1. STUDENTS’ INTERCULTURAL LEARNING THROUGH SHORT-TERM STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMS OCTOBER 21, 2012 MARISSA R. LOMBARDI, ED.D ALLIANCE FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION DOHA, QATAR

2. Problem Statement  International education is a key area within higher education with a growing need to measure learning outcomes of student experiences (Williams, 2005).  Recently education institutions have been “internationalizing”, which generally entails increasing diversity and/or attempting to raise intercultural awareness and competence among students (Leask, 2009; Suarez-Orozco & Sattin, 2007).  Study abroad is considered one of the most effective means for increasing intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2004). Yet there was little concrete evidence demonstrating this notion, particularly in short-term programs.

3. Research Question  To what extent, if any, are Bentley University's internationalization initiatives, specifically in the undergraduate short-term study abroad arena, increasing intercultural competence among its students?

4. Literature Review  Theme 1: Defining intercultural competence):  “Ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Deardorff, 2004, p 184)  Theme 2: Intercultural assessment tools (Chen & Starosta, 2000; Pascarella et al, 1996)  Theme 3: Intercultural competence development (Bennett & Salonen, 2007)

5. Instruments  Demographic information  Chen and Starosta (2000): Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS)  Pascarella and Associates (1996): Openness to Diversity Scale

6. Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS)  Chen & Starosta’s (1998) ISS is a 24 item instrument with a Likert scale from 1-5.  “The concept of intercultural sensitivity refers to the subjects’ active desire to motivate themselves to understand, appreciate, and accept differences among cultures (Chen & Starosta, 1998, p.143)”.  The 24 questions are grouped under the following 5 factors: Interaction Engagement, Respect for Cultural Differences, Interaction Confidence, Interaction Enjoyment, and Interaction Attentiveness.

7. The Openness to Diversity/Challenge Scale  Pascarella and associates (1994) developed specifically for use with college students  It is an eight-item instrument that uses the same Likert scale as the ISS instrument.  The scale “not only includes an assessment of an individual’s openness to cultural, racial and value diversity, it also taps the extent to which an individual enjoys being challenged by different ideas, values, and perspectives” (Pascarella et al., 1996).

8. personal data form  The final instrument was designed by the researcher and collected basic information about the participants. The questions allowed the researcher to provide descriptive statistics of the participants.  Questions asking for age, gender, class standing, major and race/ethnicity allowed for between- group comparisons. Several questions about prior international experiences were designed to allow for discussion of the impact of those experiences on the other two instruments.

9. Hypotheses  Students who participate in STP exhibit an increase in scores from their pre test to their post-test on questions relating to openness to diversity.  Students who participate in STP exhibit an increase in scores from their pre test to their post-test on questions relating to Interaction engagement.  Students who participate in STP exhibit an increase in scores from their pre test to their post-test on questions relating to respect for cultural differences.

10. Hypotheses Cont.  Students who participate in STP exhibit an increase in scores from their pre test to their post-test on questions relating to Interaction enjoyment.  Students who participate in STP exhibit no significant difference in scores from their pre test to their post-test on questions relating to Interaction attentiveness.  Students who participate in STP exhibit no significant increase in scores from their pre test to their post-test on questions relating to Interaction confidence.

11. Research Strategy  “Nonequivalent group design” was used. Also considered a Quasi-experimental design  The Intercultural Sensitivity Scale, Openness to Diversity Scale, and Demographic questions were administered to treatment group before and after the short-term study abroad program by study abroad office.  Control group, took the survey once, during the same time frame that the treatment group took the pretest.

12. Population Description  The participants of this study were undergraduate students attending Bentley University.  Two groups of approximately 40 participants each were invited to participate: one treatment and one control.  All students who enroll in a short term study abroad program in March 2011 were invited to participate in treatment group.  13 treatment participants and 19 control participants

13. Data Collection  The Data was collected by the Bentley University study abroad office using a survey distributed online  The treatment and control group were given the anonymous survey approximately one week before traveling and again immediately after the group traveled.  The control group only took the pretest.  Participants in both groups were advised of appropriate informed consent information.  Students’ ID numbers were used to link the pre and post tests. Once the data was collected, each students’ ID number was assigned a random number.

14. Data Analysis: Three Key Findings  Overall levels of intercultural competence and openness to diversity increased after short-term study abroad experiences.  Students’ who were culturally exposed prior to their short-term study abroad experience improved scores in more areas than those who were not previously interculturally exposed.  The control and treatment groups were found to be virtually identical.

15. Key Finding #1  Overall levels of intercultural competence and openness to diversity increased after short-term study abroad experiences.

16. MeanNStd. Dev.Std. Err. Mean Pair 1Pre Int. engagement3.989013.50997.14144 Post int. engagement4.252713.46347.12854 Pair 2Pre respect for cultural diff.4.359013.61931.17177 Post respect for cultural diff.4.615413.41042.11383 Pair 3Pre Int. confidence3.461513.67025.18589 Post Int. confidence3.800013.77889.21602 Pair 4Pre Int. enjoyment4.179513.53775.14914 Post Int. enjoyment4.282113.63605.17641 Pair 5Pre Int. attentiveness3.769213.43853.12163 Post int. attentiveness4.359013.48038.13323 Pair 6Pre Openness to Diversity4.201913.66250.18374 Post Openness to Diversity4.442313.52444.14545

17. itemtdfsignificanceMean difference Interaction Engagement 1.55612.146.26374 Respect for Cultural Differences 2.01212.067.25641 Interaction Confidence 2.91012.013.33846 Interaction Enjoyment.84312.416.10256 Interaction Attentiveness 4.30812.001.58974 Openness to Diversity 2.22112.046.24038

18. Key Finding #2  Students’ who were culturally exposed prior to their short-term study abroad experience improved scores in more areas than those who were not previously interculturally exposed.

19. MeanNStd. Dev.Std. Err. Mean Pair 1Pre Int. engagement4.08167.37668.14237 Post int. engagement4.22457.48695.18405 Pair 2Pre respect for cultural diff.4.54767.35635.13469 Post respect for cultural diff.4.69057.42414.16031 Pair 3Pre Int. confidence3.57147.85189.32198 Post Int. confidence3.85717.83837.31687 Pair 4Pre Int. enjoyment4.23817.49868.18848 Post Int. enjoyment4.47627.60422.22837 Pair 5Pre Int. attentiveness3.80957.57275.21648 Post int. attentiveness4.42867.49868.18848 Pair 6Pre Openness to Diversity4.26797.77200.29179 Post Openness to Diversity4.44647.59449.22470

20. itemtdfsignificanceMean difference Interaction Engagement.6916.515.14286 Respect for Cultural Differences 1.2166.270.14286 Interaction Confidence 7.0716.000.28571 Interaction Enjoyment 1.6986.140.23810 Interaction Attentiveness 2.6356.039.61905 Openness to Diversity 1.1986.276.17857

21. Key Finding #3  After comparing the control and treatment groups, the two groups were found to be virtually identical.

22. Findings  There were six hypotheses tested in this study, only one of which was supported.  While the scores increased for all of the factors, Openness to Diversity was the only factor with a predicted score increase, that ended up being statistically significant.

23. Limitations  Sample size  Age difference between treatment and control

24. Implications for practice  Through quantitative measurement, this study demonstrates that short-term faculty led programs are one effective approach to reaching common internationalization initiatives.  Students who are culturally exposed prior to study abroad are more likely to demonstrate increased levels of intercultural competence after studying abroad as compared to their culturally unexposed counterparts  Going abroad is not enough to single-handedly increase students’ levels of intercultural competence.

25. Considerations  In order to successfully develop intercultural competence among students, faculty themselves must understand the developmental stages and components associated with it, and also require pre- service and in-service training designed help to “interculturalize” their thinking (Sercu, 2005,Bennett & Salonen, 2007, Landis, Bennett, & Bennett, 2004).  An exploration of the impact of educators on students learning during short-term study abroad experiences would be valuable.  It would be worthwhile to investigate if there are any correlations between educators’ preparedness to foster meaningful intercultural experiences, and the changes in students levels of intercultural competence.

26. Questions  Thank you.

27. References  Bennett, J. M., Salonen, R. (2007). Intercultural Communication and the New American Campus. Change, March/April, 46-50.  Chen, G.M., & Starosta, W.J. (2000): The development and validation of the intercultural communication sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3, 1-15.  Chen, G.M., & Starosta, W.J.(1998): A review of the Concept of Intercultural Sensitivity. Human Communication, 1, 1-16.  Deardorff, D.K. (2004) The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State University.

28. References continued…  Leask, B. (2009). Using Formal and Informal Curricula to Improve Interactions Between Home and International Students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, (2) 205-221.  Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Influences on Students' Openness to Diversity and Challenge in the First Year of College. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 174-195.  Suarez-Orozco, M.M. & Sattin, C. (2007). Wanted: Global citizens. Educational Leadership, 64(7), 58-62.  Sercu, L. (2005). Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Communication: An International Investigation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.  Williams, T.R. (2005). Exploring Students’ Intercultural Communication Skills: Adaptability and Sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(4), 356-371.