Short term study abroad and intercultural sensativity 2006

ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

30 (2006) 457–469

0147-1767/$ -

doi:10.1016/j

�CorrespoE-mail a

rjrexeisen@s

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Short-term study abroad and intercultural sensitivity:A pilot study

Philip H. Andersona,�, Leigh Lawtonb,Richard J. Rexeisenc, Ann C. Hubbardd

aMail No. MCN 6002, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105-1096, USAbMail No. MCN 6034, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105-1096, USAcMail No. MCN 6069, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105-1096, USA

dMail No. 44C, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105-1096, USA

Received 20 December 2004; received in revised form 12 August 2005; accepted 21 October 2005

Abstract

Longitudinal studies that measure the impact of study abroad programs are essential to improving

our understanding of the effectiveness of international education. The focus of the current research is

on the development of cross-cultural sensitivity. Hammer and Bennett’s [(2002). The Intercultural

Development Inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute)]

Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is used to assess of the extent to which a short-term,

faculty-led study abroad program can affect the cross-cultural sensitivity of student learners. The IDI

was administered before the students traveled abroad and then again 4 weeks later when they

returned to the United States. Preliminary results suggest that short-term programs can have a

positive impact on the overall development of cross-cultural sensitivity. Individual differences are

noted and the paper provides some discussion of the impact of the study abroad program on specific

subscales within the IDI instrument. The study concludes by highlighting areas of needed research.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Study abroad; Intercultural sensitivity; Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI)

see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

.ijintrel.2005.10.004

nding author. Tel.: +1651 962 5136; fax: +1 651 962 5093.

ddresses: [email protected] (P.H. Anderson), [email protected] (L. Lawton),

tthomas.edu (R.J. Rexeisen), [email protected] (A.C. Hubbard).

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

ARTICLE IN PRESSP.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469458

1. Introduction

The past decade has witnessed a dramatic growth in the number of colleges anduniversities offering study abroad programs. Increasingly, these programs also havebecome a recruitment tool, as prospective students make institutional selection based onstudy abroad opportunities as well as academic offerings and campus life (Ludwig, 2000).As international travel has become more commonplace and as the economies of the worldhave become more interdependent, both students and faculties are recognizing the need toprepare for this new, shrinking world.The University of Northern Illinois’ website is illustrative of the importance

some universities place on international education and how they use their programs as atool for recruiting: ‘‘In today’s global society, these insights [into cultural sensitivity andworld affairs] are crucial for successful and meaningful interaction, both here andabroady An international education is becoming a necessity, not a luxury, and studyabroad is one of the best ways to get such an international education.’’ (NUI StudyAbroad Office, 2000).An examination of literature relating to international programs reveals that most

overseas programs seek to achieve multiple objectives. For example, the Office of StudyAbroad at Michigan State University has identified four typical areas that may beenhanced through participating in a study abroad program (Michigan State UniversityOffice of Study Abroad):

Academic/intellectual—problem solving and language skills, geographical andhistorical knowledge, etc.; Professional—professional contacts, a sense of directionfor future career choices, a sense of responsibility, etc.; Personal—an apprecia-tion for the US, confidence, personal identity, flexibility, creativity, etc.; and Intercultur-

al—interest in other cultures, diminished ethnocentrism, language skills, culturalsensitivity, etc.While the specific objectives established for study abroad programs vary from institution

to institution, academic and intercultural competencies are common to virtually allprograms. Academic competency focuses on the specific discipline studied, whileintercultural competency relates to the broad goal of enhancing student appreciation ofdifferences among cultures. Battsek (1962) makes the following normative statement: ‘‘anumber of practical considerations should be taken more into account with respect tostudy abroad by American undergraduatesy Program objectives should be carefullydefined. The chief one should be academicy Study abroad program objectives should alsoinclude learning about the foreign society and culturey’’ (p. 225–242). A review of theobjectives of various programs across the US suggests that most schools have adopted thispremise.As study abroad programs garner resources that could otherwise be allocated to on-

campus programs and activities, the question often is raised as to whether the study abroadexperience achieves its stated objectives. Unfortunately, at a time of increasing competitionfor resources, study abroad programs generally lack hard data to justify their worth.Gillespe (2002) points out that while assessment of academic goals occurs regularly, theintercultural goals of study abroad programs remain ill defined and unmeasured. Sheargues for improved assessment of these programs, including the establishment ofminimum standards for every program that contain both qualitative and quantitativemeasures.

ARTICLE IN PRESSP.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469 459

2. Literature review

Brislin and Yoshida (1994) contend that culture can be defined as any frameworkof expectations and values. Our ability to function effectively in an environmentdepends upon our skill in recognizing and responding appropriately to the valuesand expectations of those around us. Landis and Bhagat (1996) argue that intercultural

sensitivity is crucial to enabling people to live and work with others from differentcultural backgrounds. As our workplace and society become more diverse, and asglobalization of business intensifies, an individual’s sensitivity to cultural differencescombined with an ability to adapt his or her behavior to those differences will becomeincreasingly valuable.

While there is an almost universal call for greater cultural awareness, the mechanism forachieving this aim has been a subject of considerable discussion. Suggested alternativesrange from presentation of materials on different cultures in a domestic classroomenvironment to actual exposure and direct involvement with different cultures in foreignlocations. Although few, if any, authorities argue against travel abroad as a means ofimproving cultural sensitivity, there is some support for the belief that increases inintercultural sensitivity can be achieved through education and training, without the needfor foreign travel [cf. Altschuler, Sussman, & Kachur, 2003; Bennett, Bennett, & Allen,1999; Paige, 1993; Pruegger & Rogers, 1994] There is also caution expressed that travelingabroad does not ensure greater cultural sensitivity. Kelly (1963) maintains that a personcan witness an event without ever experiencing it (p. 73). In Kelly’s view, a student couldparticipate in a study abroad program without experiencing the culture in which thestudent resided. The bottom line for this debate is that unless we assess the gains inintercultural sensitivity resulting from alternative programs designed to improve culturalsensitivity, we will not be able to determine which alternatives are most effective inproducing the desired outcome.

While there have been a plethora of studies attempting to support the positive impact ofstudy abroad programs, few have employed pre–post designs in an attempt to quantify thechanges occurring over the course of the program. Three recently published studiesendeavored to fill this gap (Engle & Engle, 2004; Medina-Lopez-Portillo, 2004; Paige,Cohen, & Shively, 2004). All three of these studies involved programs designed to improvethe language skills of participants. Each program was organized primarily to meet theneeds of students who had a substantial background in the non-English language of thehost country (usually 2–3 years of language study) prior to the overseas experience andwho took language courses while in the host country. The duration of the study abroadexperiences varied across student groups with the shortest being 7 weeks and the longest, 1year.

The results of the three studies were mixed. Medina-Lopez-Portillo (2004) found littlestatistically significant evidence that either a 7-week or a semester-long language programin Mexico produced a gain in intercultural sensitivity. On the other hand, Paige et al.(2004) found that students spending a semester in various French and Spanish-speakingcountries did show significant improvements in sensitivity. While the statistics presented byEngle and Engle (2004) do not address whether their results were statistically significant,they state that students in the semester-long program demonstrated gains in interculturalsensitivity and that students in the year-long program showed even greater gains, with theirrate of progress increasing in the second term.


The pilot study presented here attempts to open the discussion as to whether a programof only 4 weeks set in an English-speaking country has an effect on the cultural sensitivityof its participants. As noted by Dwyer (2004), while there has been a dramatic increase inthe number of students studying abroad, the duration of their time abroad has decreasedconsistently over the past 16 years. Hence, there is a need to determine whether a short-term study abroad program can achieve a goal of increased cultural sensitivity in itsparticipants.This study also seeks to ascertain whether gains in intercultural sensitivity are possible

when language barriers are minimal to non-existent. That is, can a study abroad programset in an English-speaking country produce gains in intercultural sensitivity? Or doesfamiliarity with the language lead students to miss seeing the cultural differences that exist?

3. The study

3.1. The assessment instrument

If we are to quantify the impact of study abroad programs on intercultural sensitivity,we must have a suitable dependent variable. There are a number of instruments designed tomeasure some aspect of intercultural sensitivity. Among the most widely known are Shimpand Sharma’s Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies Scale (CETSCALE) (1987), Kelley andMeyers’ (1995) Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI), and Hammer & Bennett’s(2002) Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI).We selected the IDI for this study given its demonstrated theoretical grounding on a

developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS). The IDI is consistent withBhawuk and Brislin’s hypothesis regarding an individual’s reaction to other cultures.Bhawuk and Brislin (1992) describe intercultural sensitivity as an individual’s reaction topeople from other cultures, which can predetermine that individual’s ability to worksuccessfully with those people. They state that an individual’s reaction to other culturesdevelops and changes over time with personal experience and training. A secondconsideration for utilizing the IDI is that numerous reports have documented its validityand reliability (Bennett, 1986, 1993; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). This instrumentallows users to assess the effectiveness of various cross-cultural interventions by measuringthe respondents’ change in intercultural sensitivity.Bennett (1986, 1993) posited a model of intercultural sensitivity in an attempt to explain

why people respond differently to cultural experiences. Bennett’s DMIS is based onconcepts from cognitive psychology and constructivism. The model operates on theassumption that individuals follow a predictable path as they gain experience with differentcultures. They move through six stages of increasing sensitivity to cultural differences(Hammer & Bennett, 2002). In the first three stages (Denial, Defense/Reversal,Minimization), individuals exhibit varying degrees of ethnocentrism—one’s own cultureis the basis for one’s reality. Stages four–six (acceptance, adaptation, integration) arecharacterized by increasing levels of ethnorelativism—a person’s indigenous culture isviewed in the context of other cultures and all cultures are appreciated. The DMIS modelassumes that cultures are highly differentiated (Klak & Martin, 2003). In other words,there are many different, yet effective ways in which people can organize theirunderstanding of, and working relationship with the external environment in which theylive. This includes but is not limited to social, political, economic and religious affiliations.


According to Hammer et al. (2003, p. 423), ‘‘The crux of the development of interculturalsensitivity is attaining the ability to construe (and thus to experience) cultural difference inmore complex ways.’’ Bennett (1993) contends that this ability is developed throughexperience; it is not an innate perspective. The underlying assumption of Bennett’s model isthat competence in dealing with intercultural relations increases as one’s understanding ofcultural difference becomes more sophisticated—as one’s worldview incorporates culturaldifferences into a new identity (Hammer & Bennett, 2002).

3.2. The Hypotheses

Chieffo and Griffins (2003) point out that the majority of study abroad programs arenow short-term and faculty-led. This study sought to assess whether one such programaffected the participants’ intercultural sensitivity. Because the sole focus of this study wasto examine the impact of the overseas experience on student attitudes toward culturaldiversity, we do not report findings related to academic objectives. In an effort to testwhether study abroad has a positive impact on the development of intercultural sensitivity,we tested the following five hypotheses:

A 4-week, faculty-led study abroad program:

Hypothesis 1. Will have a positive impact on the overall development of cross-culturalsensitivity.

Hypothesis 2. Will reduce the degree of denial and defense characteristics of participants.

Hypothesis 3. Will reduce the degree of reversal or propensity to see other cultures assuperior to one’s own.

Hypothesis 4. Will reduce the degree of minimization of cultural differences.

Hypothesis 5. Will increase the degree of acceptance of and adaptation to culturaldifferences.

4. Methodology

4.1. Subjects

The subjects in this research were traditional, college-aged students majoring in businessadministration at a medium-sized, private university located in the upper Midwest. Thestudent body is very homogeneous consisting of less than 10% international students orstudents of color. The sample consisted of 23 senior-level students enrolled in amanagement course. The average age was 21 years. Two of the students in the coursewere foreign students (Columbian and French), and were excluded from the sample.Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the students in the sample. The exhibitshows that more than two-thirds were women and that while more than one-half had sometravel to a foreign country, less than one-fifth had prior participation in a study abroadprogram. None of the students included in the sample had a foreign language capabilityand none had taken a foreign culture course prior to their involvement in this program.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Demographics of the sample

Variable Number Percentage (%)

Year in school: Senior 23 100

Female 16 71

Prior foreign travel experience 14 57

Prior study abroad experience 4 19

P.H. Anderson et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 457–469462

4.2. Study abroad program

The program assessed was a faculty-led management course that consisted of 1 week ofon-campus study, followed by 4 weeks of study in Europe—2 weeks in London, Englandand 2 weeks in Cork, Ireland. While abroad, classroom instruction was conducted by theUS faculty member on university campuses. Classes met in the morning, leavingafternoons and evenings for the students to explore the local surroundings. The programincluded guest speakers, company site visits, and travel to local cultural sites. While inLondon, the students’ accommodations were with British families in a home-stayarrangement, providing the students with the opportunity to experience daily life at apersonal level. Student involvement with the families included shared meals andconversations regarding British life plus recommendations for travel. Accommodationsin Cork were in student housing adjacent to the university campus. No Irish students residein the housing complex during the summer months due to the lack of course offeringson the campus. While in Cork, the students were hosted for a lunch at the residence of anIrish couple.The program included a series of lectures by a British professor entitled ‘‘British Life and

Culture’’ that covered topics such as British politics and Parliament, the National HealthService, taxation, and an overview of the EU. The program also included site visits toCambridge and Canterbury while in England. Travel in Ireland included a three-day tripto the west coast and a visit to the Irish Cultural Center in Cobh, which was a primary portof emigration during the potato famine.As would be expected, the students frequented local pubs in both countries and met

students from the nearby university. While numerous acquaintances were formed thatyielded discussions of cultural differences and spirited debates regarding politics, none ofthese acquaintances continued beyond the time spent in that country.

4.3. The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) V2-3

Hammer and Bennett’s (2002) IDI (Version 2–3) is a 50-item paper and pencilinstrument based on Bennett’s (1993) DMIS. Hammer and Bennett (2002, pp. 26) cautionthat the IDI should not be confused with the DMIS. They note that the IDI is aninstrument designed to measure the primary constructs of the DMIS model of interculturalsensitivity. The instrument was designed to identify the stage of development thatrespondents have achieved as they move from denial to integration, as described in theDMIS model. The respondent’s IDI score reflects the degree of intercultural understandingthat they have mastered.


Respondents to the IDI rate their agreement or disagreement to each of the 50statements on a five-point Likert scale. The IDI instrument consists of subscales designedto measure attitudes related to the stages described in the DMIS. It provides an overallmeasure of respondents’ worldview development and their position on the DMIS’sethnocentric/ethnorelative continuum. It contains five subscales—Denial/Defense, Re-versal, Minimization, Acceptance/Adaptation, and Encapsulated Marginality. The scoreson a subscale range from one to five. The higher the score, the more an individual hasresolved the issues involved with that subscale. According to Hammer and Bennett (2002),even though the subscales are located on a continuum, you do not have to movesequentially through the subscales. Consequently, individuals do not have to completelyresolve a subscale before moving on to the next subscale on the continuum. For example,one could have only partially resolved the Reversal subscale, while also partially resolvingthe Minimization subscale. We provide a description of the IDI scales from Hammer andBennett (2002) in Table 2.

According to Hammer et al. (2003) factor analysis of the items shows alpha coefficientsof 0.80 or higher for the each of the subscales. Overall, they report the revised instrument isboth valid and reliable. Hammer et al. (2003) also report that an additional analysis usingthe Marlowe–Crown Social Desirability Scale (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972) showed all fiveIDI scales were independent of a respondent’s tendency to provide socially desirableresponses.

Table 3 provides a pictorial view of the IDI scales and their relation to the scoresgenerated by the instrument. As noted in the exhibit, as one’s IDI score increases, he or shemoves closer to viewing cultures from an ethnorelative perspective.

Hammer and Bennett’s IDI was administered to the students on two occasions—a pre-test and a post-test. The pre-test was administered the first day of class and the post-test onthe last day of class. The pre-test was administered to all 23 students in the course. Thepost-test IDI scores were collected from 19 students. Two students who were foreignnationals (France and Columbia) were excluded from the study due to their pre-existingextensive exposure to different cultures. Two other students missed completing the secondadministration of the instrument, one because of illness and the other due to early

Table 2

Description of IDI scales

Denial and Defense Measures a worldview that simplifies and/or polarizes cultural difference. It ranges

from disinterest and avoidance to a tendency to view the world in terms of ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘them’’, where ‘‘us’’ is superior.

Reversal Measures a worldview that reverses the ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘them’’ polarization, where

‘‘them’’ is superior. It is a ‘‘mirror image’’ of the denial/defense orientation.

Minimization Measures a worldview that highlights cultural commonality and universal values

through an emphasis on similarity—a tendency to assume that people from other

cultures are basically ‘‘like us’’.

Acceptance and Adaptation Measures a worldview that can comprehend and accommodate complex cultural

difference. It can range from a tendency to recognize patterns of cultural

difference in one’s own culture and in other cultures (acceptance) to a tendency to

alter perception and behavior according to cultural context (adaptation).

Encapsulated Marginality Measures a worldview that incorporates a multicultural identity, where one’s

identity is separated from any specific cultural context.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

IDI V2-3

Table 4

One-tailed test of significance

Scale Pre-test mean Post-test mean p-value Possible range

H1: Overall

developmental

93.78 98.00 0.069a 55–145c

H2: Denial/Defense 4.06 3.99 0.786 (NS) 1–5

H3: Reversal 3.72 4.11 0.001b 1–5

H4: Minimization 3.08 2.90 0.836 (NS) 1–5

H5: Acceptance/

Adaptation

3.05 3.42 0.022b 1–5

aSignificant at the 0.10 level.bSignificant at the 0.05 level.cEffective range where 100 ¼ the mean of the normative sample and 15 is the SD.


departure from the program. Finally, three students failed to enter their SSN in the post-test, making paired-test analysis impossible. This reduced the final sample size for thestudy to 16. The students were told that their IDI results would be kept confidential andwould not influence their final grade for the course. In both the pre-test and post-test, theIDI instruments were kept secure from the course instructor and the scoring of theinstruments was not conducted until after the program course was completed and finalgrades were submitted.

5. Results

Table 4 shows the results of this study. Three of the five hypotheses tested received atleast modest support. Based on these results, there is weak support (p ¼ 0.069) for thehypothesis that the students who participated in the 4-week, study abroad experiencesignificantly improved their level of intercultural sensitivity as measured by the IDI’sdevelopment scale. Stronger statistical support was found for two other hypotheses: As agroup, the students lessened their tendency to see other cultures as better than their own(Reversal) and improved their ability to accept and adapt to cultural differences(Acceptance/Adaptation).


6. Discussion

While we had hoped for, and expected, stronger support for the efficacy of this programin increasing the overall scores for cultural sensitivity, the small sample size (16) restrictsour ability to draw a firm conclusion at this time. There were no significant changes in thestudents’ Defense/Denial and Minimization scores. The lack of significant change forDefense/Denial is not surprising since none of the students participating in the programwere in this stage of development when the program started. The lowest-scoring studentswere toward the top end of the Reversal stage and the mean score for the pre-test wasapproximately four on a five-point scale. Consequently, there was little room for upwardmovement.

While the lack of support for changes in the students’ Defense/Denial scores was notstartling, the lack of support for change on the Minimization scale is puzzling. When theprogram started, most of the students evidenced a tendency to minimize culturaldifferences, with a pre-test mean of 3.08, suggesting there was plenty room forimprovement. It is worth noting that our results are very similar to those reported inthe Paige et al. (2004) study. Both studies found significant improvement in the students’Reversal and Acceptance/Adaptation subscales and in the Overall Development score andno significant differences on the other subscales.

In order to gain further insight into these results, particularly given the small sample size(16), we plotted the pre-test and post-test scores of the students who participated in thestudy. Table 5 shows the number of students in each of the five stages, based on their IDIscores prior to leaving to study abroad and the number in each category at the end of theprogram. As the exhibit shows, there was almost no change in the number of students ineach stage. Examination of the individual scores revealed that one student resolved theReversal issues measured by the IDI and two students resolved their Minimization issues.Since we found a significant change in the group’s overall Development score, we hadexpected to find more movement between stages, rather than just within a stage. However,this was not the case.

According to Bennett’s DMIS, people develop their sensitivity on each of the stagessimultaneously (Bennett, 1993). That is, they do not have to completely resolve the issuesinvolved in one stage (e.g., Reversal) before moving on to the next stage (e.g.,Minimization). Clearly, that is what happened in the present study. While the students’overall development score showed significant movement, the change usually was notsufficient to move them out of one stage and into the next.

In order to show this visually, we plotted the students’ pre- and post-IDI Developmentscores. The result of this plotting is shown in Fig. 1. It is clear that scores of most studentssimply moved within a stage.

Table 5

Position of students along IDI development scale

Denial and Defense Reversal Minimization Acceptance Encapsulated

Marginality

Pre-test # of students 0 4 10 2 0

Post-test # of students 0 3 9 4 0

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Plot of pre- and post-IDI development scores


As shown in Table 5, the majority of the students in this study had already workedthrough the Defense/Denial and Reversal stages prior to enrolling in the study abroadprogram, and started in the Minimization stage. We have no way of knowing whetherthese students were representative of the majority of students on college campuses. It is adistinct possibility that students whose IDI scores would place them in the Defense/Denialstage would choose not to participate in study abroad programs. Their lack of interculturaldevelopment may make such programs unappealing. Research comparing students whochoose to study abroad against those who do not is needed to answer this question.Perhaps the fact that most of the students are still working on the Minimization scale

should not be surprising. One of the fundamental characteristics of the Minimization scaleis the generalized belief that everyone is fundamentally the same. In this stage, culturaldifferences are acknowledged, but the differences are ‘‘minimized’’ and seen asunimportant compared to the cultural similarities. Recognizing the value of the differencescan be very difficult to internalize for those growing up in a culture such as the US that


perceives itself as the world leader (and the difficulty of moving beyond this stage is likelyto be exacerbated by the fact the students in this study were members of a veryhomogeneous campus community). This ethnocentric perspective naturally leads to thebelief that cultural differences exist because the other culture is not yet well enoughinformed of the benefits of becoming just like us.

7. Conclusions

This study provides preliminary evidence that short-term, non-language-based studyabroad programs can have a positive impact on intercultural sensitivity. The participantsin the 4-week study set in England and Ireland significantly improved their overallintercultural sensitivity as measured by the IDI development score. The principal growthin their development appears to be in the area of Reversal and Acceptance/Adaptation.

Intercultural awareness is, of course, not limited to improving one’s understanding andacceptance of cultures outside of the US. By increasing students’ intercultural sensitivity, itis reasonable to expect that they will also be better prepared to address different cultureswithin the US—including those on their college campus.

At a time when most countries in the world are experiencing increasing cultural diversityand the world of business is becoming increasingly global, it is imperative that our schoolsprepare students to deal effectively with people having cultural orientations that differfrom their own. We desperately need to explore and evaluate alternatives for movingpeople to higher levels of intercultural sensitivity. Programs that put our students in face-to-face contact with people of different cultures would seem to have the greatest likelihoodof producing positive outcomes.

8. Limitations and suggestions for future research

There is a clear need for further empirical investigation of the effect of short-term studyabroad programs. The current study has several limitations:

1.
The number of participants in the study is small. The final sample size is only 16. Theneed exists to replicate the study with larger samples of students.
2.
This study examines a single type of study abroad experience. It was a senior-levelcourse to English-speaking countries involving home-stays with local families. As statedearlier, many alternatives exist for improving cultural sensitivity; these alternativesrange from classroom lectures with no overseas component to study abroad. And, evenif study abroad is the chosen alternative, there are many conditions that seem likely toaffect the success of the experience. Additional research needs to be conducted toidentify specific intervention techniques and strategies that can be used to facilitate thedevelopment of cross-cultural sensitivity. For example, are there activities that studentsshould participate in prior to participation in a study abroad program that wouldsignificantly enrich their overseas experience and lead to greater intercultural sensitivity?Engle and Engle (2004, p. 222) suggest eight factors that can differentiate study abroadprograms; duration, language competency, required language use, role of faculty,coursework, mentoring and orientation, experiential initiatives, and housing. Theinfluence of different combinations of these factors is yet to be determined. It may bethat better results than those observed in the current study could have been achieved if


the composition of the program had been different. It is an open question whetherequivalent or greater gains would have occurred from other experiences.

3.
Given the short duration of the program, it seems likely that the observed changesresulted from the study-abroad program, but a control group would provide greaterassurance that it was the program and not some external factor that caused the changes.However, as noted by Dwyer (2004), obtaining a control group that is truly comparablewith the experimental group is difficult due to the confounding variables of collegestudents (e.g., course work completed, travel experiences—domestic and foreign, andsocio-economic level differences). And even if it were possible to assemble a group ofstudents who match on demographic variables, it is unlikely that they also would be aparallel group on psychographic dimensions. The program participants have incommon the willingness and desire to engage in an overseas experience, at considerableemotional and monetary expense. This is likely to be a different profile from those wholack the interest to experiment with new environments. Consequently, securing a trulyparallel group of students would not be a simple task.
4.
Finally, additional studies are needed to evaluate the impact of study abroad programson intercultural sensitivity months and years after the students return to the US. Werecommend a longer-term follow-up assessment to evaluate the persistence of the cross-cultural sensitivity measures. Do students regress after re-assimilating with theirdomestic peers? Do they view world events differently following graduation? In thelonger term, it would also be interesting to assess the impact of study abroadexperiences on the cross-cultural sensitivity of working practitioners and professionalsthat accept overseas assignments.
References

Altschuler, L., Sussman, N. M., & Kachur, E. (2003). Assessing changes in intercultural sensitivity among

physician trainees using the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 27, 387–401.

Battsek, M. (1962). A practical analysis of some aspects of study abroad. Journal of General Education, 13,

225–242.

Bennett, J. M., Bennett, M. J., & Allen, W. (1999). Developing intercultural competence in the language

classroom. In R. M. Paige, D. Lange, & Y. A. Yershova (Eds.), Culture as the core: Integrating culture into the

language classroom (pp. 13–46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Bennett, M. J. (1986). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige

(Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and applications (pp. 21–70). New York: University

Press of America.

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige

(Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Bhawuk, D., & Brislin, R. (1992). The Measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of

individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(4), 413–436.

Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (1994). Improving intercultural interactions. Multicultural aspects of counseling series.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chieffo, L., & Griffins, L. (2003). What’s a month worth? Student perceptions of what they learned abroad.

International Education, 26–31.

Dwyer, M. M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers: The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X(Fall), 151–163.

Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity development in relation

to study abroad program design. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X(Fall), 219–236.

Gillespe, J. (2002). Colleges need better ways to assess study abroad programs. The Chronicle of Higher Education.


Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (2002). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR:

Intercultural Communication Institute.

Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural

Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443.

Kelley, C., & Meyers, J. (1995). CCAI Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory manual. Minneapolis, MN: National

Computer Systems Inc.

Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality. New York: Norton.

Klak, T., & Martin, P. (2003). Do university-sponsored international cultural events help students to appreciate

difference? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 445–465.

Landis, D., & Bhagat, R. S. (1996). Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ludwig, M. (2000). The next ten years: Trends affecting study abroad participation for US students. International

Educator, 9(4), 34–40.

Medina-Lopez-Portillo, A. (2004). Intercultural learning assessment: The link between program duration and the

development of intercultural sensitivity. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X(Fall),

179–199.

Michigan State University Office of Study Abroad. ‘‘Why should I study abroad?’’ Retrieved 5 November 2004,

from http://studyabroad.msu.edu/shared/objectives.html

NUI Study Abroad Office (2000). A beginner’s guide to study abroad through NUI. Retrieved 5 November 2004,

from http://www3.niu.edu/niuabroad/Begin_Guide.pdf

Paige, R. M. (1993). On the nature of intercultural experiences. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the

intercultural experience (pp. 1–19). Yarmouth, ME: International Press.

Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2004). Assessing the impact of a strategies-based curriculum on

language and culture learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X(Fall),

253–276.

Pruegger, V. J., & Rogers, T. B. (1994). Cross-cultural sensitivity training: Methods and assessment. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 369–387.

Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE.

Journal of Marketing Research, 24(August), 280–289.

Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability

Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193.

http://studyabroad.msu.edu/shared/objectives.html

http://www3.niu.edu/niuabroad/Begin_Guide.pdf

Short term study abroad and intercultural sensativity 2006

Documents

Transcript of Short term study abroad and intercultural sensativity 2006