A 20 year-old female who had never traveled overseas before mentioned: No and Yes, I am a very open-minded person, but on the other hand I don’t know how I will be treated and accepted there. Pl us I think that it is going to be hard trying to learn the language. Because for the first time in my life I will be a foreigner. A 20 year-old female who had previously trav eled overseas three to four times and whose program was three to five mont hs wrote “I am insecure about my speaking abilities, but I am mentally prepared for the trip.” Simila rly, a 22 year-old female who had no previous overseas experience and whose program lasted th ree to five months wr ote “kind of. I feel like I know what to pack, where to go, but I don’t really know what I’m in for.”

PAGE 96

86 When asked, “what are you not looking forw ard to/and or feel nervous about?” the majority of students were nervous about be ing far from home, terrorism, and language barriers. A female participant who wa s 20 years old and had never traveled internationally before commented “I’m just f eeling nervous about being so far from home away from my family and the fact that te rrorists are bombing countri es.” Likewise, a 26 year-old female student who had previously tr aveled internationally three to four times explained “I am a little worried about the acts of terrorism that have been committed in Madrid and London. I just hope that nothing happens while I am studying abroad.” Another female student who was 20 and had traveled abroad th ree to four times mentioned “my first week when I know I w ill have a pseudo nervous breakdown while I adjust to things, also the fact that I can’t even read the language is somewhat frightening.” A 22 year-old female who had never traveled overseas and whose program lasted three to five months wrote “I’m ner vous to speak Spanish in front of natives and about learning my way around the c ity, I’m bad with directions, but I want to be able to be self-sufficient while I am there.” A 41 year-old female who had never traveled overseas and whose program was three to five months stated “It’s a lot of work, not enough down time, having to leave home for an extended period, financial concerns.” Post-travel Group When asked “what was/were your best e xperience(s)?” the overwhelming response related to cultural immersion in general. Another student who did not provide any demographic information observed: Being able to live in a kibbutz and mee ting people around my age in the program I did. Having the liberty to do what I want ed when I wanted without having to answer to anyone or worry about my parents. Waking up everyday in my superficial “bubble” life and knowing th ere was an amazing beach a walking distance away, dogs running around freely, and be ing able to pick fruit off of trees

PAGE 97

87 when I was hungry. Also being in Israel I got to travel aroun d the area and see amazing places like Sinai, Jordan and Greece. A female student who had traveled interna tionally one to two times before her study abroad trip, and whose program lasted thr ee to five months commented “I had the incredible opportunity of meeting my distant relatives in the North of Spain. I visited them on several occasions and we have formed a life long bond. It is an amazing experience learning about your history and background.” Another female student who had traveled overseas one to two times and whose program was three to five months stated “simply walking around, soaking in the people, sights, sounds, and cultural differences.” While another student who did not provided demographic information wrote “living in a completely different cultur e and adapting to a new way of life.” A male student who had previously traveled overseas five or more times and whose program was three to five months cited “hiking through Fiord land with a group of people I had just met.” Students were also asked “what was/were your worst experience(s)?” with the majority relating to cultural differences a nd being accepted. A female student who had previously traveled overseas one to two times and whose pr ogram lasted three to five months cited: My worst experience has been dealing with drastic changes in my life while being so far away from home. Having to let go of a very important relationship and not having the support of my family and friends from home. Another student felt, “the program was too st ructured, I felt that I was compromising my personal interests for the program I felt the program did not expect me to ‘find my own way’ or act independently in the foreign cult ure.” Another student voiced more concerns about the threat of terrorism as being a downs ide of the experience. He or she wrote:

PAGE 98

88 The knowledge that there were active terrorists that coul d strike anywhere. It did not keep me from living my life there, but the thought of something happening was always on the back of my mind anywhere I went. Also on a lesser note most things in Israel are closed Saturday. A female student who had not previously traveled internationally and whose program lasted three to five months pointed ou t “the differences and inefficiencies of the culture” while another student complained “b eing treated like a stupid American when we knew what we were doing.” When participants were asked, “what was the most challenging aspect of studying abroad?” communication and adjustment issues were most frequently cited. A female student who had traveled inte rnationally one to two times before her study abroad trip, and whose program lasted three to five m onths commented “learni ng the language (which I didn’t know at all before) well enough to be confident in getting around and asking questions.” Another student explained “havi ng to deal with communicating in a different language and getting to know people and unde rstand them through the language barrier. Also not having a car and being able to driv e was a slight annoyance.” A female student who had previously traveled overseas one to two times and whose progr am lasted three to five months remarked: The most challenging aspect is getting to know people from your host country. It is incredible how easy it is to find people of your native tongue no matter where you are. If you are interested in learning a different language it can be very difficult when you are surrounded by people from your own country the majority of the time. In contrast, another student would have liked to be surrounded by people from home as he/she was most challenged by “missi ng home, family, friends, and my old lifestyle...missing things that my friends do th at I used to be there for.” Likewise, a female student who had traveled overseas previously one to two times, and whose

PAGE 99

89 program lasted three to five months wrote th at “interacting with ot hers from different countries (difficulties communicating)” was the most challenging aspect of the program. Students were asked to explain, “what wa ys do you feel the program impacted your life?” The responses overwhelmingly supporte d the personal changes experienced as a result of studying abroad. A male student who had previously trav eled internationally five or more times and whose program last ed three to five months remarked “this experience has made me understand myself bette r. I am more patient, open-minded. I also feel like I can deal with anything that I come in contact with that will challenge me mentally or emotionally.” A female student who had previously traveled internationally five or more times and whose program lasted three to five months observed it “made me strong and independent; I felt lonely very of ten but every time I overcame it I felt like I became stronger.” A male student who had pr eviously traveled overseas three to four times and whose program lasted three to five months wrote it “has made me much more open to anything, willing to step outside of my boundaries.” Simila rly, a female student who had previously traveled overseas one to two times and whose program lasted three to five months felt that she had become more introspective, she wrote: I am much more confident in my own abili ties and strengths now than I ever have been. I have also realized that I can enj oy simply being by myself, whereas prior to studying abroad I tended to fill my minutes with plans and people. Now I love to sit and observe. These sentiments were also expressed by a nother student who wrot e that “in every way [the program was] a life changing experience. [It] freed my mind of nuances and made me realize to live life to the fullest.” Another student felt that the experience has in spired them to see more of the world. He or she wrote “the program has made me want to study abro ad again or just travel in

PAGE 100

90 general because it was so exciting going in to a foreign culture and learning and participating in it.” Another student also felt that studying abroad had been a significant experience for them. She/he wrote: My eyes were opened to so many more wa ys of living and unde rstanding my self. For example I realized that I do not have to study imme diately, that it is ok to figure out what I want without having to rush into a univers ity right after high school. And also that it is ok. I learned a lot of things about myself, society, and life. Another female student who ha d previously traveled overseas five or more times and whose program lasted three to five months commented “I met many good friends and was able to grow personally through my experi ences and conversati ons with these new people.” When asked, “what did you learn about your self?” the major ity of responses pertained to self-confidence and a sense of ne wfound independence. One student felt that “I can survive and manage in a foreign count ry and on my own. That simple pleasure[s] in life are some of the most w onderful. That it is ok not to know where the next step in life is.” A female student who had previously traveled internationally one to two times and whose program lasted three to five mont hs replied that she had learned a number of things about herself. She felt she had learne d “that I AM a confiden t person, that I love to learn, love to travel, and can get along well with people from many different backgrounds.” A female student who had prev iously traveled overseas one to two times and whose program lasted three to five months wrote: I learned that I love visiting foreign countri es and diving into th e experience of new cultures. In some ways going away ha s made me more grounded. I have never been so appreciative of all the amazing people in my life. I have learned that I am so loved and this has been the most valuable lesson.

PAGE 101

91 A male student who had previously traveled overseas five or more times whose program lasted three to five months wrote “that things turn out more often then not when I apply myself to a situation fully.” Likewise, another student felt they had learned about themselves. He or she wrote, “I learned th at I am much more easy going than I thought. That it is ok to be scared, and that I need to study Spanish harder.” A female student who had previously traveled overseas five or mo re times and whose program lasted three to five months commented “I am independent and enjoy being with myself.” Another female student who had never previously tr aveled overseas and whose program lasted three to five months reported, “that I can handle new and challenging situations.” Participants were asked “is there anything else that you w ould like to share with me about your study abroad experience?” Of a ll the students who commented (N=14), all but one loved the experience. Some of the comments included the following: “the best experience ever” “loved it” “everyone needs to go” “I would love to do it again” “it was so much fun” “it was amazing” “I will never be more grateful for this opportunity” “the world is filled with many wonder ful things, places, and things to do” The study abroad students who shared these comments were all female whose programs lasted three to five months. The one stude nt who spoke negatively had this to say: Leaving a country where I was the minority and going into another country where people of my descent barely existed made this whole experience frustrating and at times I was very angry and depressed. Leaving the USA where, I think, more people are open-minded because everyone is surrounded by a very diverse population, made me realize that everyone is not like the people where I am from. I know I knew this before I came. But when you become immersed in it, it’s very different. Being stared at and feared by the majority makes a person feel ugly and less than a person.

PAGE 102

92 Unfortunately, this student did not provide any information about which country he or she had studied in. In spite of this, an a dditional female student who had never traveled internationally prior to the study abroad trip and whose program lasted three to five months exclaimed “I think it should be a re quirement at least for a short period of time for every student because college is supposed to broaden your horizons and I don’t think that it is as effective w ithout an experience like it.” Summary The results provide an insight into the perceptions, development, and experiences of study abroad students at the University of Florida. Furthermore, differences by gender, previous overseas expe rience, and duration were de scribed for the group before the travel experience as well as for the group after the travel expe rience. In addition, although not the focus of the study other charact eristics of study abroad students were identified. For example, the primary motiv ations for studying abroad were language acquisition skills, self-exploration and for the cultural experience in general. Students were most looking forward to experiencing a different culture, mee ting new people, and self-exploration. In contrast, students were most nervous about being far from home, terrorism, and language barriers. Students found that cultural issues in general related to their best experiences and their worst. Pa rticipants reported that self-confidence and a sense of newfound independence were the things they learned the most about themselves. Overall, the research questions addressed in this chapter have been used to further understand the experiences of study abroad par ticipants and that th e majority of the students would recommend the experi ence or do it again themselves.

PAGE 103

93 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The purpose of the study was to investigat e the relationship between study abroad participation and student development. Differences by gender, previous overseas experience, and duration of study abroad program were also explored for the pre-travel group and the post-travel group. Th is chapter discusses the find ings of this study as they relate to study abroad participants, and the experiences reported by these students. While the initial design for this st udy was a quasi-experimental design comparing the responses of the same students prior to and after thei r study abroad experience, due to the poor response rate the group before the travel experience and the gr oup after the travel experience were evaluated independently of each other as only eight respondents completed both the preand post-travel questionnaires. Perceptions The need to understand how university s ponsored study abroad programs affect students has become increasingly important as student participation rates have increased (Gardner & Witherell, 2004; St ephenson, 1999) and more univer sities have focused their resources in this area. In fact, the PresidentÂ’s Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies was created in 1979 in response to this need. The Commission recognized the importance of scholarly inves tigation into international programs that foster global mindedness am ong U.S. college students (Herman, 1996). Topics of interest have included: autonomy, self-aware ness, worldview, attit udes toward others, international understanding, future career or ientation, and academic and cultural interests

PAGE 104

94 among others (Baty & Dold, 1977; Carsello & Greaser, 1976; Farrell & Suvedi, 2003; Kuh & Kauffman, 1985; Nash, 1976; Todd, 2001). Additionally, international educators agree that due to the increasing number of st udents studying abroad there must be some personal developmental changes, which in turn will impact American society in general (Lamet & Lamet, 1982). Investigating such personal changes was an original goal of this study. However, due to the small number of participants co mpleting the questionnaire before and after the travel experience a comparison was not possible to assess any developmental change. Instead, a descriptive analysis of two groups of participants, a before travel group, and an after travel group was conducted. Using the dimensions of the Michigan State study abroad questionnaire (Farrell & Suvedi, 2003) five domains of student impact were assessed, these included: personal developmen t, academics, professional development, global perspective, and intellectual devel opment. The purpose was to understand the participantsÂ’ perceptions of th e study abroad experience prio r to the trip. This same purpose was attained for the post-travel group. Prior to the study abroad experience two of the top three respons es were related to the domain global perspective (Appendix G). For example, the belief that studying abroad would contribute to their overall unders tanding of the country they would study in had the highest agreement; followed by the beli ef that studying abroad would contribute to their understanding of othe r cultures. The third most highly rated assertion was the belief that studying abroad would increase thei r ability to manage new situations, which is related to personal development. Th ese findings are further supported by the comments respondents made in the open-e nded questions before and after studying

PAGE 105

95 abroad. For example, in the pre-test the majority of students responded with language acquisition skills, self-exploration and for the cultural experience in general as to reasons why they were studying abroad; in turn, these responses supp ort the findings that issues related to the domains of gl obal perspective and personal de velopment were pertinent to the students before their experiences abroa d. Specifically, students hoped to improve their historical awareness, to experience what it would be like to live in a completely unfamiliar place, to be in a place where they did not know anyone, to learn more about themselves, as well as others, to improve th eir foreign language abil ities and to broaden their horizons. These are examples of studentÂ’s thoughts before embarking on the experience. In the post-travel group the students rate d most highly the belief that studying abroad contributed to their overall unders tanding of the country they studied in (Appendix H), which was under the Global Pe rspective domain, th e other top three statements were related to personal developmen t. For example, the feeling that studying abroad enhanced their independence had the second highest agreement, followed equally by the impression that studying abroad incr eased their open-mindedness and the belief that studying abroad improved their self -reliance. Furthermore, the open-ended comments supported the post-test findings as well. Participants felt that cultural immersion in general was their best expe rience. Memories of walking around and absorbing the sights, sounds, and people, in addition to the excitement of adapting to a new way of living in an completely foreign location is further evidence of the influence the experience had on respondents global perspe ctive. Additionall y, the majority of responses pertained to self-confidence a nd a sense of newfound independence when

PAGE 106

96 asked about what they had learned about them selves. Students appeared proud when they realized they could survive and get along in an unfamiliar country, without much help from others. Participants also reported that they learned to be comfortable with people of diverse backgrounds. They also discovered that they are confident and they could handle different and challenging situations. Overall, most studies that consider st udy abroad and its effects on students report participants are impacted in positive wa ys (Farrell & Suvedi, 2003). After studying abroad, students are more likely to engage in on-campus programs that are designed to broaden their international understanding (Gray, Murdock, & Stebbins, 2002). The findings from the open-ended questions that have been mentioned make sense as they suggest students are interest ed in learning languages and th e culture of th e study abroad country. It appears in this study that students did not expe ct such personal changes as evidenced by their pre-travel group responses In fact, Carsello and Greaser (1976) suggest that college students probably give minimal attention to the ways in which they change during their time overseas, as well as how they will be different when they return home. Student Development Student development as measured by the Mi nes-Jensen Interpersonal Relationships Inventory was utilized. This instrument meas ures social development and was created to evaluate Chickering’s fourth vector, Deve loping Mature Interpersonal Relationships (Hood & Mines, 1997). The Inventory contai ns two subscales: (1) the Tolerance subscale – measuring openness and acceptance of diversity, and (2) the Quality of Relationships sub-scale – meas uring the transition in rela tionships with friends from either extreme dependence or independence, toward a state of interdependence.

PAGE 107

97 The results from the Mines Jensen Inte rpersonal Relationship Inventory (MJIRI) for the pre-travel group specifically, the scores for the Tolerance sub-scale describe the level of development for participants prior to the travel experien ce (Appendix I). The results from the MJIRI for the post-travel group in particular, the scores for the Tolerance sub-scale describe the level of development fo r participants after the travel experience (Appendix J). Comments made by the partic ipants provide further understanding to the dimensions included in the MJIRI. For ex ample, students portra yed their openness and acceptance of diversity when asked about their best experience(s). Specifically they described their best experiences as mee ting and spending time with the locals and encountering indigenous schools and social life. Students commented that they learned about language, to be more open minded, as we ll as how to adapt to diverse situations and environments. The comments regarding the experiences in this study provide evidence of increased confidence and independe nce which is similar to the findings of Kuh and Kauffman (1988) who found that student s developed a heightened interest in the welfare of others, increased feelings of well-be ing and self-confidence, and an interest in reflective thought through study abroad experien ces. Likewise, most of the students in this study felt that their experi ences abroad had helped them realize their potential and they had gained a deeper understanding of th e world and its people, findings that Dukes et. al (1994) also noted am ong the students they studied. Additionally, the scores for th e Quality of Relationships s ub-scale for the pre-travel group are described (Appendix K), and the scores for the post-travel group are described (Appendix L). Support for the ch anges in relationshi ps and their selves can be found in the comments from the open-ended questions. For instance, when students were asked to

PAGE 108

98 explain in what ways the program had impact ed their lives, many of them felt that they had gained a greater sense of independence and confidence in unfamiliar places. They also felt that they were better able to deal w ith unexpected situations and to stand on their own two feet in coping with th ese situations, instead of relying on their families. The development of mature interpersonal relati onships entails acceptance and admiration of differences, as well as having a capability fo r intimacy. Acceptance can be seen in an interpersonal as well as an intercultural context. At its core is an individualÂ’s ability to react to people based on them as individua ls, rather than as typecasts. Eventually, valuing differences in close relationships will transfer to general acquaintances and then to those from other countries and cultures (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Awareness, openness, breadth of experience, inquisitivene ss, and impartiality facilitate studentsÂ’ ability to cultivate first impressions, mini mize prejudice and ethnocentrism, foster empathy and selflessness, and get pleasure from diversity (Chickering & Reisser). Gender Since ChickeringÂ’s theory suggests that there may be developmental differences between males and females, the influence of ge nder was also described. It is important to note that the male to female ratio was not equal in the samples. In fact, in the pre-travel group 83.6% of the respondents were female; in the post-travel group 85.7% of the respondents were female. In the pre-trav el group the females had a higher level of development for both the Tolerance and the Qual ity of Relationships sub-scales than the males. In the post-travel group the highest levels of development for both sub-scales were among the males when compared to the females. Although the specific differences by gender were beyond the scope of the current research, as the focus was on differences in development as measured by the Tolerance

PAGE 109

99 sub-scale and the Quality of Relationships sub-scale, previous research has provided insight into such differences. Certainl y, Baty and Dold (1977) found that females reported greater emotional problems at the time of the pre-test than did the males; however, at the time of the post evaluati ons the females reported fewer emotional problems than males did in their study abroad study. The females changed in terms of greater stability, reflecting less depression regarding self and the environment. The males reported more depression and alienation rega rding themselves and the environment. Generally speaking, it appear s that the malesÂ’ experien ce was more distressful or upsetting than the femalesÂ’ experience while studying abroad. Baty and Dold suggested that young adult men and women may exhibit different learning styles and this may possibly explain their findings. For example, females may be more skilled in adapting to new situations in which they are required, fo r a time, to be dependent. For the males, such dependency could be more threateni ng. Further support of gender differences in development can be found in the wo rks of Hood and Jackson (1997a; 1997b). Previous Overseas Experience In addition to differences by gender, prev ious overseas experi ence in relation to level of development achieved was investigate d. The findings suggest that participants with no prior overseas experien ce reported higher levels of de velopment than those with previous overseas experience, as measured by the Tolerance and the Quality of Relationships sub-scales before the travel experience. For the post-travel group the participants with no prior ove rseas experience reported higher levels of development as measured by the Tolerance and the Quality of Relationships sub-scales than those with previous overseas experience. Although thes e results have not been discovered in the literature, it may be a wo rthwhile finding to explore in future studies.

PAGE 110

100 Duration of Program In addition to differences by gender, and previous overseas experience, duration of program was the final variable to be investig ated. The results for the Tolerance sub-scale from the pre-travel group show that those whose program was one to three months had the highest level of development, followed by those whose program was one month or less, followed by those whose program was thr ee to five months. Of all the respondents that reported the duration of their program in the post-travel group all of them reported their program as lasting thr ee to five months, and theref ore a comparison by duration of program is not possible for the post-travel gr oup. Inglis et al. ( 1998), report that the length of the program abroad impacts the l ong-term benefits expe rienced by students. Likewise, Herman (1996) suggests that there is support for the noti on that the longer the length of time a student is immersed in a nother culture the greater the development. Living and studying abroad for an unlimite d length of time may encourage personal development because numerous elements of foreign culture create unique and compelling challenges (Kuh & Kauffman, 1985). Summary and Implications Because students are studying abroad in record numbers (Gardner & Witherell, 2004), the necessity to empirica lly assess the benefits of su ch experiences has become increasingly vital (Chadee & Cutler, 1996). This study provides information on the perceptions and levels of deve lopment of study abroad participants at a large southeastern university. The perceptions reported by students, the leve ls of student development, as well as the responses to the open-ende d questions provided insight in the experiences of study abroad participants. These findings are consis tent with the current literature, but add to

PAGE 111

101 the body of knowledge in that the results ar e framed within a widely used student development theoretical framework. Indee d, this study has shown that the framework can be applied to an educational context that has not previously been investigated before, that of study abroad. This discovery is m eaningful in that the responses to the openended questions may provide more substantiv e support for the notion that study abroad is beneficial and encourages development amongs t students, which of course is a goal in higher education (Chicker ing, 1969; Chickering & Rei sser, 1993; King, 1990). Furthermore, the theoretical framework is essentially used for the first time to guide research in the area of study abroad. This information may be useful for those programs or organizations that require more substa ntive evidence of the importance of studying abroad as well as increasing their ability to explain and identify developmental change. Recommendations for Further Research One of the goals of this study was to us e Chickering and ReisserÂ’s (1993) student development theory of identity to explain the changes expe rienced by students who study abroad. However, due to the length of th e Iowa Student Development Inventories only one of the vectors of student development wa s actually measured. For all the vectors to be measured the instrument would have been more than 400 questions in length and it was feared that students woul d not complete the questionnaire It is suggested that all seven vectors be evaluated in fu ture research. Due to the natu re of the vectors, depending on age a student may identify more heavily wi th one vector than another (Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993). If this is true, the present study may not have captured the complete progression in de velopment by its participants or the comprehensive nature of development.

PAGE 112

102 In addition, it is suggested that research of this nature includes a control group. In the present study the issue of maturation simply as a result of lapsed time was not accounted for; therefore, it is a challenge to fully determine if the changes in development were due to the study abroad experience or time itself. Limitations There may be several limitations to th is study. One limitation may be confusion experienced by the respondents regarding quest ions or wording. This was minimized by paying attention to wording during instrument development. Additionally, the researcher attempted to lessen this possibility by providing contact inform ation during the predeparture orientation, and in preand post-test instruments, as well as all of the invitation and reminder emails so that they could find answers to any questions they had. An additional limitation may be related to the open-ended questions of the postquestionnaire. Any time an indivi dual is asked to recall prior events or feelings; there is always a chance for memory lapse that may resu lt in inaccurate depic tions of feelings or events. The researcher attempted to mini mize this by reminding students to complete their post-test questionnaire within a weekÂ’s return to the U.S. The pre-test questionnaire was administered prior to overseas travel and a post-test was administered immediately upon return in order to examine developmental changes as a consequence of studying abroad. Because the study abroad programs started and ended at different times throughout the fall, data collection wa s staggered accordingly and continued until the last program finished. Ho wever, as a result of start and end dates varying so greatly some students may have b een emailed the link to the survey several weeks to a month prior to th eir departure and especially upon return. Furthermore,

PAGE 113

103 because the students were returning during th e holidays a decrease in response rates may have been the result. Another problem was that the post-test que stionnaire did not contain demographic items as it was thought that this informati on would be collected using the pre-test instrument. In actuality only eight student s who had completed the pre-test completed the post-test. Thus, an attempt was made to re-contact the students who had completed the post-test through the UFIC coordinator. Six students responded providing their demographic and study abroad program characteristics. Delimitations The primary delimitation in this study is the small sample size. There was a potential for approximately 200 responses for the preand post-test each. However, only 56 questionnaires were completed for the pr e-test and 24 were co mpleted for the posttest. Furthermore, only eight respondents comp leted both the preand the post-tests, thus the two groups are essentially independent. An additional delimitation was that only those students who were registered to study abroad at the UFIC during fall 2005 were invited to participat e. This limits the generalizability of the results to those studying abroad fo r no more than five months and may preclude those who for example spend an entire academic year abroad. Another issue related to sampling is that random sel ection was not used thus any generalizability of the results should be made with vigilan ce. Results may also be limited to other institutions with similar characteristics as the University of Florida and comparable study abroad programs.

PAGE 114

104 Conclusion The results of this study s uggest that particip ants in a study abroad program may experience positive impacts as well as enhance their development of mature interpersonal relationships. Also, when considering gende r and duration of program, differences in student development were found. Additionall y, a consistent theme among the responses from the students in this study was a ne wfound sense of confidence, independence and self-esteem. While this study can only draw inferences about studying abroad for a semester or less, it has provided a more in-depth look at study abroad and the impacts experienced by its participants in addition to enhanced levels of development. In closing, the benefits experienced as a result of studying abroad can best be explained by a female student whose program lasted three to five months and who had never tr aveled overseas, she explained that “it [studying abroad] changed ev erything in my life, my view on the world, the future and the past as well as the relations hips in my life. I was able to have a new perspective by experiencing something so differe nt than what I am accustomed to.” This comment brings us full-circle with Chicke ring and Reisser’s (1993) student development theory of identity and the importance of improving tolerance and quality of relationships.

PAGE 115

105 APPENDIX A PRE-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE The entire questionnaire was posted on the world-wide-web only and appears here in accordance with the University of Fl orida Graduate School Thesis guidelines. Study Abroad and Studen t Development Survey DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, RECREATION & SPORT MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA UF-IRB Informed Consent Please read carefully before participating in this study. This study examines the experiences of fall 2005 Study Abroad participants. You will be asked about your experiences studying abroad, some general attitude quest ions, and demographics. You will also be asked to reflect upon you r overall experiences of traveling and studying abroad. The study involves answering an online questionnaire that will take approx imately ten minutes to complete. The survey is voluntary, but your input is extremely important. There are no “correct” or “incorrect” answers in the survey, so please express your true feelings. Benefits from this study include understandi ng your feelings before and after your fall study abroad experience. Specifically, it is expected that the study can provide international educators with a greater understa nding of the outcomes for participants of study abroad and may act as the basis for future programming and funding. In addition, the responses will contribute to a Master’s thesis investigating the development of individuals who par ticipate in a study abroad program. There is no compensation for completing th e survey, but your input is extremely important. The survey is confidential as ther e is no way to link your survey results to your email address; your confidentiality will be protected to the extent provided by law. Your participation in this study is voluntar y and you have the right not to answer any question(s). There is no penalty for not par ticipating and you are fr ee to withdraw at anytime without penalty. There are no risks a ssociated with particip ation in this study.

PAGE 116

106 If you have any questions concer ning this study, please contact: Heather A. Robalik MasterÂ’s Candidate Department of Tourism, Recr eation and Sport Management 300 Florida Gym, P.O. Box 118208 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611-8208 Email: hrobalik@hhp.ufl.edu Phone: (352) 395-0580 ext. 1372 Whom to contact about your rights as a research pa rticipant in this study: UFIRB Office Box 112250 University of Florida Gainesville, Fl 32611-2250 Phone: (352) 392-0433 Please keep a copy of this contact information. If you agree to participate, pl ease click on the link below. http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/surveys/hrobalik/ Department of Tourism, Recreation, and Spor t Management fall 2005 The University of Florida Student Development Survey Please create a unique six letter username that you will remember. This username will remain confidential and cannot be traced, ther efore it is important to create something that will be easy to remember. This username will be used to link your responses to the post-test. Username: __________________________ Part One: Assessing Impact The following are a series of statements asking you the experiences and goals you have regarding study abroad. Circle the number that co rresponds to how much you agree or disagree with each statement. Please answer every question.

PAGE 117

107 Study abroadÂ… Not at All Very Little Some Quite a Bit Very Much Will contribute to my overall understanding of the country I will study in. 1 2 3 4 5 Will increase my desire to work and/or study abroad in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 Will contribute to my understanding of other cultures. 1 2 3 4 5 Will enhance my concern about problems with developing countries. 1 2 3 4 5 Will enhance my understanding of international issues. 1 2 3 4 5 Will increase my appreciation of human difference. 1 2 3 4 5 Will contribute and/or create a new understanding of critical social issues. 1 2 3 4 5 Will increase my level of comfort around people different from me. 1 2 3 4 5 Will enhance my self-reliance. 1 2 3 4 5 Will increase my ability to cope with unfamiliar situations. 1 2 3 4 5 Will increase my openmindedness. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 118

108 Study abroadÂ… Not at All Very Little Some Quite a Bit Very Much Will increase my curiosity about other cultures. 1 2 3 4 5 Will enhance my independence. 1 2 3 4 5 Will increase my understanding of my own culture. 1 2 3 4 5 Will enhance my desire to interact with a stranger. 1 2 3 4 5 Will increase my feeling of personal effectiveness. 1 2 3 4 5 Will encourage me to seek out a more diverse group of friends. 1 2 3 4 5 Will help develop my leadership skills. 1 2 3 4 5 Will increase my skills to communicate in the language of the host culture. 1 2 3 4 5 Will lead to an improvement of my academic performance. 1 2 3 4 5 Will enhance my critical thinking skills. 1 2 3 4 5 Will improve my problemsolving skills. 1 2 3 4 5 Will favorably impress potential employers. 1 2 3 4 5 Will make me reconsider my career plans. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 119

109 Study abroad… Not at All Very Little Some Quite a Bit Very Much Will help me find professional direction. 1 2 3 4 5 Will distract me from my academic performance. 1 2 3 4 5 Part Two: Student Development Scale The following are a series of statements a bout social and interp ersonal behavior and attitudes of college students. The best answ er to each statement is your personal opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. Th e survey covers many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourse lf strongly agreeing with so me of the statements and strongly disagreeing with others. Whether you agree or disagree w ith any statement you can be sure that many other people feel the same as you do. In general, study abroad is a part of your ove rall college education. As a result of living and studying in a different culture, your attitudes and values may change as you experience new things. If you have not experi enced a situation described by a statement, answer on the basis of any similar circumst ances or experience(s) you have had or how you imagine you would answer if the situation would come up. For example, if the statement is about “roommates” and you live at home or are married, answer in relation to the people you do live with. Circle the number that corresponds to how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Please answer every question. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I accept my friends as they are. 1 2 3 4 I would feel uncomfortable criticizing, to their face, someone I had dated a long time. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 120

110 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree In my classes, I have met two kinds of people: those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. 1 2 3 4 The instructors here do not treat the students like they are adults. 1 2 3 4 As I have talked with faculty and adults about their different philosophies, there is probably only one which is correct. 1 2 3 4 I relate to most students as an equal. 1 2 3 4 It would not matter to me if someone I was going to marry had sexual relations with another person before I met them. 1 2 3 4 I can enjoy myself without needing to have someone with me. 1 2 3 4 When I talk to my friends about my religious beliefs, I am very careful not to compromise with those who believe differently than I do. 1 2 3 4 I have to go out on a day every weekend. 1 2 3 4 My roommate has some habits that bother and annoy me very much. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 121

111 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I get nervous when an instructor criticizes my work. 1 2 3 4 Most adults need to change their values and attitudes. 1 2 3 4 Sometimes I feel I have to make unnecessary apologies for my appearance or conduct to the person(s) I live with. 1 2 3 4 Students who live together before they are married definitely should be made to realize what they are doing is wrong. 1 2 3 4 I can tell my friends just about anything that is on my mind and know they will accept me. 1 2 3 4 I would discontinue my friendship with a person(s) I am close to if I found out my friend(s) was homosexual or bisexual. 1 2 3 4 My social life is satisfying to me. 1 2 3 4 One of the problems with my fellow students is they were not dealt with firmly when they were younger. 1 2 3 4 I relate with my parents on an adult-to-adult basis. 1 2 3 4 I do not disapprove of faculty or other adults getting drunk or high at parties. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 122

112 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree My relationship with my roommate(s) is stagnating my own growth and potential. 1 2 3 4 I would not discontinue a love relationship if my partner did something I disapproved of. 1 2 3 4 I feel comfortable about telling a friend of the same sex “I love you,” without worrying they might get the wrong idea. 1 2 3 4 Most instructors teach as if there is just one right way to obtain a solution to a problem. 1 2 3 4 My relationships with members of the opposite sex have allowed me to explore some behaviors that I had not felt comfortable with before. 1 2 3 4 I personally find it sickening to be around my friends when they do not act in a mature manner. 1 2 3 4 My parents do not try to run my life. 1 2 3 4 Freedom of speech can be carried too far in terms of the ideal because some students and their organizations should have their freedom of speech restricted. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 123

113 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree My friends view me as an independent, outgoing person in my relationship with them. 1 2 3 4 I’m glad to see most of my friends are not dressing like “bums” anymore. 1 2 3 4 I always hold back when I am at a party which consists of a diverse group of people. 1 2 3 4 I do not get irritated when parents cannot accept their children’s friends or values. 1 2 3 4 I encourage friends to drop in informally. 1 2 3 4 I only date people who are of the same religious background as me. 1 2 3 4 My roommate(s) and I feel free to come and go as we please. 1 2 3 4 I think the person I am dating or “going with” should have friends outside of “our crowd.” 1 2 3 4 I have gotten to know some instructors as people—not just as faculty members. 1 2 3 4 I think students that get “high” and are caught should be treated like the lawbreakers they are. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 124

114 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I worry about not dating enough. 1 2 3 4 I can just be with my friends without having to be doing anything in particular. 1 2 3 4 I do not view myself as an independent, outgoing person with my friends. 1 2 3 4 Part Three: Demographic and additional comm ents. Please tell me a little about yourself. 1. Are you? MaleÂ…Â…Â….1 FemaleÂ…Â….2 2. What is your class standing? FreshmanÂ…Â…Â….1 SophomoreÂ…Â…...2 JuniorÂ…Â…Â…Â…...3 SeniorÂ…Â….Â…Â…..4 GraduateÂ…Â…Â…..5 3. What is your age? _____ 4a. What is your major? __________

PAGE 125

115 4b. If your major is a language, is it the primary language of th e country you will be studying in? YesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â….Â…1 NoÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â….Â….2 My major is not a languageÂ…Â….3 5. What is your first language? __________ 6a. Do you have a second language? YesÂ…Â…Â….1 NoÂ…Â….Â….2 6b. If yes, what language? __________ 7. Do you speak the native language of the country you are going to be studying in? YesÂ…Â…Â….1 NoÂ…Â…Â…..2 8. How many times have you trav eled internationally prior to your study abroad trip? Never..Â…Â…Â…Â…Â….1 1 to 2 timesÂ…Â…Â…..2 3 to 4 timesÂ…Â…..Â…3 5 or more timesÂ…Â….4 9. If you have traveled inte rnationally, where have you tr aveled to in the past? 10. What country or countries are you vi siting during your study abroad experience?

PAGE 126

116 11. How long is your study abroad program? Weeks _____ or Days _____ 12. Why are you studying abroad? 13. What are you looking forward to re garding your study ab road experience? 14. Do you feel adequately prepared for your study abroad program? Please explain. 15. What are you not looking forward to and/or feel nervous about? Your time is greatly appreciated in completing this questionnaire!

PAGE 127

117 APPENDIX B POST-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE The entire questionnaire was posted on the world-wide-web only and appears here in accordance with the University of Fl orida Graduate School Thesis guidelines. Study Abroad and Studen t Development Survey DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, RECREATION & SPORT MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA UF-IRB Informed Consent Please read carefully before participating in this study. This study examines the experiences of fall 2005 Study Abroad participants. You will be asked about your experiences studying abroad, some general attitude quest ions, and demographics. You will also be asked to reflect upon you r overall experiences of traveling and studying abroad. The study involves answering an online questionnaire that will take approx imately ten minutes to complete. The survey is voluntary, but your input is extremely important. There are no “correct” or “incorrect” answers in the survey, so please express your true feelings. Benefits from this study include understandi ng your feelings before and after your fall study abroad experience. Specifically, it is expected that the study can provide international educators with a greater understa nding of the outcomes for participants of study abroad and may act as the basis for future programming and funding. In addition, the responses will contribute to a Master’s thesis investigating the development of individuals who par ticipate in a study abroad program. There is no compensation for completing th e survey, but your input is extremely important. The survey is confidential as ther e is no way to link your survey results to your email address; your confidentiality will be protected to the extent provided by law. Your participation in this study is voluntar y and you have the right not to answer any question(s). There is no penalty for not par ticipating and you are fr ee to withdraw at anytime without penalty. There are no risks a ssociated with particip ation in this study.

PAGE 128

118 If you have any questions concer ning this study, please contact: Heather A. Robalik MasterÂ’s Candidate Department of Tourism, Recr eation and Sport Management 300 Florida Gym, P.O. Box 118208 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611-8208 Email: hrobalik@hhp.ufl.edu Phone: (352) 395-0580 ext. 1372 Whom to contact about your rights as a research pa rticipant in this study: UFIRB Office Box 112250 University of Florida Gainesville, Fl 32611-2250 Phone: (352) 392-0433 Please keep a copy of this contact information. If you agree to participate, pl ease click on the link below. http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/surveys/ hrobalik/post.index.html Department of Tourism, Recreati on, and Sport Management fall 2005 The University of Florida Student Development Survey Please input your unique six charact er username (the same one you used for the pre-test). This username will remain confidential and canno t be traced. This username will be used to link your responses from the pre-test. Username: __________________________ Part One: Assessing Impact The following are a series of statements asking you about the expe riences and goals you had related to study abroad. Circle the number that co rresponds to how much you agree or disagree with each statement. Please answer every question.

PAGE 129

119 Study abroadÂ… Not at All Very Little Some Quite a Bit Very Much Contributed to my overall understanding of the country I studied in. 1 2 3 4 5 Increased my desire to work and/or study abroad in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 Contributed to my understanding of other cultures. 1 2 3 4 5 Enhanced concern about problems with developing countries. 1 2 3 4 5 Enhanced my understanding of international issues. 1 2 3 4 5 Increased my appreciation of human difference. 1 2 3 4 5 Contributed and/or created a new understanding of critical social issues. 1 2 3 4 5 Increased my level of comfort around people different from me. 1 2 3 4 5 Enhanced my self-reliance. 1 2 3 4 5 Increased my ability to cope with unfamiliar situations. 1 2 3 4 5 Increased my openmindedness. 1 2 3 4 5 Increased my curiosity about other cultures. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 130

120 Study abroadÂ… Not at All Very Little Some Quite a Bit Very Much Enhanced my independence. 1 2 3 4 5 Increased my understanding of my own culture. 1 2 3 4 5 Enhanced my desire to interact with a stranger. 1 2 3 4 5 Increased my feeling of personal effectiveness. 1 2 3 4 5 Encouraged me to seek out a more diverse group of friends. 1 2 3 4 5 Helped develop my leadership skills. 1 2 3 4 5 Increased my skills to communicate in the language of the host culture. 1 2 3 4 5 Led to an improvement of my academic performance. 1 2 3 4 5 Enhanced my critical thinking skills. 1 2 3 4 5 Improved my problem-solving skills. 1 2 3 4 5 Will favorably impress potential employers. 1 2 3 4 5 Made me reconsider my career plans. 1 2 3 4 5 Helped me find professional direction. 1 2 3 4 5 Distracted me from my academic performance. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 131

121 Part Two: Student Development Scale The following are the same series of statemen ts that you answered before you left about social and interpersonal behavi or and attitudes of college st udents. The best answer to each statement is your personal opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. The survey covers many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourself strongly agreeing with some of the statements and st rongly disagreeing with others. Whether you agree or disagree with any st atement you can be sure that many other people feel the same as you do. In general, study abroad is a part of your ove rall college education. As a result of living and studying in a different culture, your at titudes and values may have changed as you experienced new things. If you have not experienced a situation described by a statement, answer on the basis of any sim ilar circumstances or experience(s) you have had or how you imagine you would answer if th e situation would come up. For example, if the statement is about “roommates” and you live at home or are married, answer in relation to the peopl e you do live with. Circle the number that corresponds to how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Please answer every question. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I accept my friends as they are. 1 2 3 4 I would feel uncomfortable criticizing, to their face, someone I had dated a long time. 1 2 3 4 In my classes, I have met two kinds of people: those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. 1 2 3 4 The instructors at UF do not treat the students like they are adults. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 132

122 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree As I have talked with faculty and adults about their different philosophies, there is probably only one which is correct. 1 2 3 4 I relate to most students as an equal. 1 2 3 4 It would not matter to me if someone I was going to marry had sexual relations with another person before I met them. 1 2 3 4 I can enjoy myself without needing to have someone with me. 1 2 3 4 When I talk to my friends about my religious beliefs, I am very careful not to compromise with those who believe differently than I do. 1 2 3 4 I have to go out on a day every weekend. 1 2 3 4 My roommate has some habits that bother and annoy me very much. 1 2 3 4 I get nervous when an instructor criticizes my work. 1 2 3 4 Most adults need to change their values and attitudes. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 133

123 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Sometimes I feel I have to make unnecessary apologies for my appearance or conduct to the person(s) I live with. 1 2 3 4 Students who live together before they are married definitely should be made to realize what they are doing is wrong. 1 2 3 4 I can tell my friends just about anything that is on my mind and know they will accept me. 1 2 3 4 I would discontinue my friendship with a person(s) I am close to if I found out my friend(s) was homosexual or bisexual. 1 2 3 4 My social life is satisfying to me. 1 2 3 4 One of the problems with my fellow students is they were not dealt with firmly when they were younger. 1 2 3 4 I relate with my parents on an adult-to-adult basis. 1 2 3 4 I do not disapprove of faculty or other adults getting drunk or high at parties. 1 2 3 4 My relationship with my roommate(s) is stagnating my own growth and potential. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 134

124 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I would not discontinue a love relationship if my partner did something I disapproved of. 1 2 3 4 I feel comfortable about telling a friend of the same sex “I love you,” without worrying they might get the wrong idea. 1 2 3 4 Most instructors teach as if there is just one right way to obtain a solution to a problem. 1 2 3 4 My relationships with members of the opposite sex have allowed me to explore some behaviors that I had not felt comfortable with before. 1 2 3 4 I personally find it sickening to be around my friends when they do not act in a mature manner. 1 2 3 4 My parents do not try to run my life. 1 2 3 4 Freedom of speech can be carried too far in terms of the ideal because some students and their organizations should have their freedom of speech restricted. 1 2 3 4 My friends view me as an independent, outgoing person in my relationship with them. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 135

125 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I’m glad to see most of my friends are not dressing like “bums” anymore. 1 2 3 4 I always hold back when I am at a party which consists of a diverse group of people. 1 2 3 4 I do not get irritated when parents cannot accept their children’s friends or values. 1 2 3 4 I encourage friends to drop in informally. 1 2 3 4 I only date people who are of the same religious background as me. 1 2 3 4 My roommate(s) and I feel free to come and go as we please. 1 2 3 4 I think the person I am dating or “going with” should have friends outside of “our crowd.” 1 2 3 4 I have gotten to know some instructors as people—not just as faculty members. 1 2 3 4 I think students that get “high” and are caught should be treated like the lawbreakers they are. 1 2 3 4 I worry about not dating enough. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 136

126 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I can just be with my friends without having to be doing anything in particular. 1 2 3 4 I do not view myself as an independent, outgoing person with my friends. 1 2 3 4 Part Three: HereÂ’s your chance to share so me of your experiences and thoughts about studying abroad with me 1. What was/were your best experience(s)? 2. What was/were your worst experience(s)? 3. What was the most challeng ing aspect of studying abroad? 4. In what ways do you feel the progra m impacted your life? Please explain. 5. What did you learn about yourself? Please explain. 6. Which country or countries did you travel to during your study abroad trip?

PAGE 137

127 7. Is there anything else that you would lik e to share with me about your study abroad experience? Your time is greatly appreciated in completing this questionnaire!

PAGE 138

128 APPENDIX C FIRST EMAIL CONTACT FOR STUDY ABROAD SURVEY Dear 2005 Study Abroad Participant, I hope that you are excited about your upcoming study abroad trip! As you may remember at your study abroad orientation I told you about a st udy I would like you to take part in which is for my master’s thesis. The goal of the study is to understand some of the impacts that st udents experience from studying abroad. I am asking that you fill out one questionnaire before you leave and one questionnaire when you return. If you would like to consider participation, please click on the link below. You will see the informed consent form for this study firs t, please read it and keep a copy of the contact information. After you agree to participate in this study you will be directed to the questionnaire. Please fill out the questionnaire by typing in th e responses, and then click “submit” at the end of the questionnaire. You do not need to email it back as an attachment unless you have difficulties with filling out the questionnaire online. If you have any questions please contact me, Heather Robalik at hrobalik@hhp.ufl.edu. As always your help is very much appreciat ed. Without your input this study would not be possible. Sincerely, Heather Robalik Master’s Candidate http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/surveys/ hrobalik/index.pre.html

PAGE 139

129 APPENDIX D SECOND EMAIL CONTACT FOR STUDY ABROAD SURVEY Dear 2005 Study Abroad Participants, Thank you to those that have already complete d the questionnaire. For those of you that have not, I understand this is a busy time but I hope that you can spare a few minutes to take part in my study before you leave home. If you would like to consider participation, please click on the link below. You will see the informed consent form for this study firs t, please read it and keep a copy of the contact information. After you agree to participate in this study you will be directed to the questionnaire. Please fill out the questionnaire by typing in th e responses, and then click “submit” at the end of the questionnaire. You do not need to email it back as an attachment unless you have difficulties with filling out the questionnaire online. If you have any questions please contact me, Heather Robalik at hrobalik@hhp.ufl.edu. As always your help is very much appreciat ed. Without your input this study would not be possible. Sincerely, Heather Robalik Master’s Candidate http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/surveys/ hrobalik/index.pre.html

PAGE 140

130 APPENDIX E THIRD EMAIL CONTACT FOR STUDY ABROAD SURVEY Dear 2005 Study Abroad Participants, Welcome home! I hope that you had a safe f light home and have recovered from your study abroad trip. Thanks for filling out my survey before you left, now I am asking you to complete the second one, the post study abroad survey. As before, please click on the link below and access the online survey. You will see the informed consent form for this study first, please read it and keep a copy of the contact information. After you agree to participate in this study you will be directed to the questionnaire. Please fill out the questionnaire by typing in th e responses, and then click “submit” at the end of the questionnaire. You do not need to email it back as an attachment unless you have difficulties with filling out the questionnaire online. If you have any questions please contact me, Heather Robalik at hrobalik@hhp.ufl.edu. As always your help is very much appreciat ed. Without your input this study would not be possible. Sincerely, Heather Robalik Master’s Candidate http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/surveys/ hrobalik/post.index.html

PAGE 141

131 APPENDIX F FOURTH EMAIL CONTACT FOR STUDY ABROAD SURVEY Dear 2005 Study Abroad Participant, Thank you to those that have already complete d the questionnaire. For those of you that have not, I understand this is a busy time but I hope that you can spare some time to fill out the second questionnaire fo r my master’s research. As before, please click on the link below and access the online survey. You will see the informed consent form for this study first, please read it and keep a copy of the contact information. After you agree to participate in this study you will be directed to the questionnaire. Please fill out the questionnaire by typing in th e responses, and then click “submit” at the end of the questionnaire. You do not need to email it back as an attachment unless you have difficulties with filling out the questionnaire online. If you have any questions please contact me, Heather Robalik at hrobalik@hhp.ufl.edu. As always your help is very much appreciat ed. Without your input this study would not be possible. Sincerely, Heather Robalik Master’s Candidate http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/surveys/ hrobalik/post.index.html

PAGE 142

132 APPENDIX G STUDENTSÂ’ PERCEPTIONS PRIOR TO STUDYING ABROAD Perception Statements Valid Percent N Mean1SD 1 2 3 4 5 Global Perspective2 Will contribute to my overall understanding of the country I will study in. 1.8 0.0 0.0 27.370.955 4.65 .67 Will increase my desire to work and/or study abroad in the future. 1.8 7.3 18.229.143.655 4.05 1.04 Will contribute to my understanding of other cultures. 1.8 0.0 3.6 25.569.155 4.60 .74 Will increase my curiosity about other cultures. 0.0 0.0 20.435.244.454 4.00 1.94 Will enhance my concern about problems with developing countries. 1.8 10.936.427.323.655 3.60 1.03 Will enhance my understanding of international issues. 1.8 3.6 21.830.941.855 4.07 .98 Will increase my appreciation of human difference. 0.0 3.6 16.434.545.555 4.22 .85 Will contribute and/or create a new understanding of critical social issues. 3.6 3.6 27.334.530.955 3.85 1.03 Will increase my level of comfort around people different from me. 3.6 3.6 18.229.145.555 4.09 1.06

PAGE 143

133 Perception Statements Valid Percent N Mean1SD 1 2 3 4 5 Personal Development Will enhance my self-reliance. 0.0 5.5 18.223.652.755 4.24 .94 Will increase my ability to cope with unfamiliar situations. 1.8 1.8 10.921.863.655 4.44 .90 Will increase my openmindedness. 0.0 0.0 18.229.152.755 4.35 .78 Will enhance my independence. 0.0 1.8 14.525.558.255 4.40 .81 Will increase my understanding of my own culture. 0.0 9.1 32.727.330.955 3.80 .99 Will enhance my desire to interact with a stranger. 0.0 12.736.429.121.855 3.60 .97 Will increase my feeling of personal effectiveness. 1.8 7.3 36.429.125.555 3.69 1.00 Will encourage me to seek out a more diverse group of friends. 1.8 18.230.927.321.855 3.49 1.09 Will help develop my leadership skills. 1.8 16.438.223.620.055 3.44 1.05 Intellectual Development Will increase my skills to communicate in the language of the host culture. 10.95.5 10.918.254.555 4.00 1.37 Will enhance my critical thinking skills. 3.6 9.1 34.529.123.655 3.60 1.07 Will improve my problemsolving skills. 0.0 14.833.333.318.554 3.33 1.94

PAGE 144

134 Perception Statements Valid Percent N Mean1SD 1 2 3 4 5 Professional Development Will favorably impress potential employers. 1.9 1.9 14.835.246.354 3.98 2.00 Will make me reconsider my career plans. 14.814.838.911.120.454 2.85 2.09 Will help me find professional direction. 9.3 7.4 31.525.925.954 3.29 2.08 Academics Will lead to an improvement of my academic performance. 7.3 20.034.520.018.255 3.22 1.18 Will distract me from my academic performance. 33.333.325.97.4 0.0 54 1.87 1.76 1Mean was based on a 1-5 scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = very little, 3 = some, 4 = quite a lot, and 5 = very much. 2The italicized phrases describe the domain being measured.

PAGE 145

135 APPENDIX H STUDENTSÂ’ PERCEPTIONS AFTER STUDYING ABROAD Perception Statements Percentage (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 5 Global Perspective2 Contributed to my overall understanding of the country I studied in. 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 76.0 25 4.76 .44 Increased my desire to work and/or study abroad in the future. 0.0 8.0 16.0 32.0 44.0 25 4.12 .97 Contributed to my understanding of other cultures. 0.0 0.0 12.0 24.0 60.0 24 4.50 .72 Increased my curiosity about other cultures. 0.0 4.0 16.0 32.0 48.0 25 4.24 .88 Enhanced concern about problems with developing countries. 4.0 12.0 32.0 32.0 20.0 25 3.52 1.09 Enhanced my understanding of international issues. 4.0 0.0 36.0 24.0 36.0 25 3.88 1.05 Increased my appreciation of human difference. 4.0 8.0 12.0 52.0 24.0 25 3.84 1.03 Contributed and/or created a new understanding of critical social issues. 4.0 0.0 32.0 36.0 28.0 25 3.84 .99 Increased my level of comfort around people different from me. 0.0 0.0 32.0 24.0 44.0 25 4.12 .88

PAGE 146

136 Perception Statements Percentage (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 5 Personal Development Enhanced my self-reliance. 0.0 0.0 16.0 20.0 64.0 25 4.48 .77 Increased my ability to cope with unfamiliar situations. 0.0 0.0 8.0 36.0 56.0 25 4.48 .65 Increased my openmindedness. 0.0 0.0 12.0 24.0 64.0 25 4.52 .71 Enhanced my independence. 0.0 0.0 16.0 12.0 72.0 25 4.56 .77 Increased my understanding of my own culture. 0.0 4.0 32.0 28.0 36.0 25 3.96 .94 Enhanced my desire to interact with a stranger. 0.0 16.0 36.0 16.0 32.0 25 3.64 1.11 Increased my feeling of personal effectiveness. 0.0 8.0 16.0 36.0 40.0 25 4.08 .95 Encouraged me to seek out a more diverse group of friends. 4.0 8.0 24.0 28.0 36.0 25 3.84 1.14 Helped develop my leadership skills. 4.0 16.0 36.0 28.0 16.0 25 3.36 1.08 Intellectual Development Increased my skills to communicate in the language of the host culture. 8.0 8.0 12.0 20.0 52.0 25 4.00 1.32 Enhanced my critical thinking skills. 8.0 4.0 32.0 32.0 24.0 25 3.60 1.16 Improved my problem-solving skills. 8.0 4.0 24.0 40.0 20.0 24 3.63 1.14 Professional Development Will favorably impress potential employers. 0.0 0.0 20.0 24.0 56.0 25 4.36 .81

PAGE 147

137 Perception Statements Percentage (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 5 Made me reconsider my career plans. 12.0 12.0 28.0 24.0 24.0 25 3.36 1.32 Helped me find professional direction. 20.0 20.0 24.0 16.0 20.0 25 2.96 1.43 Academics Led to an improvement of my academic performance. 8.0 24.0 36.0 24.0 8.0 25 3.00 1.08 Distracted me from my academic performance. 32.0 16.0 36.0 12.0 4.0 25 2.40 1.19 1Mean was based on a 1-5 scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = very little, 3 = some, 4 = quite a lot, and 5 = very much. 2The italicized phrases describe the domain being measured.

PAGE 148

138 APPENDIX I RESPONSES TO ITEMS ON THE TOLERAN CE SUB-SCALE BEFORE STUDYING ABROAD Development Percentages (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 I accept my friends as they are.2 7.3 9.1 41.8 41.8 55 3.18 .88 In my classes, I have met two kinds of people: those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. 7.3 16.4 45.5 21.8 55 2.91 .82 As I have talked with faculty and adults about their different philosophies, there is probably only one which is correct. 10.9 10.9 32.7 45.5 55 3.13 1.00 It would not matter to me if someone I was going to marry had sexual relations with another person before I met them.2 9.1 18.2 14.5 58.2 55 3.22 1.05 When I talk to my friends about my religious beliefs, I am very careful not to compromise with those who believe differently than I do. 12.7 36.4 38.2 12.7 55 2.51 8.79 My roommate has some habits that bother and annoy me very much. 30.2 41.5 22.6 5.7 53 2.04 .88 Most adults need to change their values and attitudes. 7.3 29.1 60.0 3.6 55 2.60 6.83

PAGE 149

139 Development Percentages (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 Students who live together before they are married definitely should be made to realize what they are doing is wrong. 9.1 12.7 25.5 52.7 55 3.22 .99 I would discontinue my friendship with a person(s) I am close to if I found out my friend(s) was homosexual or bisexual. 14.5 5.5 12.7 67.3 55 3.33 1.11 One of the problems with my fellow students is they were not dealt with firmly when they were younger. 9.1 29.1 50.9 10.9 55 2.64 .80 I do not disapprove of faculty or other adults getting drunk or high at parties.2 10.9 25.5 49.1 14.5 55 2.67 8.62 I would not discontinue a love relationship if my partner did something I disapproved of.2 9.3 31.5 51.9 7.4 54 2.57 .77 Most instructors teach as if there is just one right way to obtain a solution to a problem. 9.1 27.3 47.3 16.4 55 2.71 .85 I personally find it sickening to be around my friends when they do not act in a mature manner. 7.3 21.8 47.3 23.6 55 2.87 .86 Freedom of speech can be carried too far in terms of the ideal because some students and their organizations should have their freedom of speech restricted. 9.3 13.0 33.3 44.4 54 3.13 .97

PAGE 150

140 Development Percentages (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 I'm glad to see most of my friends are not dressing like "bums" anymore. 13.0 18.5 50.0 18.5 54 2.74 .92 I do not get irritated when parents cannot accept their children's friends or values.2 29.6 46.3 18.5 5.6 54 2.00 .84 I only date people who are of the same religious background as me. 15.1 20.8 26.4 37.7 53 2.87 1.09 I think the person I am dating or "going with" should have friends outside of "our crowd."2 11.1 5.6 33.3 50.0 54 3.22 .98 I think students that get "high" and are caught should be treated like the lawbreakers they are. 16.7 40.7 22.2 20.4 54 2.46 1.00 1Mean was based on a 1-4 scale where 1 = strong ly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree. 2Item was reverse coded

PAGE 151

141 APPENDIX J RESPONSES TO ITEMS ON THE TOLER ANCE SUB-SCALE AFTER STUDYING ABROAD Statement Percentages (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 I accept my friends as they are. 2 0.0 4.2 33.3 62.5 24 3.58 .58 In my classes, I have met two kinds of people: those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. 8.3 4.2 50.0 37.5 24 3.17 .87 As I have talked with faculty and adults about their different philosophies, there is probably only one which is correct. 4.2 8.3 25.0 62.5 24 3.46 .83 It would not matter to me if someone I was going to marry had sexual relations with another person before I met them. 2 8.3 16.7 29.2 45.8 24 3.13 .99 When I talk to my friends about my religious beliefs, I am very careful not to compromise with those who believe differently than I do. 12.5 41.7 33.3 12.5 24 2.46 .88 My roommate has some habits that bother and annoy me very much. 8.3 58.3 33.3 0.0 24 2.25 .61 Most adults need to change their values and attitudes. 0.0 30.4 65.2 4.3 23 2.74 .55

PAGE 152

142 Statement Percentages (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 Students who live together before they are married definitely should be made to realize what they are doing is wrong. 0.0 8.3 45.8 45.8 24 3.38 .65 I would discontinue my friendship with a person(s) I am close to if I found out my friend(s) was homosexual or bisexual. 4.2 0.0 20.8 75.0 24 3.67 .70 One of the problems with my fellow students is they were not dealt with firmly when they were younger. 4.2 20.8 54.3 20.8 24 2.92 .78 I do not disapprove of faculty or other adults getting drunk or high at parties. 2 8.3 62.5 20.8 33.3 24 2.29 .75 I would not discontinue a love relationship if my partner did something I disapproved of. 2 4.2 33.3 58.3 4.2 24 2.63 .65 Most instructors teach as if there is just one right way to obtain a solution to a problem. 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 24 3.00 .51 I personally find it sickening to be around my friends when they do not act in a mature manner. 0.0 25.0 41.7 33.3 24 3.08 .78 Freedom of speech can be carried too far in terms of the ideal because some students and their organizations should have their freedom of speech restricted. 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 24 3.25 .61

PAGE 153

143 Statement Percentages (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 I'm glad to see most of my friends are not dressing like "bums" anymore. 8.7 39.1 39.1 13.0 23 2.57 .84 I do not get irritated when parents cannot accept their children's friends or values. 2 37.5 45.8 16.7 0.0 24 1.79 .72 I only date people who are of the same religious background as me. 16.7 29.2 20.8 33.3 24 2.71 1.12 I think the person I am dating or "going with" should have friends outside of "our crowd." 2 0.0 4.2 41.7 54.2 24 3.50 .59 I think students that get "high" and are caught should be treated like the lawbreakers they are. 4.2 41.7 20.8 33.3 24 2.83 .96 1Mean was based on a 1-4 scale where 1 = strong ly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree. 2Item was reverse coded

PAGE 154

144 APPENDIX K RESPONSES TO THE QUALITY OF RE LATIONSHIPS SUB-SCALE BEFORE STUDYING AROAD Development Percentages (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 I would feel uncomfortable criticizing, to their face, someone I had dated a long time. 12.7 32.7 34.5 20.0 0.0 2.62 .95 The instructors here do not treat the students like they are adults. 7.3 7.3 54.5 30.9 55 3.09 .82 I relate to most students as an equal.2 9.1 21.8 43.6 25.5 55 2.85 .91 I can enjoy myself without needing to have someone with me.2 7.3 7.3 32.7 52.7 55 3.31 .90 I have to go out on a day every weekend. 20.0 18.2 30.9 30.9 55 2.73 1.11 I get nervous when an instructor criticizes my work. 10.9 41.8 45.5 1.8 55 2.38 .71 Sometimes I feel I have to make unnecessary apologies for my appearance or conduct to the person(s) I live with. 9.3 13.0 37.0 40.7 54 3.09 .96 I can tell my friends just about anything that is on my mind and know they will accept me.2 9.1 14.5 38.2 38.2 55 3.05 .99

PAGE 155

145 Development Percentages (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 My social life is satisfying to me.2 1.8 20.0 47.3 30.9 55 3.07 .77 I relate with my parents on an adult-to-adult basis.2 9.1 20.0 47.3 23.6 55 2.85 .89 My relationship with my roommate(s) is stagnating my own growth and potential. 7.4 22.2 27.8 42.6 54 3.06 .98 I feel comfortable about telling a friend of the same sex "I love you," without worrying they might get the wrong idea.2 16.7 5.6 25.9 51.9 54 3.13 1.16 My relationships with members of the opposite sex have allowed me to explore some behaviors that I had not felt comfortable with before.2 7.5 34.0 45.3 13.2 53 2.64 .81 My parents do not try to run my life.2 10.9 14.5 40.0 34.5 55 2.98 .97 My friends view me as an independent, outgoing person in my relationship with them.2 9.3 11.1 31.5 48.1 54 3.19 .97 I always hold back when I am at a party which consists of a diverse group of people. 3.7 27.8 38.9 29.6 54 2.94 .86 I encourage friends to drop in informally.2 11.1 13.0 37.0 38.9 54 3.04 .99 My roommate(s) and I feel free to come and go as we please.2 13.0 16.7 68.5 1.9 54 3.46 1.04

PAGE 156

146 Development Percentages (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 I have gotten to know some instructors as people—not just as faculty members.2 7.4 24.1 33.3 35.2 54 2.96 .95 I worry about not dating enough. 9.6 23.1 38.5 28.8 52 2.87 .95 I can just be with my friends without having to be doing anything in particular.2 9.3 3.7 22.2 64.8 54 3.43 .94 I do not view myself as an independent, outgoing person with my friends. 5.6 9.3 25.9 59.3 54 3.39 .88 1Mean was based on a 1-4 scale where 1 = strong ly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree. 2Item was reverse coded

PAGE 157

147 APPENDIX L RESPONSES TO THE QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIPS SUB-SCALE AFTER STUDYING ABROAD Statement Percentages (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 I would feel uncomfortable criticizing, to their face, someone I had dated a long time. 8.3 25.0 37.5 29.2 24 2.88 .95 The instructors here do not treat the students like they are adults. 4.2 20.8 12.5 62.5 24 3.33 .96 I relate to most students as an equal. 2 0.0 12.5 54.2 33.3 24 3.21 .66 I can enjoy myself without needing to have someone with me. 2 4.2 0.0 33.3 62.5 24 3.54 .72 I have to go out on a day every weekend. 17.4 21.7 39.1 21.7 24 2.65 1.03 I get nervous when an instructor criticizes my work. 12.5 41.7 25.0 20.8 24 2.54 1.00 Sometimes I feel I have to make unnecessary apologies for my appearance or conduct to the person(s) I live with. 0.0 16.7 37.5 45.8 24 3.29 .75 I can tell my friends just about anything that is on my mind and know they will accept me. 2 4.2 16.7 29.2 50.0 24 3.25 .90

PAGE 158

148 Statement Percentages (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 My social life is satisfying to me. 2 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 24 3.38 .71 I relate with my parents on an adult-to-adult basis. 2 4.2 20.8 33.3 41.7 24 3.13 .90 My relationship with my roommate(s) is stagnating my own growth and potential. 8.3 4.2 45.8 41.7 24 3.21 .88 I feel comfortable about telling a friend of the same sex "I love you," without worrying they might get the wrong idea. 2 16.7 12.5 4.2 66.7 24 3.21 1.22 My relationships with members of the opposite sex have allowed me to explore some behaviors that I had not felt comfortable with before. 2 4.3 34.8 34.8 26.1 23 2.83 .89 My parents do not try to run my life. 2 8.3 8.3 33.3 50.0 24 3.25 .94 My friends view me as an independent, outgoing person in my relationship with them. 2 0.0 4.2 37.5 58.3 24 3.54 .59 I always hold back when I am at a party which consists of a diverse group of people. 0.0 16.7 41.7 41.7 24 3.25 .74 I encourage friends to drop in informally. 2 4.2 8.3 33.3 54.2 24 3.38 8.24 My roommate(s) and I feel free to come and go as we please. 2 0.0 0.0 20.8 79.2 24 3.79 .42

PAGE 159

149 Statement Percentages (%) N Mean1 SD 1 2 3 4 I have gotten to know some instructors as people—not just as faculty members. 2 4.2 33.3 37.5 25.0 24 2.83 .87 I worry about not dating enough. 12.5 25.0 33.3 29.2 24 2.79 1.02 I can just be with my friends without having to be doing anything in particular. 2 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 24 3.67 .48 I do not view myself as an independent, outgoing person with my friends. 0.0 4.2 25.0 70.8 24 3.67 .57 1Mean was based on a 1-4 scale where 1 = strong ly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree. 2Item was reverse coded

PAGE 160

150 LIST OF REFERENCES Adler, J. (1985). Youth on the road: Re flections on the hist ory of tramping. Annals of Tourism Research, 12 (3), 335-354. Armstrong, G.K. (1984). Life after study abroad: A survey of undergraduate academic and career choices. The Modern Language Journal 68 (1), 1-6. Babbie, E. (1995). The Practice of Social Research Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Barnhart, R., & Groth, L. (1987). The assessm ent of college student growth resulting from an international cour se and study experience. College Student Journal, 21 7885. Baty, R.M., & Dold, E. (1977). Cross cultural ho mestays; An analysis of college students responses after living in an unfamiliar culture. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1 (1), 61-76. Braverman, D.G. (1987). The relationship of developmental level of new members to status and other characteristics of the fraternities they join Unpublished masterÂ’s thesis, The University of Iowa, Iowa City. Boyd, B.L., Giebler, C., Hince, M., Liu, Y., Mehta, N., Rash, R., Rowland, J., Saldana, C., & Yanta, Y. (2001, October). Does study abroad make a difference? An impact assessment of the internationa l 4-H youth exchange program. Journal of Extension, 39 (5). Retrieved August 30, 2005, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2001october/rb8.html Brodsky-Porges, E. (1981). The grand tour, travel as an educational device 1600-1800 Annals of Tourism Research 8 (2), 171-186. Carr, N. (2005). Poverty, debt, and cons picuous consumption: University students tourism experiences. Tourism Management, 26 797-806. Carsello, C., & Greaser, J. (1976). How co llege students change during study abroad. College Student Journal, 10 276-278. Chadee, D.D., and Cutler, J. (1996). Insight s into international travel by students. Journal of Travel Research, 35 (2), 75-80. Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

PAGE 161

151 Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociol ogy of international tourism. Social Research, 39 (1), 164-182. Cohen, E. (1973). Nomads from affluence: Notes on the phenomenon of drifter tourism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 14 (1-2), 89-103. Comenius Foundation. (n.d.). About John Amos Comenius Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.comeniusfoundation.org/index.php?id=17 Commission on the Abraham Lincoln St udy Abroad Fellowship Program. (2005, November). Global competence and national needs: One million students studying abroad Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.lincolncommission.org/Lincoln Report.pdf Comp, D., & Rhodes, G. (Eds.). (1989-2003). Research on U.S. students study abroad: An update, volume III, 2001-2003, with updates to the 1989 and volume II editions 2000-2003. Retrieved December 3, 2005, from Loyola Marymount University, the Center for Global EducationÂ’s Web site http://www.globaled.us/ro/book_research_comp.html Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Califor nia: Sage Publications Inc. Crust, S.L. (1998). Student involvement and study abroad: Exploring AstinÂ’s theory in an overseas program in France Unpublished doctoral di ssertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Dolby, N. (2004). Encountering an American self: Study abroad and national identity. Comparative Education Review 48 (2), 150-173. Dukes, R., Lockwood, E., Oliver, H., Pezalil a, C., & Wilker, C. (1994). A longitudinal study of a semester at sea voyage. Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (3), 489-498. Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Farrell, P., & Suvedi, M. (2003). Studyi ng abroad in Nepal: Assessing impact. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 9, 175-188. Gardner, D., & Witherell, S. (2003, November 17). American students study abroad in growing numbers: Despite economic and s ecurity concerns post-Sept 11, numbers continue to rise. Open Doors 2003: American Students Studying Abroad Retrieved December 4, 2005, from http://ope ndoors.iienetwork.org/?p=36524

PAGE 162

152 Gardner, D., & Witherell, S. (2004, November 15). Study abroad surging among American students: After Sept 11, interest in study abroad continues to grow rapidly. Open Doors 2004: American Students Studying Abroad. Retrieved March 19, 2005, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=50138 Graburn, N. H. (1983). The anthropology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 10 (3), 9-33. Gray, K.S., Murdock, G.K., & Stebbins, C.D. (2002). Assessing study abroad’s effect on an international mission. Change, 34 (3), 44-51 Hallowell, C.K. (1991). The measurement of developmenta l outcomes related to outdoor experiential leadership training of high school and college students Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Universi ty of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Herman, N.B. (1996). The impact of study abroad experiences on the psychosocial development of college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, Athens. Hood, A.B., & Jackson, L.M. (1997a). Devel oping autonomy invent ory. In A.B. Hood (ed.), The Iowa student development inventories (2nd ed., pp. 32-49). Iowa City, Iowa: Hitech Press. Hood, A.B., & Jackson, L.M. (1997b ). Developing competence inventory. In A.B. Hood (ed.), The Iowa student development inventories (2nd ed., pp. 5-21). Iowa City, Iowa: Hitech Press. Hood, A.B., & Mines, L.M. (1997). Mines-Jens en interpersonal relationships inventory. In A.B. Hood (ed.), The Iowa student development inventories (2nd ed., pp.50-64). Iowa City, Iowa: Hitech Press. Hunter, I.R., & Brown. (1991). The applica tion of inferential statistics with nonprobability type samples. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 16 (3), 234-243. Inglis, A., Rolls, C., & Kristy, S. (1998). Th e impact of participation in a study abroad programme on students’ conceptual understa nding of community health nursing in a developing country. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28 (4), 911-917. Institute of Interna tional Education. (n.d.). About IEE Retrieved August 30, 2005, from http://www.iie.org/Template.cfm?Secti on=Mission_and_Profile&Template=/Conte ntManagement/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=17948 Institute of International Education. (2003, November 3). Fall survey: The state of international educational exchange—International students Retrieved November 8, 2005, from http://opendoors.iien etwork.org/file_depot/0-10000000/010000/3390/ folder/28491/IIE+O nline+Survey+Fall+2003.doc

PAGE 163

153 James, N.E. (1976). Students abro ad: Expectations versus reality. Liberal Education, 62 (4), 599-607. King, P.M. (1990). Assessing development from a cognitive-developmental perspective. In D.G. Creamer and Associates (Eds.), College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990Â’s Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association. Koester, J. (1986). A profile of foreign la nguage majors who work, study, and travel abroad. The Modern Language Journal 70 (1), 21-27. Kuh, G.K., & Kauffmann, N.L. (1985). Th e impact of study abroad on personal development of college students. Journal of Internati onal Student Personnel, 2 (May), 6-10. Lamet, S.A., & Lamet, M.S. (1982, November). The impact of study abroad on selected groups of students. Paper presented at the meeting of the Council on International Educational Exchange, New York. Lane, K. (2003). Report, Educators ca ll for more study abroad programs. Black Issues in Higher Education, 20 (22), 11-12. Loker-Murphy, L. (1996). Backpackers in Au stralia: A motivationbased segmentation study. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 5 (4), 23-45. Loker-Murphy, L., and Pearce, P.L. (1995) Young budget travelers: Backpackers in Australia. Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (4), 819843. Long, M.J. (1995). Relationships between psychologi cal development and attitudes toward gay men and lesbians in undergraduate college students Unpublished masterÂ’s thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. Marion, P.B. (1978). Evaluation of study abroad (Report No. HE-005-386). Paper presented at the National Convention of the National Association of Foreign Student Affairs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED089634) Martin, J.N. (1989). Predepar ture orientation: Prepari ng college sojourners for intercultural interaction. Communication Education, 38, 249-258. Martin, J.N., & Rohrlich, B. (1991). The relationship between study-abroad student expectations and selected student characteristics. Journal of College Student Development, 32 (1), 39-46. Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and personality. (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row. Meyer, A.E. (1972). An educational history of the western world (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-

PAGE 164

154 Mines, R. A. (1977). Development and valida tion of the Mines-Jen sen Interpersonal Relationship Inventory (Iowa Student Development Project Technical Report #6). Unpublished manuscript, the Univ ersity of Iowa, Iowa City. Morgan, E.E., Jr. (1975). Study abroad: A process of adaptation and change. International Review of Education, 21 207-215. Murphy, L. (2001). Exploring social interactions of backpackers. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 50-67. Nash, D. (1976). The personal consequences of a year of study abroad. The Journal of Higher Education, 47 (2), 191-203. Noy, C. (2004). This trip really changed me : BackpackersÂ’ narratives of self-change. Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (1), 78-102. Osler, A. (1998). European citizenship and study abroad: Student teachers' experiences and dentities. Cambridge Journal of Education, 28 (1), 77-97. Pearce, P.L. (1988). The Ulysses factor: Evaluating visitors in tourist settings. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pearce, P.L. (2003). Motivation for pleasure travel. In by Goeldner, C.R., and, J.R. Ritchie, B. (eds.), Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies (9th ed., pp. 241259). Hoboken, New Jersey: Jon Wiley & Sons Inc. Pfinster, A.O. (1972). Everyone overseas: Goshen College pioneers. International Educational and Cultural Exchange, 8 (2), 1-12. Riley, P.J. (1988). Road culture of inte rnational long-term budget travelers. Annals of Tourism Research, 15 (3), 313-328. Roeming, R. (1971). Travel. In Deighton, L.C. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of education (Vol. 4, p. 70). New York: Macmillan. Ryan, C. (1998). The travel ca reer ladder: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (4), 936-957. Sideli, K., Berg, M.V., Rubin, D.L., & Sutt on, R.C. (n.d.). Electronic sampling results: Survey #2: Outcomes assessment and study abroad programs. SECUSSA Data Collection Working Group Retrieved August 30, 2005, from, http://www.secussa.nafsa.org/ samplingresults2.html Smith-Eggeman, B. (1993). A study of a relativ e influence of cooperative education on college studentsÂ’ development of interpersonal relationships Unpublished doctoral disseration, University of Nort hern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado.

PAGE 165

155 Snmez, S.F., & and Graefe, A.R. (1998). In ternational vacation d ecision and terrorism risk. Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (1), 122-124. Sorenson, A. (2003). Backpacker ethnography. Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (4), 847867. STA Travel. (n.d.). Living abroad. Retrieved December 3, 2005, from http://www.statravel.com/Statra vel/centermain.aspx?MenuID=9000 Stephenson, S. (1999). Study abroad as a transf ormational experience and its effect upon study abroad students and host na tionals in Santiago, Chile. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 5 Retrieved December 3, 2005, from http://www.frontiersjournal.com /issues/vol5/vol5-01_Stephenson.pdf Taub, D.J. (1993). The puzzle of autonomy: An explorati on of the relations hip of selected factors to undergraduate womenÂ’s development of autonomy Doctoral dissertation, The University of Maryla nd, College Park, Maryland. Todd, S. (2001). Self-concept: A tourism application Journal of Consumer Behavior, 1 (2), 184-196. Trease, G. (1965). The grand tour. London: Heinemann. Tymitz, J.P. (n.d.). Message from the ceo. Retrieved April 14, 2005, from http://www.semesteratsea.com/aboutus/message.html University of Calgary. (n.d.). Student development theory. Retrieved December 3, 2005, from Student and Academic ServiceÂ’s Web site http://www.ucalgary.ca/sas/sa s_site/ student_dev.html University of Florida In ternational Center. (n.d.). UFIC mission statement Retrieved December 3, 2003, from http://www.ufic.ufl.edu Vogt, J.W. (1976). Wandering: Youth and travel behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 4 (1), 25-41. White, D.B., & Hood, A.B. (1989). An assessment of the validity of ChickeringÂ’s theory of student development. Journal of College Student Development, 30 354-361.

PAGE 166

156 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Heather Anne Robalik was born on Fe bruary 20, 1977, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She attended Elon University in Elon, North Carolina, where her major was leisure/sport management. After a se mester abroad in London, England, and an internship in Naples, Italy, she realized how transformative the experiences were and consequently decided to attend the Univ ersity of Florida to study tourism.