08832323.2011.627889
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Evaluating a Short-Term, First-Year Study
Abroad Program for Business and Engineering
Undergraduates: Understanding the Student
Learning Experience
Josephine E. Olson & Kristine Lalley
To cite this article: Josephine E. Olson & Kristine Lalley (2012) Evaluating a Short-Term, FirstYear Study Abroad Program for Business and Engineering Undergraduates: Understanding
the Student Learning Experience, Journal of Education for Business, 87:6, 325-332, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2011.627889
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.627889
Published online: 30 Aug 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 267
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:05
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 87: 325–332, 2012
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.627889
Evaluating a Short-Term, First-Year Study Abroad
Program for Business and Engineering
Undergraduates: Understanding the Student Learning
Experience
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
Josephine E. Olson and Kristine Lalley
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
The authors describe a short-term study abroad program for business and engineering students
at the end of their freshman year, and then present the results of a later survey of the participants
as upperclassmen that was conducted to determine whether the program met its objectives. The
primary objectives of this first-year program were to influence participants to pursue additional
study abroad opportunities later in their college career, inspire them to further study foreign
language and culture, and encourage them to become involved in additional international
activities. Improvement in teamwork and cross-cultural skills were also goals.
Keywords: assessment of learning outcomes, freshmen programs, international business education, joint business and engineering programs, study abroad
Incorporating an international experience into business and
engineering undergraduate education is becoming an increasingly common practice. In the 10 years between
1998 and 2008 the number of U.S. business and management students studying abroad increased 31% from about
23,000 to 53,000. The number of U.S. engineering students studying abroad increased 23% from about 3,600
to 8,100 (Bhandari & Chow, 2009). Short-term programs
(2–8 weeks) have also grown in importance, with 56% of
all U.S. students going abroad participating in this type
of program in 2008 (Institute of International Education,
2009; McMurtrie, 2009). Although the number of engineering students who study abroad is much smaller than the number of business students who study abroad, both disciplines
recognize the benefits of having students include an international experience as part of their education. We describe a
short-term study abroad program developed for University
of Pittsburgh business and engineering students at the end
of their first year of study, and then discuss the results of an
evaluation survey of the participants two to three years later.
Correspondence should be addressed to Josephine E. Olson, University
of Pittsburgh, Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, Pittsburgh, PA
15260, USA. E-mail: jolson@katz.pitt.edu
BACKGROUND
Study abroad programs for first-year undergraduate students
in professional schools are fairly rare, as are joint study
abroad programs for business and engineering students. Our
program, nicknamed the Plus3 program because students
earn an additional three credits, was designed by business
and engineering faculty in cooperation with the Study Abroad
Office. The idea of a program for first-year students was to
give them a short, structured, faculty-led international program early in their college career that would help students
overcome any initial anxiety about foreign travel and whet
their appetite for more international activities, foreign language study, and more focused study abroad programs or
international internships later in their college career. Anxiety
about foreign travel was found to be the second most important issue after expenses for why students were reluctant to
study abroad in a survey of Oregon State University students
(King & Young, 1994). Other goals were to increase their
cross-cultural sensitivity and ability to work in diverse teams.
The rationale for bringing engineering and business students
together was that these students would inevitably work together in their careers, often in an international context, and
thus should learn how to interact on business and engineering teams at an early stage of their academic development.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
326
J. E. OLSON AND K. LALLEY
Combining freshmen from the two schools also allowed us
to offer more country destinations.
Study abroad programs for first-year students present
challenges. Because these students typically have not yet
developed content-specific knowledge in a particular field
of study, programs must take into account that participants
know little about U.S. business and engineering practices,
let alone about business and engineering practices in other
countries. In addition, many of the students have not traveled
abroad before and, as freshmen, are still adjusting to living
on their own for the first time and being independent from
their parents. The program was developed with these constraints in mind; details of the program are described in the
next section.
Although short-term study abroad programs have become
a more dominant model of study abroad in higher education in recent years and several studies have demonstrated
the benefits of the short-term program model (Anderson,
Lawton, Rexeisen, & Hubbard, 2006; Chieffo & Griffiths,
2004), there are few studies that report on learning outcomes
several years after students have participated in such programs (Martin, Bradford, & Rohrlich, 1995). This study assesses the perceptions and activities of students from the
Plus3 program two to three years after they participated in
the program, in terms of how they report what they learned
and the subsequent activities and choices the students made
to enhance their international awareness.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLUS3 PROGRAM
As noted previously, the Plus3 short-term study abroad program is offered to business and engineering freshmen enrolled at the University of Pittsburgh. The Plus3 program
includes predeparture class meetings, a two-week international trip to a country immediately after spring classes end,
and a team-based research paper presented the following
September. There are no language requirements for the program. To participate, students complete an application and
are accepted into the program based on the following criteria.
Students must have completed two semesters at the University of Pittsburgh with a 2.75 grade point average (GPA) for
business students and a 2.50 GPA for engineering students.
Students under university disciplinary sanctions are not admitted. In their application students can order their choices
for country destination, but there is no guarantee that they
will all get their first choice. Finally, they are interviewed
by the faculty leader and the study abroad assistant to determine whether the student has the appropriate motivation and
maturity for the program.
The Plus3 program began in 2002 with two destinations:
Germany and the Czech Republic. For this study we surveyed
participants from the 2005 and 2006 programs. In 2005, there
were five destinations: Santos, Brazil; Valpara´ıso, Chile;
Beijing, China; Rouen, France; and Augsburg, Germany.
In 2006, there were only four destinations, as France was
dropped. In each of these two years, the tuition and fees for
all destinations were the same, but students paid their own
airfare, which varied by destination. The program typically
has about 100 students participating (20–30 from business
and 70–80 from engineering).
The program has three components, as recommended for
short-term study abroad field trips (McLaughlin & Johnson,
2006). The pretrip classes totaling 12 hr are used to prepare
students for their international experience. They learn a little
about the country they will visit and its cultural aspects, particularly business and engineering practices. Because company visits are a major part of the trip, students are assigned
to company teams and begin researching their companies;
they make a presentation on their company before the trip.
These pretrip classes are also used to convey expectations
about proper behavior on the trip and particularly on company visits. Students are presented with a code of conduct,
which they must sign to indicate their agreement. They generally have a survival language class; however, for several
of the destinations, particularly Chile, some students already
have adequate or even advanced foreign language skills.
During the two-week trip to their country, the participants
stay at one location in either an inexpensive hotel or student
dormitories and make day trips. Staying in one location reduces the cost and the stress of frequent moves. There are
four or five company visits. Company visits to manufacturing
firms where students can see products being made work better for these younger students, even the business ones, than
visits focused on strategy, marketing, finance, or research and
development. In addition, there are lectures, sightseeing trips,
and cultural activities. In most of the destination countries,
the students also have the opportunity to interact with local
students. Students must keep a professional journal and they
are also graded for their participation in the trip activities.
Upon their return to the United States, the student teams
write a research paper on their company and the global industry in which it operates, and then make a PowerPoint
presentation to faculty and students from the business and
engineering schools at the beginning of the fall term of their
sophomore year.
Survey of Learning Outcomes
All Plus3 participants have been required to fill out an evaluation at the end of the international trip. However, the organizers were interested in knowing whether the program was
meeting the longer term objectives of the program. In the
spring of 2008 one of the authors developed an online survey to help determine how well the program was meeting its
goals. As listed previously, the goals of the program are influencing participants to pursue additional study or internship
abroad opportunities later in their college career, inspiring
students to further study foreign languages, and encouraging students to become involved in additional international
FRESHMAN SHORT-TERM STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM
TABLE 2
Numbers and Characteristics of the Respondents
TABLE 1
Surveys Sent and Response Rates, by Category
Total
Surveys sent
Surveys received
Response rate
184
101
55%
Brazil
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
Surveys sent
Surveys received
Response rate
55
28
51%
Business
48
25
52%
Chile
41
27
66%
Engineering
2005
136
76
56%
97
55
57%
China
France
42
19
45%
17
9
53%
327
Business
2006
87
46
53%
Germany
29
18
62%
activities, such as joining an international organization or attending internationally focused events. Additional goals are
to increase the students’ ability to work in interdisciplinary
teams and to develop greater cultural sensitivity.
The survey asked a number of questions related to these
goals; it also asked for information on students’ international
experience and language study before participating in the
Plus3 program. The survey design included closed questions
that would allow us to compare responses across our population, as well as open-ended questions that would allow
participants in the study to describe their experiences and
perspectives in greater detail, and that would allow us to gain
a more in-depth understanding of the perceptions of the participants about the program (Cresswell, 1998; Patton, 1990).
The Sample
Those surveyed were students who participated in the Plus3
program in 2005 and 2006. Surveys were sent out electronically to all those participants still at the university during
the spring of 2008, and three follow-up emails were sent to
those who had not responded. The survey had Institutional
Research Board approval and all respondents were guaranteed anonymity.
Table 1 lists the number of surveys sent and received and
the response rates by categories. The overall response rate
was 55%, and response rates by school and year varied from
52% to 57%; response rates by destination varied from 45%
to 66%.
SURVEY RESULTS
The quantitative analysis of the data collected includes simple
counts, chi-square tests, and analysis of variance using SPSS
(ver. 15).
Table 2 indicates some pre-Plus3 program characteristics
of the respondents. The table shows that three-fourths of the
respondents were from the school of engineering. Prior to
participating in the Plus3 program, only 36% of the respondents had traveled abroad; thus, the majority of students had
Total respondents
International experience before Plus3
Foreign language studied before
Plus3
One foreign language
Two foreign languages
Languages studied before Plus3
Spanish
French
German
Other
Graduating April 2008 (2005
participants only)
∗∗ p
Engineering
Total
25
15 (60%)
76
101
21 (28%) 36 (36%∗∗ )
15 (60%)
5 (20%)
61 (80%)
7 (9%)
76 (75%)
12 (12%)
12
46
4
10
4
9
5
6
15 (100%) 17 (43%)
58
14
13
11
32 (58%)
= .01.
no international experience. The business students had significantly more international experience than the engineering
students, χ 2(1, N = 101) = 8.59, p < .003, with 60% of the
25 business students having been abroad for at least two
weeks and only 28% of the 76 engineering students having
been abroad for at least two weeks.
Table 2 also indicates that 87% of the students had studied
one or two foreign languages before participating in the Plus3
program, with the most common language being Spanish;
there were no statistically significant differences between
the schools. We expected those who participated in 2005 to
be seniors and we asked how many were graduating in April
2008 and thus completing their degree in four years. Of the
students, 58% expected to graduate in April 2008, 100% of
the business students and 43% of the engineering students.
Before examining the learning outcomes, we comment
on some of the information in Table 2 and in the text. The
fact that there were more than twice as many engineering
students as business students was partly a function of differences in the sizes of the freshman classes. In 2005 and
2006 the College of Business Administration (CBA) had a
first-year class size of about 310 students, while the Swanson School of Engineering (SSOE) had a first-year class size
of about 450 students. Even so, the percentage of freshman
participants from engineering was also greater (about 22%)
than the percentage from business (15%). Other possible explanations for the difference in numbers include the fact that
engineering students had required classes in the fall of the
freshmen year where the program could be promoted whereas
the business students only had a one-credit workshop taught
by nonfaculty advisors. Although the Plus3 program was
designed as a teaser for subsequent deeper study abroad
programs, the rigidity of the engineering curriculum often makes it more difficult for engineering students to do
a semester or summer-length study abroad program (Fischer, 2010; King & Young, 1994). Our conversations with
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
328
J. E. OLSON AND K. LALLEY
engineering students suggest that some of the engineering students chose the Plus3 program as their only international experience because they were afraid they would
be too busy with such obligations as cooperative education (in which the student works in industry for alternating semesters throughout his or her college career) and
other engineering activities later on in their studies. In contrast, the authors talked to a number of business students
who said they knew they wanted to do a longer study
abroad program and therefore did not enroll in the Plus3
program.
It is not clear why more business students had traveled
abroad than engineering students; explaining the difference
would require more information on the socio-economic characteristics of the two student bodies and of the participants
(Salisbury, Umbach, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2009). The fact
that all the 2005 business participants in the survey expected
to graduate in the spring of 2008 but less than half the 2005
engineering participants were graduating then may reflect
that many engineering students participate in cooperative
education that delays their graduation. Next we examine
questions with respect to desired outcomes of the Plus3
program.
Additional Study Abroad or Foreign Internships
One goal of the Plus3 program is to encourage students to
participate in another, longer study abroad program or an
international internship during their college studies. The results shown in Table 3 indicate that 29% of the respondents
did at least one more study abroad program and/or internship
after Plus3, and 19% planned to do another program; thus,
48% either had done or expected to do another study abroad
program. However, there were significant differences in the
responses by school. On the one hand, business students were
significantly more likely to have studied again or worked
abroad than engineering students (60% [15] of business students versus 18% [14] of the engineering students), χ 2(1,
N = 101) = 15.89, p < .001. On the other hand, 22% (17)
engineering students still planned to do another study abroad
or international internship before graduation versus only 8%
(2) of the business students (some cells were too small for a
chi-square test). Combining these two responses, 68% (17)
of business students who participated in Plus3 either studied
abroad again or planned to go abroad a second time versus
41% (31) of the engineering students. The difference between
the percentage of business students and the percentage of engineering students who had done or planned to do a study
abroad program or an international internship is also statistically significant, χ 2(1, N = 101) = 5.59, p < .018. This
finding supports the earlier suggestion that, for many of the
engineering participants, the Plus3 program was the primary
international experience for them. For those who did another
study abroad or internship program the second experience
was a median of 15–16 weeks (roughly a semester) for both
schools.
Additional Language Study
Another goal of the Plus3 program is to encourage students
to continue to study foreign language(s) after completing the
Plus3 program. The results indicated that 31% of the respondents continued to study one or two foreign languages after
participating in the Plus3 program, with Spanish once more
being the most common language studied. There were significant differences between the schools, with 56% of business
students continuing language study versus 22% of the engineering students, χ 2(1, N = 101) = 10.00, p < .002.
Participation in International Activities and
International Contacts
Still another goal of the Plus3 program is to get students
interested in participating in international activities both during college and after graduation. As shown in Table 3, 61%
of the respondents (68% of the business students and 59%
of the engineering students) became involved with one or
more international activities upon returning to the university
after participating in the program. The differences between
the two schools are not statistically significant. Table 3 also
lists the type of activities by school. Participants were also
asked: “To what degree have you sought out contact with
international students?” Seventy percent of the respondents
had limited or moderate contact and 9% had frequent or
constant contact. The business students were somewhat less
likely to have any contact. Many of the students also planned
international activities after graduation, with 30% (23) of the
engineers and 60% (15) of the business students planning to
do an internship or pursue a full-time position abroad after
graduation.
Teamwork and Cultural Sensitivity
It was hoped that the Plus3 experience would improve the
ability of students to work in teams, be culturally sensitive, and interact effectively with those from outside of the
United States. Respondents were asked, “To what extent has
the Plus3 experience affected your ability to work well in
teams?” and had to respond on a 4-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (none) to 4 (significant). The results are shown
in Table 4. The mean of 2.56 fell between limited and moderate; differences between the schools were not statistically
significant. Twelve percent of the respondents did not think
Plus3 had an impact on their teamwork skills. Using the
same 4-point scale, respondents were asked, “To what extent
has the Plus3 experience improved your ability to interact
successfully with those from different cultures?” The mean
response was 3.01, the moderate score; differences between
the schools were not statistically significant. Only 4% said it
had no effect. Again using the same 4-point scale, the students
329
FRESHMAN SHORT-TERM STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
TABLE 3
Outcomes From Participation in Plus3
Total respondents
Did an additional study abroad or international
internship after Plus3.
Median weeks of additional study abroad or international
internship
SD
Plan to do another study abroad program or
international internship
Have done or plan to do another study abroad program
or international internship.
Studied one or two foreign languages after Plus3
Spanish
German
French
Portuguese
Chinese
Other
Participated in some international activity since Plus3
On-campus organization
Off-campus organization
Kept in touch with foreign friends
made on Plus 3
Other international activity
Have sought out contact with international students since Plus3
No contact
Limited/moderate
Frequent/constant
Anticipated international activities after graduation
Applying for a Fulbright
Graduate work involving international studies
Graduate work in another country
Internship abroad
Job abroad
Other (mainly travel)
∗p
Business
Engineering
Total
25
76
101
15 (60%)
14 (18%)
29 (29%∗∗∗ )
16.0
6.6
15.0
13.3
15.5
10.1
2 (8%)
17 (22%)
19 (19%)
17 (68%)
14 (56%)
5
2
2
1
0
4
17 (68%)
2
1
31 (41%)
17 (22%)
9
3
2
1
1
4
45 (59%)
14
2
48 (48%∗ )
31 (31%∗∗ )
14
5
4
2
1
8
62 (61%)
16
3
15
4
36
3
51
7
7 (28%)
18 (72%)
0 (0%)
14 (18%)
53 (70%)
9 (12%)
21 (21%)
71 (70%)
9 (9%)
1
4
3
2
13
6
1
6
8
6
17
15
2
10
11
8
30
21
= .05. ∗∗ p = .01. ∗∗∗ p = .001.
were asked, “To what extent has the Plus3 program increased
your cultural sensitivity?” The mean overall response was
2.98, or approximately the moderate score; differences between the schools were not significantly different. Seven percent said it had no effect.
After each of these three closed questions, students were
given a chance to write open-ended comments. Themes from
these responses are addressed in the next section. The themes
were identified using thematic analysis, which is a process for
encoding qualitative information (Boyatzis, 1998). A theme
is a pattern found in the information that describes and organizes possible observations (Boyatzis). Using this approach,
we analyzed the open-ended comments to come up with the
themes outlined subsequently.
Comments on teamwork. For the 12 students who did
not believe the Plus3 program had helped their team skills, the
explanations were generally that they had learned teamwork
elsewhere, there was not much teamwork, or their Plus3 team
did not function well. Themes that emerged from the other 82
participants’ comments, who thought it had improved their
teamwork skills and wrote comments, included the importance of group dynamics and relying on others when in an
overseas environment. The German Plus3 program had University of Pittsburgh students work on company projects with
students from the University of Augsburg and some of these
Pitt students included comments on learning how to work
with students from different cultures. Some of the students
who thought they learned teamwork skills also commented
about having lots of teamwork in other situations or not needing much teamwork for the project, but many commented on
the value of teamwork in Plus3.
For example, a business student who went to Germany
wrote, “Plus3 group work gave great experience on how to
interact with students from different countries.” An engineering student who went to China said, “We had to work in
teams on our projects, and while we were in China, we relied
a lot on the other students because we were out of place.”
330
J. E. OLSON AND K. LALLEY
TABLE 4
Mean Extent of Improvement in Skills
Business
Skill
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
Improvement in ability to
work in teams
Improvement in ability to
interact successfully with
those from different
cultures
Increased cultural
sensitivity
Engineering
Total
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
2.67
0.70
2.53
0.80
2.56
0.77
2.83
0.82
3.07
0.82
3.01
0.82
2.92
0.72
3.00
0.86
2.98
0.82
Note. Improvement was rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (none) to 4 (significant).
Another engineering student on the China trip commented,
“Teamwork and growing close to people in groups was essential on our trip to China, and it taught me to recognize
my own shortfalls and strengths and to know when to count
on others.” Although not directly commenting on teamwork,
an engineer who went to France wrote, “I feel like Plus3 is
an excellent introduction to new cultures and new environments. . . It certainly lays the foundation for cross-cultural
teamwork.” An engineering student who went to Brazil said,
“Being put into groups with students I’m not familiar with
has allowed me to practice basic skills in communication
and getting along, even if it’s not project-oriented.” Some
also commented that working virtually over the summer was
a new challenge and others that they had learned how to
handle difficult people and to work with people in different
disciplines.
Comments on interacting with those from other
cultures. For the 24 students who said Plus3 had no or
limited effect on their ability to interact with people from
other cultures, the most common explanations given were
that they had already known how to interact or that there
was little interaction with foreigners on the trip. From the
74 participants who said Plus3 had moderate or significant
effect, the comments indicated that participants gained an
awareness of how to effectively interact with people from
other cultures. Participants also gained a better perspective
of what it means to be a U.S. citizen and how that factor
impacts the types of interactions the students have with those
from other countries. Experiencing what it means to be a
U.S. citizen in a foreign country led many of the participants
to develop more awareness of how they come across to those
from another culture and how they communicate to those
who may not speak English as their first language. Some
examples of their comments follow.
An engineering student who went to Chile wrote, “I would
have had no idea how to act in a foreign environment, but
now I have a good idea.” A business student who also went to
Chile said, “It helped me to understand that small differences
in cultures can be very important.” An engineering student
who went to France commented, “Basically I went from not
knowing anything about the different culture, feeling awkward and unsure about interacting with foreign students, to
a comfortable degree when I interact in an international environment.” An engineering student who went to Germany
observed, “Life outside of America! What a thought. Seriously, though, I hadn’t really ever seen America from a
different angle before so going abroad was worth it for that
benefit alone.” Finally, an engineering student who went to
Brazil wrote, “I understand that you must first observe how
different cultures conduct business in order to be efficient
and productive when working internationally.”
Comments on becoming more culturally sensitive.
The explanations given for answers to this question were
quite similar to those to the previous question. The 19 who
responded that Plus3 had limited or no effect on their cultural
sensitivity generally argued that they already were sensitive
to other cultures. Most of the other 77 participants who wrote
comments thought that they had become more sensitive and
some said that they were now more aware of their own U.S.
culture. The following are a few of the comments.
An engineering student who went to Brazil observed: “I
am aware that many Latin American countries are totally
different and I think many Americans have a stereotype that
everyone eats tacos and wear sombreros.” Another engineer
who went to Brazil observed, “I learned a lot about the United
States and my wastefulness by traveling abroad.” A business
student who went to China said, “I am now more prepared
when talking with or about other cultures to accept differences in social norms and respond appropriately to questions.” An engineering student who went to China wrote,
“I’m much less na¨ıve now. I’m from a very small, very xenophobic town. . . Now I think I really empathize with all
cultures and stick up for them when ignorant people from
my hometown talk down on anyone for having a different
culture.”
Additional Comments on the Plus3 Experience
Finally there was an open-ended question unrelated to a previous closed question that allowed respondents to comment
on what was the most significant effect of the Plus3 program
on each of them. The question read, “What stands out to
you as the most helpful or meaningful part(s) of the Plus3
experience that has or will impact you?” A total of 82 of the
101 participants chose to write comments. Fifty-two commented on the opportunity to make friends and interact in another culture, and 26 mentioned company visits and learning
about business and engineering in another country. Seventeen
respondents pointed out that they planned to pursue additional international experiences as a direct result of having
participated in the Plus3 program. The following are some
FRESHMAN SHORT-TERM STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
examples of responses: A business student who went to Chile
wrote, “[It made] me realize that I definitely wanted to study
abroad in the future and possibly even work and live abroad
one day.” Another business student who went to Chile said,
“The trip has also inspired me to study abroad again and
pursue an international business certificate.” An engineering
student who went to China commented, “It broadens your
view of the engineering industry beyond the United States.
Seeing the profession in a different cultural setting gives a
better appreciation for it.” An engineering student who visited Brazil wrote, “I was convinced I wanted to obtain my
engineering degree after spending time touring engineering
facilities in my Plus3 country.” An engineering student who
went to Germany observed,
It gave me the desire to go out and experience the world. . .to
not be such an isolationist. Since Plus3 I’ve been back to
Germany twice already, once to visit and another time to do
research for the University of Hamburg. It’s also inspired me
to study abroad at Oxford University in the United Kingdom
for a year, something I wouldn’t have dared to do without the
confidence gained from this experience.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The results of this survey show that about half of the students
who participated in this short-term study abroad program
participated in or planned to participate in another study
abroad program or an international internship, about a third
continued with language study, and most participated in international activities and sought out international students
after the program. However, it should be noted that business
students were much more likely than engineering students to
achieve two of the major objectives of the Plus3 program—to
do another international program and to continue language
programs. If these two objectives are equally important for
engineering students, then more research is needed to determine how these can be better achieved within the constraints
of the engineering curriculum.
Most of the respondents thought that their teamwork,
cultural sensitivity, and ability to interact with others from
another culture had improved as a result of the program.
These results represent only the opinions of the respondents. More objective examinations of improvement in cultural sensitivity might be achieved by administering a standard test of cultural sensitivity before and sometime after the
program.
As the comments to the last open-ended question indicate,
the Plus3 program apparently helped many of the student participants become more engaged with the world around them,
and more aware of how they should interact with those who
are from different cultures. Also, the comments suggest that
the Plus3 program helped students become more focused and
confident about themselves. These findings, in our opinion,
331
need more exploration. As a learning outcome, it is surprising that students would report such transformative learning
as an outcome from participating in a short-term study abroad
program, where the general view among practitioners is that
short-term study abroad programs do not allow for sufficient
time or opportunities to develop such important and lasting
change in participants. However, at least two studies did not
find any significant difference in global-mindedness of students in short- and long-term programs (Donnelley-Smith,
2009; Kehl & Morris, 2008).
Last, the results seem to indicate that many of the program objectives were met, particularly for business students.
However, given the Plus3 program was voluntary and only a
small number of students in both schools participated, it cannot be stated with certainty if the program primarily attracted
already globally minded students or those who recently
became proponents of globalism. Most had not traveled
abroad before the program, but they might still have been
internationally focused. We would like to conduct another
study with a control group of students who did not engage
in the Plus3 program to determine differences in those students’ attitudes and beliefs about international experience.
We are also curious about those students who did not participate in the Plus3 program, but who did participate in
an international education program later in their college
career, to see if there are differences with that population
in how they view their own awareness of international issues. A longer-term study of career outcomes is likewise
desirable.
REFERENCES
Anderson, P. H., Lawton, L., Rexeisen, R., & Hubbard, A. (2006).
Short-term study abroad and intercultural sensitivity: A pilot
study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 457–469.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.1-.004
Bhandari, R., & Chow, P. (2009). Open doors 2009: Report on international
education exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chieffo, L., & Griffiths, L. (2004). Large-scale assessment of student attitudes after a short-term study abroad program. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 165–177.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five traditions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Donnelley-Smith, L. (2009). Global learning through short-term study
abroad. Peer Review, 11(4), 12–15.
Fischer, K. (2010, April 2). U. of Minnesota integrates study abroad into the
curriculum. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(29), A26–A27.
Institute of International Education. (2009). Briefing: Americans study
abroad in increasing numbers. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/whowe-Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2009/2009-1116-Americans-Study-Abroad-Increasing
Kehl, K., & Morris, J. (2008). Differences in global-mindedness between
short-term and semester long study abroad programs at selected private
universities. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,
15, 67–80.
332
J. E. OLSON AND K. LALLEY
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
King, L. J., & Young, J. A. (1994). Education for the 21st century. Die
Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 27, 77–87.
Martin, J., Bradford, L., & Rohrlich, B. (1995). Comparing predeparture expectations and post-sojourn reports: A longitudinal study of U.S. students
abroad. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19, 87–110.
McLaughlin, J. S., & Johnson, D. K. (2006). Assessing the field course
experiential model; transforming collegiate short-term study abroad experience in rich learning environments. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad, 12, 65–80.
McMurtrie, B. (2009, November 20). Study abroad programs diversify as
their popularity grows. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(23), A24.
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/section/Home/5
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Salisbury, M. H., Umbach, P. D., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T.
(2009). Going global: Understanding the choice process of the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 50, 119–143.
doi:10.1007/s11162–008–9111-x
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Evaluating a Short-Term, First-Year Study
Abroad Program for Business and Engineering
Undergraduates: Understanding the Student
Learning Experience
Josephine E. Olson & Kristine Lalley
To cite this article: Josephine E. Olson & Kristine Lalley (2012) Evaluating a Short-Term, FirstYear Study Abroad Program for Business and Engineering Undergraduates: Understanding
the Student Learning Experience, Journal of Education for Business, 87:6, 325-332, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2011.627889
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.627889
Published online: 30 Aug 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 267
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:05
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 87: 325–332, 2012
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.627889
Evaluating a Short-Term, First-Year Study Abroad
Program for Business and Engineering
Undergraduates: Understanding the Student Learning
Experience
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
Josephine E. Olson and Kristine Lalley
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
The authors describe a short-term study abroad program for business and engineering students
at the end of their freshman year, and then present the results of a later survey of the participants
as upperclassmen that was conducted to determine whether the program met its objectives. The
primary objectives of this first-year program were to influence participants to pursue additional
study abroad opportunities later in their college career, inspire them to further study foreign
language and culture, and encourage them to become involved in additional international
activities. Improvement in teamwork and cross-cultural skills were also goals.
Keywords: assessment of learning outcomes, freshmen programs, international business education, joint business and engineering programs, study abroad
Incorporating an international experience into business and
engineering undergraduate education is becoming an increasingly common practice. In the 10 years between
1998 and 2008 the number of U.S. business and management students studying abroad increased 31% from about
23,000 to 53,000. The number of U.S. engineering students studying abroad increased 23% from about 3,600
to 8,100 (Bhandari & Chow, 2009). Short-term programs
(2–8 weeks) have also grown in importance, with 56% of
all U.S. students going abroad participating in this type
of program in 2008 (Institute of International Education,
2009; McMurtrie, 2009). Although the number of engineering students who study abroad is much smaller than the number of business students who study abroad, both disciplines
recognize the benefits of having students include an international experience as part of their education. We describe a
short-term study abroad program developed for University
of Pittsburgh business and engineering students at the end
of their first year of study, and then discuss the results of an
evaluation survey of the participants two to three years later.
Correspondence should be addressed to Josephine E. Olson, University
of Pittsburgh, Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, Pittsburgh, PA
15260, USA. E-mail: jolson@katz.pitt.edu
BACKGROUND
Study abroad programs for first-year undergraduate students
in professional schools are fairly rare, as are joint study
abroad programs for business and engineering students. Our
program, nicknamed the Plus3 program because students
earn an additional three credits, was designed by business
and engineering faculty in cooperation with the Study Abroad
Office. The idea of a program for first-year students was to
give them a short, structured, faculty-led international program early in their college career that would help students
overcome any initial anxiety about foreign travel and whet
their appetite for more international activities, foreign language study, and more focused study abroad programs or
international internships later in their college career. Anxiety
about foreign travel was found to be the second most important issue after expenses for why students were reluctant to
study abroad in a survey of Oregon State University students
(King & Young, 1994). Other goals were to increase their
cross-cultural sensitivity and ability to work in diverse teams.
The rationale for bringing engineering and business students
together was that these students would inevitably work together in their careers, often in an international context, and
thus should learn how to interact on business and engineering teams at an early stage of their academic development.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
326
J. E. OLSON AND K. LALLEY
Combining freshmen from the two schools also allowed us
to offer more country destinations.
Study abroad programs for first-year students present
challenges. Because these students typically have not yet
developed content-specific knowledge in a particular field
of study, programs must take into account that participants
know little about U.S. business and engineering practices,
let alone about business and engineering practices in other
countries. In addition, many of the students have not traveled
abroad before and, as freshmen, are still adjusting to living
on their own for the first time and being independent from
their parents. The program was developed with these constraints in mind; details of the program are described in the
next section.
Although short-term study abroad programs have become
a more dominant model of study abroad in higher education in recent years and several studies have demonstrated
the benefits of the short-term program model (Anderson,
Lawton, Rexeisen, & Hubbard, 2006; Chieffo & Griffiths,
2004), there are few studies that report on learning outcomes
several years after students have participated in such programs (Martin, Bradford, & Rohrlich, 1995). This study assesses the perceptions and activities of students from the
Plus3 program two to three years after they participated in
the program, in terms of how they report what they learned
and the subsequent activities and choices the students made
to enhance their international awareness.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLUS3 PROGRAM
As noted previously, the Plus3 short-term study abroad program is offered to business and engineering freshmen enrolled at the University of Pittsburgh. The Plus3 program
includes predeparture class meetings, a two-week international trip to a country immediately after spring classes end,
and a team-based research paper presented the following
September. There are no language requirements for the program. To participate, students complete an application and
are accepted into the program based on the following criteria.
Students must have completed two semesters at the University of Pittsburgh with a 2.75 grade point average (GPA) for
business students and a 2.50 GPA for engineering students.
Students under university disciplinary sanctions are not admitted. In their application students can order their choices
for country destination, but there is no guarantee that they
will all get their first choice. Finally, they are interviewed
by the faculty leader and the study abroad assistant to determine whether the student has the appropriate motivation and
maturity for the program.
The Plus3 program began in 2002 with two destinations:
Germany and the Czech Republic. For this study we surveyed
participants from the 2005 and 2006 programs. In 2005, there
were five destinations: Santos, Brazil; Valpara´ıso, Chile;
Beijing, China; Rouen, France; and Augsburg, Germany.
In 2006, there were only four destinations, as France was
dropped. In each of these two years, the tuition and fees for
all destinations were the same, but students paid their own
airfare, which varied by destination. The program typically
has about 100 students participating (20–30 from business
and 70–80 from engineering).
The program has three components, as recommended for
short-term study abroad field trips (McLaughlin & Johnson,
2006). The pretrip classes totaling 12 hr are used to prepare
students for their international experience. They learn a little
about the country they will visit and its cultural aspects, particularly business and engineering practices. Because company visits are a major part of the trip, students are assigned
to company teams and begin researching their companies;
they make a presentation on their company before the trip.
These pretrip classes are also used to convey expectations
about proper behavior on the trip and particularly on company visits. Students are presented with a code of conduct,
which they must sign to indicate their agreement. They generally have a survival language class; however, for several
of the destinations, particularly Chile, some students already
have adequate or even advanced foreign language skills.
During the two-week trip to their country, the participants
stay at one location in either an inexpensive hotel or student
dormitories and make day trips. Staying in one location reduces the cost and the stress of frequent moves. There are
four or five company visits. Company visits to manufacturing
firms where students can see products being made work better for these younger students, even the business ones, than
visits focused on strategy, marketing, finance, or research and
development. In addition, there are lectures, sightseeing trips,
and cultural activities. In most of the destination countries,
the students also have the opportunity to interact with local
students. Students must keep a professional journal and they
are also graded for their participation in the trip activities.
Upon their return to the United States, the student teams
write a research paper on their company and the global industry in which it operates, and then make a PowerPoint
presentation to faculty and students from the business and
engineering schools at the beginning of the fall term of their
sophomore year.
Survey of Learning Outcomes
All Plus3 participants have been required to fill out an evaluation at the end of the international trip. However, the organizers were interested in knowing whether the program was
meeting the longer term objectives of the program. In the
spring of 2008 one of the authors developed an online survey to help determine how well the program was meeting its
goals. As listed previously, the goals of the program are influencing participants to pursue additional study or internship
abroad opportunities later in their college career, inspiring
students to further study foreign languages, and encouraging students to become involved in additional international
FRESHMAN SHORT-TERM STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM
TABLE 2
Numbers and Characteristics of the Respondents
TABLE 1
Surveys Sent and Response Rates, by Category
Total
Surveys sent
Surveys received
Response rate
184
101
55%
Brazil
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
Surveys sent
Surveys received
Response rate
55
28
51%
Business
48
25
52%
Chile
41
27
66%
Engineering
2005
136
76
56%
97
55
57%
China
France
42
19
45%
17
9
53%
327
Business
2006
87
46
53%
Germany
29
18
62%
activities, such as joining an international organization or attending internationally focused events. Additional goals are
to increase the students’ ability to work in interdisciplinary
teams and to develop greater cultural sensitivity.
The survey asked a number of questions related to these
goals; it also asked for information on students’ international
experience and language study before participating in the
Plus3 program. The survey design included closed questions
that would allow us to compare responses across our population, as well as open-ended questions that would allow
participants in the study to describe their experiences and
perspectives in greater detail, and that would allow us to gain
a more in-depth understanding of the perceptions of the participants about the program (Cresswell, 1998; Patton, 1990).
The Sample
Those surveyed were students who participated in the Plus3
program in 2005 and 2006. Surveys were sent out electronically to all those participants still at the university during
the spring of 2008, and three follow-up emails were sent to
those who had not responded. The survey had Institutional
Research Board approval and all respondents were guaranteed anonymity.
Table 1 lists the number of surveys sent and received and
the response rates by categories. The overall response rate
was 55%, and response rates by school and year varied from
52% to 57%; response rates by destination varied from 45%
to 66%.
SURVEY RESULTS
The quantitative analysis of the data collected includes simple
counts, chi-square tests, and analysis of variance using SPSS
(ver. 15).
Table 2 indicates some pre-Plus3 program characteristics
of the respondents. The table shows that three-fourths of the
respondents were from the school of engineering. Prior to
participating in the Plus3 program, only 36% of the respondents had traveled abroad; thus, the majority of students had
Total respondents
International experience before Plus3
Foreign language studied before
Plus3
One foreign language
Two foreign languages
Languages studied before Plus3
Spanish
French
German
Other
Graduating April 2008 (2005
participants only)
∗∗ p
Engineering
Total
25
15 (60%)
76
101
21 (28%) 36 (36%∗∗ )
15 (60%)
5 (20%)
61 (80%)
7 (9%)
76 (75%)
12 (12%)
12
46
4
10
4
9
5
6
15 (100%) 17 (43%)
58
14
13
11
32 (58%)
= .01.
no international experience. The business students had significantly more international experience than the engineering
students, χ 2(1, N = 101) = 8.59, p < .003, with 60% of the
25 business students having been abroad for at least two
weeks and only 28% of the 76 engineering students having
been abroad for at least two weeks.
Table 2 also indicates that 87% of the students had studied
one or two foreign languages before participating in the Plus3
program, with the most common language being Spanish;
there were no statistically significant differences between
the schools. We expected those who participated in 2005 to
be seniors and we asked how many were graduating in April
2008 and thus completing their degree in four years. Of the
students, 58% expected to graduate in April 2008, 100% of
the business students and 43% of the engineering students.
Before examining the learning outcomes, we comment
on some of the information in Table 2 and in the text. The
fact that there were more than twice as many engineering
students as business students was partly a function of differences in the sizes of the freshman classes. In 2005 and
2006 the College of Business Administration (CBA) had a
first-year class size of about 310 students, while the Swanson School of Engineering (SSOE) had a first-year class size
of about 450 students. Even so, the percentage of freshman
participants from engineering was also greater (about 22%)
than the percentage from business (15%). Other possible explanations for the difference in numbers include the fact that
engineering students had required classes in the fall of the
freshmen year where the program could be promoted whereas
the business students only had a one-credit workshop taught
by nonfaculty advisors. Although the Plus3 program was
designed as a teaser for subsequent deeper study abroad
programs, the rigidity of the engineering curriculum often makes it more difficult for engineering students to do
a semester or summer-length study abroad program (Fischer, 2010; King & Young, 1994). Our conversations with
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
328
J. E. OLSON AND K. LALLEY
engineering students suggest that some of the engineering students chose the Plus3 program as their only international experience because they were afraid they would
be too busy with such obligations as cooperative education (in which the student works in industry for alternating semesters throughout his or her college career) and
other engineering activities later on in their studies. In contrast, the authors talked to a number of business students
who said they knew they wanted to do a longer study
abroad program and therefore did not enroll in the Plus3
program.
It is not clear why more business students had traveled
abroad than engineering students; explaining the difference
would require more information on the socio-economic characteristics of the two student bodies and of the participants
(Salisbury, Umbach, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2009). The fact
that all the 2005 business participants in the survey expected
to graduate in the spring of 2008 but less than half the 2005
engineering participants were graduating then may reflect
that many engineering students participate in cooperative
education that delays their graduation. Next we examine
questions with respect to desired outcomes of the Plus3
program.
Additional Study Abroad or Foreign Internships
One goal of the Plus3 program is to encourage students to
participate in another, longer study abroad program or an
international internship during their college studies. The results shown in Table 3 indicate that 29% of the respondents
did at least one more study abroad program and/or internship
after Plus3, and 19% planned to do another program; thus,
48% either had done or expected to do another study abroad
program. However, there were significant differences in the
responses by school. On the one hand, business students were
significantly more likely to have studied again or worked
abroad than engineering students (60% [15] of business students versus 18% [14] of the engineering students), χ 2(1,
N = 101) = 15.89, p < .001. On the other hand, 22% (17)
engineering students still planned to do another study abroad
or international internship before graduation versus only 8%
(2) of the business students (some cells were too small for a
chi-square test). Combining these two responses, 68% (17)
of business students who participated in Plus3 either studied
abroad again or planned to go abroad a second time versus
41% (31) of the engineering students. The difference between
the percentage of business students and the percentage of engineering students who had done or planned to do a study
abroad program or an international internship is also statistically significant, χ 2(1, N = 101) = 5.59, p < .018. This
finding supports the earlier suggestion that, for many of the
engineering participants, the Plus3 program was the primary
international experience for them. For those who did another
study abroad or internship program the second experience
was a median of 15–16 weeks (roughly a semester) for both
schools.
Additional Language Study
Another goal of the Plus3 program is to encourage students
to continue to study foreign language(s) after completing the
Plus3 program. The results indicated that 31% of the respondents continued to study one or two foreign languages after
participating in the Plus3 program, with Spanish once more
being the most common language studied. There were significant differences between the schools, with 56% of business
students continuing language study versus 22% of the engineering students, χ 2(1, N = 101) = 10.00, p < .002.
Participation in International Activities and
International Contacts
Still another goal of the Plus3 program is to get students
interested in participating in international activities both during college and after graduation. As shown in Table 3, 61%
of the respondents (68% of the business students and 59%
of the engineering students) became involved with one or
more international activities upon returning to the university
after participating in the program. The differences between
the two schools are not statistically significant. Table 3 also
lists the type of activities by school. Participants were also
asked: “To what degree have you sought out contact with
international students?” Seventy percent of the respondents
had limited or moderate contact and 9% had frequent or
constant contact. The business students were somewhat less
likely to have any contact. Many of the students also planned
international activities after graduation, with 30% (23) of the
engineers and 60% (15) of the business students planning to
do an internship or pursue a full-time position abroad after
graduation.
Teamwork and Cultural Sensitivity
It was hoped that the Plus3 experience would improve the
ability of students to work in teams, be culturally sensitive, and interact effectively with those from outside of the
United States. Respondents were asked, “To what extent has
the Plus3 experience affected your ability to work well in
teams?” and had to respond on a 4-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (none) to 4 (significant). The results are shown
in Table 4. The mean of 2.56 fell between limited and moderate; differences between the schools were not statistically
significant. Twelve percent of the respondents did not think
Plus3 had an impact on their teamwork skills. Using the
same 4-point scale, respondents were asked, “To what extent
has the Plus3 experience improved your ability to interact
successfully with those from different cultures?” The mean
response was 3.01, the moderate score; differences between
the schools were not statistically significant. Only 4% said it
had no effect. Again using the same 4-point scale, the students
329
FRESHMAN SHORT-TERM STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
TABLE 3
Outcomes From Participation in Plus3
Total respondents
Did an additional study abroad or international
internship after Plus3.
Median weeks of additional study abroad or international
internship
SD
Plan to do another study abroad program or
international internship
Have done or plan to do another study abroad program
or international internship.
Studied one or two foreign languages after Plus3
Spanish
German
French
Portuguese
Chinese
Other
Participated in some international activity since Plus3
On-campus organization
Off-campus organization
Kept in touch with foreign friends
made on Plus 3
Other international activity
Have sought out contact with international students since Plus3
No contact
Limited/moderate
Frequent/constant
Anticipated international activities after graduation
Applying for a Fulbright
Graduate work involving international studies
Graduate work in another country
Internship abroad
Job abroad
Other (mainly travel)
∗p
Business
Engineering
Total
25
76
101
15 (60%)
14 (18%)
29 (29%∗∗∗ )
16.0
6.6
15.0
13.3
15.5
10.1
2 (8%)
17 (22%)
19 (19%)
17 (68%)
14 (56%)
5
2
2
1
0
4
17 (68%)
2
1
31 (41%)
17 (22%)
9
3
2
1
1
4
45 (59%)
14
2
48 (48%∗ )
31 (31%∗∗ )
14
5
4
2
1
8
62 (61%)
16
3
15
4
36
3
51
7
7 (28%)
18 (72%)
0 (0%)
14 (18%)
53 (70%)
9 (12%)
21 (21%)
71 (70%)
9 (9%)
1
4
3
2
13
6
1
6
8
6
17
15
2
10
11
8
30
21
= .05. ∗∗ p = .01. ∗∗∗ p = .001.
were asked, “To what extent has the Plus3 program increased
your cultural sensitivity?” The mean overall response was
2.98, or approximately the moderate score; differences between the schools were not significantly different. Seven percent said it had no effect.
After each of these three closed questions, students were
given a chance to write open-ended comments. Themes from
these responses are addressed in the next section. The themes
were identified using thematic analysis, which is a process for
encoding qualitative information (Boyatzis, 1998). A theme
is a pattern found in the information that describes and organizes possible observations (Boyatzis). Using this approach,
we analyzed the open-ended comments to come up with the
themes outlined subsequently.
Comments on teamwork. For the 12 students who did
not believe the Plus3 program had helped their team skills, the
explanations were generally that they had learned teamwork
elsewhere, there was not much teamwork, or their Plus3 team
did not function well. Themes that emerged from the other 82
participants’ comments, who thought it had improved their
teamwork skills and wrote comments, included the importance of group dynamics and relying on others when in an
overseas environment. The German Plus3 program had University of Pittsburgh students work on company projects with
students from the University of Augsburg and some of these
Pitt students included comments on learning how to work
with students from different cultures. Some of the students
who thought they learned teamwork skills also commented
about having lots of teamwork in other situations or not needing much teamwork for the project, but many commented on
the value of teamwork in Plus3.
For example, a business student who went to Germany
wrote, “Plus3 group work gave great experience on how to
interact with students from different countries.” An engineering student who went to China said, “We had to work in
teams on our projects, and while we were in China, we relied
a lot on the other students because we were out of place.”
330
J. E. OLSON AND K. LALLEY
TABLE 4
Mean Extent of Improvement in Skills
Business
Skill
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
Improvement in ability to
work in teams
Improvement in ability to
interact successfully with
those from different
cultures
Increased cultural
sensitivity
Engineering
Total
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
2.67
0.70
2.53
0.80
2.56
0.77
2.83
0.82
3.07
0.82
3.01
0.82
2.92
0.72
3.00
0.86
2.98
0.82
Note. Improvement was rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (none) to 4 (significant).
Another engineering student on the China trip commented,
“Teamwork and growing close to people in groups was essential on our trip to China, and it taught me to recognize
my own shortfalls and strengths and to know when to count
on others.” Although not directly commenting on teamwork,
an engineer who went to France wrote, “I feel like Plus3 is
an excellent introduction to new cultures and new environments. . . It certainly lays the foundation for cross-cultural
teamwork.” An engineering student who went to Brazil said,
“Being put into groups with students I’m not familiar with
has allowed me to practice basic skills in communication
and getting along, even if it’s not project-oriented.” Some
also commented that working virtually over the summer was
a new challenge and others that they had learned how to
handle difficult people and to work with people in different
disciplines.
Comments on interacting with those from other
cultures. For the 24 students who said Plus3 had no or
limited effect on their ability to interact with people from
other cultures, the most common explanations given were
that they had already known how to interact or that there
was little interaction with foreigners on the trip. From the
74 participants who said Plus3 had moderate or significant
effect, the comments indicated that participants gained an
awareness of how to effectively interact with people from
other cultures. Participants also gained a better perspective
of what it means to be a U.S. citizen and how that factor
impacts the types of interactions the students have with those
from other countries. Experiencing what it means to be a
U.S. citizen in a foreign country led many of the participants
to develop more awareness of how they come across to those
from another culture and how they communicate to those
who may not speak English as their first language. Some
examples of their comments follow.
An engineering student who went to Chile wrote, “I would
have had no idea how to act in a foreign environment, but
now I have a good idea.” A business student who also went to
Chile said, “It helped me to understand that small differences
in cultures can be very important.” An engineering student
who went to France commented, “Basically I went from not
knowing anything about the different culture, feeling awkward and unsure about interacting with foreign students, to
a comfortable degree when I interact in an international environment.” An engineering student who went to Germany
observed, “Life outside of America! What a thought. Seriously, though, I hadn’t really ever seen America from a
different angle before so going abroad was worth it for that
benefit alone.” Finally, an engineering student who went to
Brazil wrote, “I understand that you must first observe how
different cultures conduct business in order to be efficient
and productive when working internationally.”
Comments on becoming more culturally sensitive.
The explanations given for answers to this question were
quite similar to those to the previous question. The 19 who
responded that Plus3 had limited or no effect on their cultural
sensitivity generally argued that they already were sensitive
to other cultures. Most of the other 77 participants who wrote
comments thought that they had become more sensitive and
some said that they were now more aware of their own U.S.
culture. The following are a few of the comments.
An engineering student who went to Brazil observed: “I
am aware that many Latin American countries are totally
different and I think many Americans have a stereotype that
everyone eats tacos and wear sombreros.” Another engineer
who went to Brazil observed, “I learned a lot about the United
States and my wastefulness by traveling abroad.” A business
student who went to China said, “I am now more prepared
when talking with or about other cultures to accept differences in social norms and respond appropriately to questions.” An engineering student who went to China wrote,
“I’m much less na¨ıve now. I’m from a very small, very xenophobic town. . . Now I think I really empathize with all
cultures and stick up for them when ignorant people from
my hometown talk down on anyone for having a different
culture.”
Additional Comments on the Plus3 Experience
Finally there was an open-ended question unrelated to a previous closed question that allowed respondents to comment
on what was the most significant effect of the Plus3 program
on each of them. The question read, “What stands out to
you as the most helpful or meaningful part(s) of the Plus3
experience that has or will impact you?” A total of 82 of the
101 participants chose to write comments. Fifty-two commented on the opportunity to make friends and interact in another culture, and 26 mentioned company visits and learning
about business and engineering in another country. Seventeen
respondents pointed out that they planned to pursue additional international experiences as a direct result of having
participated in the Plus3 program. The following are some
FRESHMAN SHORT-TERM STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
examples of responses: A business student who went to Chile
wrote, “[It made] me realize that I definitely wanted to study
abroad in the future and possibly even work and live abroad
one day.” Another business student who went to Chile said,
“The trip has also inspired me to study abroad again and
pursue an international business certificate.” An engineering
student who went to China commented, “It broadens your
view of the engineering industry beyond the United States.
Seeing the profession in a different cultural setting gives a
better appreciation for it.” An engineering student who visited Brazil wrote, “I was convinced I wanted to obtain my
engineering degree after spending time touring engineering
facilities in my Plus3 country.” An engineering student who
went to Germany observed,
It gave me the desire to go out and experience the world. . .to
not be such an isolationist. Since Plus3 I’ve been back to
Germany twice already, once to visit and another time to do
research for the University of Hamburg. It’s also inspired me
to study abroad at Oxford University in the United Kingdom
for a year, something I wouldn’t have dared to do without the
confidence gained from this experience.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The results of this survey show that about half of the students
who participated in this short-term study abroad program
participated in or planned to participate in another study
abroad program or an international internship, about a third
continued with language study, and most participated in international activities and sought out international students
after the program. However, it should be noted that business
students were much more likely than engineering students to
achieve two of the major objectives of the Plus3 program—to
do another international program and to continue language
programs. If these two objectives are equally important for
engineering students, then more research is needed to determine how these can be better achieved within the constraints
of the engineering curriculum.
Most of the respondents thought that their teamwork,
cultural sensitivity, and ability to interact with others from
another culture had improved as a result of the program.
These results represent only the opinions of the respondents. More objective examinations of improvement in cultural sensitivity might be achieved by administering a standard test of cultural sensitivity before and sometime after the
program.
As the comments to the last open-ended question indicate,
the Plus3 program apparently helped many of the student participants become more engaged with the world around them,
and more aware of how they should interact with those who
are from different cultures. Also, the comments suggest that
the Plus3 program helped students become more focused and
confident about themselves. These findings, in our opinion,
331
need more exploration. As a learning outcome, it is surprising that students would report such transformative learning
as an outcome from participating in a short-term study abroad
program, where the general view among practitioners is that
short-term study abroad programs do not allow for sufficient
time or opportunities to develop such important and lasting
change in participants. However, at least two studies did not
find any significant difference in global-mindedness of students in short- and long-term programs (Donnelley-Smith,
2009; Kehl & Morris, 2008).
Last, the results seem to indicate that many of the program objectives were met, particularly for business students.
However, given the Plus3 program was voluntary and only a
small number of students in both schools participated, it cannot be stated with certainty if the program primarily attracted
already globally minded students or those who recently
became proponents of globalism. Most had not traveled
abroad before the program, but they might still have been
internationally focused. We would like to conduct another
study with a control group of students who did not engage
in the Plus3 program to determine differences in those students’ attitudes and beliefs about international experience.
We are also curious about those students who did not participate in the Plus3 program, but who did participate in
an international education program later in their college
career, to see if there are differences with that population
in how they view their own awareness of international issues. A longer-term study of career outcomes is likewise
desirable.
REFERENCES
Anderson, P. H., Lawton, L., Rexeisen, R., & Hubbard, A. (2006).
Short-term study abroad and intercultural sensitivity: A pilot
study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 457–469.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.1-.004
Bhandari, R., & Chow, P. (2009). Open doors 2009: Report on international
education exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chieffo, L., & Griffiths, L. (2004). Large-scale assessment of student attitudes after a short-term study abroad program. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 165–177.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five traditions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Donnelley-Smith, L. (2009). Global learning through short-term study
abroad. Peer Review, 11(4), 12–15.
Fischer, K. (2010, April 2). U. of Minnesota integrates study abroad into the
curriculum. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(29), A26–A27.
Institute of International Education. (2009). Briefing: Americans study
abroad in increasing numbers. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/whowe-Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2009/2009-1116-Americans-Study-Abroad-Increasing
Kehl, K., & Morris, J. (2008). Differences in global-mindedness between
short-term and semester long study abroad programs at selected private
universities. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,
15, 67–80.
332
J. E. OLSON AND K. LALLEY
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:05 11 January 2016
King, L. J., & Young, J. A. (1994). Education for the 21st century. Die
Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 27, 77–87.
Martin, J., Bradford, L., & Rohrlich, B. (1995). Comparing predeparture expectations and post-sojourn reports: A longitudinal study of U.S. students
abroad. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19, 87–110.
McLaughlin, J. S., & Johnson, D. K. (2006). Assessing the field course
experiential model; transforming collegiate short-term study abroad experience in rich learning environments. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad, 12, 65–80.
McMurtrie, B. (2009, November 20). Study abroad programs diversify as
their popularity grows. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(23), A24.
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/section/Home/5
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Salisbury, M. H., Umbach, P. D., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T.
(2009). Going global: Understanding the choice process of the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 50, 119–143.
doi:10.1007/s11162–008–9111-x