lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 42 (2014) 271e281

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Enhancing the study abroad experience: A longitudinal analysisof hospitality-oriented, study abroad program evaluations

Carl Behnke a,*, Soobin Seo b,1, Kay Miller a

a School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, 900 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2115, USAbHospitality Management, Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University, 1787 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43204, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

� Eleven short-term study abroad program evaluations from 185 students were examined.� Program evaluations included quantitative and qualitative responses.� Content analysis revealed themes centered around logistics, culture, and pleasure.� ANOVA results indicated greater satisfaction with active learning experiences.� ANOVA results indicated preference for experiences led by authentic, local experts.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 16 October 2013Accepted 24 December 2013

Keywords:Study abroadProgram developmentStudent preferenceTransformative learning

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 765 494 9887; faxE-mail addresses: Behnkec@purdue.edu (C. Behnk

Mille640@purdue.edu (K. Miller).1 Tel.: þ1 614 292 7764.

0261-5177/$ e see front matter � 2014 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.010

a b s t r a c t

Research suggests numerous benefits associated with studying abroad. Given the increasingly globalnature of the world, it would seem that there is a significant need for international exposure; however,only 1.4% of U.S. students have studied abroad. This study examined program evaluations from 11 short-term undergraduate study abroad programs encompassing a span of 9 years. A total of 185 participantscompleted the survey using evaluations designed for program improvement, which were collected at theconclusion of each experience. Data were examined using a mixed-methods approach with the goal ofidentifying programmatic characteristics that contributed to increased student satisfaction. Resultsindicated that students’ preferences were prioritized in terms of logistics, culture, and pleasure. Inaddition, the engagement and source of experience significantly influenced students’ satisfaction withtheir study abroad experience, implying that students prefer programs with active components and localguides. Findings were examined in light of Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

One of the hallmarks of effective education is that it has ameasurable impact on the student. Information and experiencesprovided by the instructor are designed to influence students’perceptions and understandings of the topic(s) at hand. However,the traditional educational experience can be somewhat limitedwhen restricted to the classroom setting. Book, lecture, andmultimedia delivery can only communicate a certain degree ofinformation, oftentimes with limited effectiveness due to the ab-stract nature of the school-bound experience.

: þ1 765 494 0327.e), Seo.190@osu.edu (S. Seo),

All rights reserved.

Conversely, studying abroad offers instructors the chance totake the classroom on the road e a chance to elaborate academiccontent with simultaneous real-world exposure. Also, as noted byDuke (2000), studying abroad offers the opportunity to apply awide range of teaching techniques, thus accommodating students’varied learning styles. Integrating academic content with real-world exposure increases the material’s relevance and subse-quent internalization. Bodger, Bodger, and Frost (2006) assertedthat the value of educational travel lies in studying topics in theircontext and environment. For example, it is one thing to lectureabout Italian wines and wine making in a classroom using a text-book; imagine, however, the same lesson being taught while in avineyard and winery in Tuscany, Italy; the difference lies in theimmersion aspect. The lesson is the same, but the connection toreality, and therefore relevance, is greater. Some concepts that aredifficult to explain in the abstract, for example terrior, could beeasier for students to follow when immersed in the environment.

C. Behnke et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 271e281272

The students could handle the soil, examine its composition, andget a feel for the vineyard’s orientation or aspect in relation to thesun and wind e all aspects that contribute to the concept of terriorresulting in uniquewine characteristics. Students are more likely toengage with, and reflect upon, content when they experience thematerial firsthand.

Study abroad offers many opportunities for “disorienting di-lemmas,” experiences that, when paired with self-reflection, cancause learners to shift their frames of reference and embrace moreinclusive perspectives in accordance with Mezirow’s (1997)Transformative Learning Theory. Unfortunately, U.S. participationin study abroad programs is marginal at best; without participa-tion, students miss the opportunity to engage in transformativeglobal and cultural learning.

In order to improve participation rates, it is necessary toexamine various program components, such as experiential,logistical, and educational, in order to determine student prefer-ences in regards to study abroad experiences. Developing programsthat generate positive student feedback will result in an increaseddesire to participate. Therefore, the goal of this studywas to analyzea decade’s worth of short-term study abroad program evaluationswith the intention of providing guidance to future program de-velopers and leaders. Additionally, given the increasing popularityof short term programs, growing from 14.4% of all study abroadprograms in 2000/01 to 20.4% in 2010/11 (IIE, 2012a), examiningthe characteristics that contribute to student engagement andsuccess during short term programs is warranted.

2. Review of the literature

2.1. Theoretical background

Personal engagement, relevance, and self-reflection lead to thedevelopment and refinement of personal frames of reference, thefoundation of Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory. Trans-formative learning, according to Mezirow (1997), is the process ofexperiencing a change in a frame of reference, which he goes on todefine as “the structures of assumptions through which we under-standourexperiences” (p.5). Transformations in aperson’s framesofreference are achieved through a critical examination of the factorsthat sustain close held assumptions. These assumptions lead tospecific points of view. With regard to learning, Mezirow identifiesfour learning processes. The first involves elaborating or supportinginitially held biases. The second is to establish a new point of view,while the third way is to transform an existing point of view fromone perspective to another, distinctly different, perspective as aresult of critical reflection and examination of misconceptions. Lastand most difficult, people can “learn,” that is change, their point ofview, by cultivating an awareness of their generalized biases(Mezirow, 1997). The third and fourth forms of learning are espe-cially suited to the study abroad educational environment.

Hunter (2008) examined the Transformative Learning Theory inthe context of studying abroad explaining that “change inperspective, based on examination of the premises, assumptionsand presuppositions underlying the framework, results in a shift ofparadigm” (p.96). A student undergoing a study abroad programmay reinterpret their ways of thinking, feeling, and valuing as aresult of experiencing some disorienting dilemma, a commonoccurrence in study abroad programs. Both Mezirow (1997) andHunter (2008) emphasize the importance of critical reflection anddiscourse in effecting these changes in thinking. Study abroad ex-periences tend to offer greater transformational potential than astudent would likely experience if they just stayed on campus(Hunter, 2008). Opportunities for experiencing disorienting di-lemmas will vary based upon the program type.

2.2. Types of study abroad

Study abroad programs come in a variety of packages. Fromshort-term, 1e3 week journeys to fifteen-week semesters abroad,there are many different types of programs. Following is a synopsisof the more common variations of study abroad programs.

Educational Travel/Study Tours: These programs are usuallyshort-term programs of 1e4 weeks duration. Within this categoryare several subdivisions: the single location tour, the multi-locationtour, and hybrid programs. Single location tours permit the studentto become more familiar with an area and provide a more in-depthcultural experience (Brokaw,1996). Multi-location toursmove fromplace to place during the program and are of interest to thosestudents who wish to experience several different cultures. Pro-gram content of multi-location tours often focuses on cultural is-sues (Gordon & Smith, 1992; Schuster, 1993). There is another formof study tour that combines elements of both single- and multi-location tours. This is where a home base is selected for the dura-tion of the visit, with daily “field trips” to other locations withinreasonable distance (Moncrief, Shipp, & Lamb, 1995). Finally, thereare hybrid programs where short tours are combined with regularacademic sessions held at the home school. Combining a domesticcourse with an international experience can enhance the interna-tionalization of the material for better retention (Johnson & Mader,1992). These programs are usually developed and managed byfaculty from the home school.

Summer programs generally run for 6e8 weeks and involveworking in collaboration with host schools. Oftentimes, theseprograms are led by faculty from the home school who accompanythe students to the host school and utilize the host school’s facilitiesto present standard course material in a novel setting. Frequent sitevisits are often incorporated into this form of study abroadprogram.

Semesters abroad represent an unescorted form of studyabroad. Students enroll in courses, approved for credit by the homeinstitution, at credit-granting schools in the host country. Partici-pants in these courses are integrated with students from the hostschool and taught by the instructors of that school. This type ofprogram often results in a more in-depth cultural immersion forthe participant.

Internships, while not always a structured educational program,are still considered to be part of the study abroad scene. In thissituation, participants are placed into structured work situationsdesigned to provide valuable real-world experience in their field ofstudy. These can be of variable length depending upon the needs ofthe host corporation. Progress in the internship experience isusually monitored through the use of journals and written reports.Toncar and Cudmore (2000) suggest that internships are gainingpopularity as a form of experiential learning that bridges the gapbetween the classroom and real world application, while Trooboff,Vande Berg, and Rayman (2007) found that experiential programs,such as service learning or internships, were highly valued by po-tential employers.

Finally, while not directly a form of study abroad for the hostschool student, international exchange programs, where foreignstudents come to study in the U.S., are also a form of culturalinteraction. Students who pursue studies in the U.S. bring aspects oftheir culture with them. Interactions with these students canheighten cultural awareness and encourage future travel on thepart of the home school student.

2.3. Participation in study abroad

The nature of the study abroad experience is changing (NAFSA,2003). According to the Institute of International Education,

C. Behnke et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 271e281 273

participation in long term programs, defined as one semester ormore, declined from 47% (n ¼ 72,459) in 2000/01 to 38.8%(n ¼ 106,310) in 2010/11. Moderate length programs, such assummer or quarter length programs, saw a slight increase inparticipation from 37.8% (n ¼ 58,276) in 2000/01 to 40.7%(n ¼ 111,516) in 2010/11. In contrast, short length programs of eightweeks or less, have experienced a substantial increase in partici-pation from 14.4% (n ¼ 22,200) in 2000/01 to 20.4% (n ¼ 55,895) in2010/11 (IIE, 2012a).

While participation seems to be shifting from long term to shortterm programs, participant demographics remained relativelystatic. In 2000/01, there were 100,209 (65%) female students and53,959 (35%)male students. By 2010/11, this had changed to 176,453female and 97,543 male students. While actual participationnumbers increased, proportionately, females in2010/11 represented64.4% and males represented 35.6% of the study abroad population,not a significant change from the prior decade. Research indicatesthat barriers to participation include curricular and licensing re-quirements that preclude studying abroad, as well as anxietiesrelated to intercultural skills (or lack of), stereotypes, and prejudice(Goldstein &Kim, 2006; NAFSA, 2003). The Institute of InternationalEducation (IIE) (2009) identified rising program costs and insuffi-cient federal funding as barriers to participation. From the facultyperspective, NAFSA (2003) noted that there is often little support orincentive for faculty participation, without which the supply ofavailable programs is limited. Clearly, in spite of improvements inparticipation, substantial barriers exist that constrain developmentinitiatives and inhibit participation, especially in terms of diversity.

IIE president, Allan Goodman, noted that America’s economicsuccess and global leadership in the 21st century requires gradu-ates with global vision and competency (IIE, 2009). However, only273,996 out of 19,903,000 total U.S. higher education students(excluding international students) managed to study abroad duringthe academic year 2010/11. From a diversity standpoint, minoritystudents are severely underrepresented at 21.3% of the nationalstudy abroad population as compared to 78.7% white (IIE, 2012a).

By way of comparison, China sent 157,558 students abroad overthe academic year 2010/11 followed by India at 103,895 and SouthKorea at 73,351; approximately 49% of international studentsstudying in America came from these three countries (IIE, 2012b).An Australian examination of factors that motivated internationalstudents’ (N ¼ 2485) selection of study abroad destinationsrevealed that 55% of the students were female and that the averageage was 24 years; slightly less skewed than the U.S. gender distri-bution (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002).

Study abroad programs share the common goal of increasingcultural sensitivity and awareness. Even the federal governmentrecognizes the importance of international experience. In March of2005, a resolution was introduced in the House of Representativesdeclaring that the “United States should establish an internationaleducation policy to foster mutual understanding among nations,promote a world free of terrorism, further United States leadershipin the world, and for other purposes” (H.R. 100, 2005). The reso-lutionwent on to state that preparing American citizens with globalskills was a crucial investment in U.S. leadership and security, andthat recent security measures have weakened the U.S. position asthe leading destination of international exchange and educationstudents, thus reducing opportunities to create goodwill. Amongother things, the resolution called for the support of internationalexchange programs; promotion of a greater diversity in languages,locations, and subjects offered; streamlining of visa and employ-ment policies consistent with Homeland Security directives, and asignificant increase for participation in study abroad and internshipprograms by U.S. students, especially minority and financiallydisadvantaged students (H.R. 100, 2005).

International exposure is increasingly necessary for successwithin a progressively more integrated global society. However, inorder to increase student participation and diversity, these barriersmust be minimized. One approach to doing this is to address stu-dent anxieties. Developing programs that consider student pref-erences and carefully structuring them for a positive internationalexperience can contribute to reducing anxieties, and potentiallyincreasing program desirability leading to increasing participation.

2.4. Student development

Proponents argue that international travel represents a path toself-improvement (Bodger et al., 2006; Kitsantas, 2004) andopenness to diversity (Wortman, 2002). Given the following char-acteristics of study tours: emphasis on learning with the aid ofskilled leaders; direct engagement with cultural elements and di-versity; social impacts of group learning and travel; and thedevelopment of transferable skills (Bodger et al., 2006), it is easy tosee their point. Yet, these are broad characteristics. Specific skillsthat can be acquired as a result of studying abroad include lan-guage, cultural knowledge, and personal growth.

Foreign language skills gain proficiency as a result of interna-tional exchanges, as do cultural appreciation and openness to di-versity (Armstrong, 1984; Geelhoed, Abe, & Talbot, 2003;Kauffmann & Kuh, 1984; Wortman, 2002). Armstrong reportedthat 33 percent of survey respondents indicated that they returnedabroad after their first experience in Mexico, while another groupsuggested that the primary benefit resulting from internationalstudy was a “heightened awareness of other value systems and anappreciation for cultural differences” (Armstrong, 1984). Personalgrowth in terms of long-term cross-cultural friendships has beenreported (Armstrong, 1984; Cash, 1993). Toncar and Cudmore(2000) also noted that studying abroad can generate an aware-ness of the privileges that exist here, and empathy for those in-ternational students who study in the United States. Interpersonalmaturity in the form of self-confidence, self-perception, objectivity,and independence tends to grow as a result of studying abroad(Armstrong, 1984; Cash, 1993; Geelhoed et al., 2003; Sumka, 1999;Toncar & Cudmore, 2000). Armstrong (1984) also suggested thatstudying abroad can influence career selection.

The benefits of studying abroad are not limited to the students.Armstrong (1984) commented that studying abroad can benefitfaculty by expanding their knowledge and experience levels. Fac-ulty can experience personal growth, increased self-confidence,networking opportunities, and a closer rapport with their stu-dents, often leading to a more effective educational experience andrelatively inexpensive access to international data not normallyavailable (Armstrong, 1984). Sponsoring institutions can alsobenefit from increased opportunities for public relations, recruit-ing, and faculty incentives. On the other end, values for the hostcollege include the internationalization of the campus, potentialprofit-making opportunities resulting from the productive use offacilities during non-academic periods, and increased public re-lations opportunities (Marcum & Roochnik, 2001; Toncar &Cudmore, 2000).

In terms of international internship programs, there are severalbenefits to the sponsor. International internship sponsors benefitfrom cultural exposure, access to knowledgeable and inexpensivelabor, and public relations opportunities. Hospitality employerswho hire students with study abroad experience gain by hiringsomeone with global and multicultural experience, greater matu-rity and confidence, increased willingness to travel and acceptforeign assignments, and flexibility in thoughts and actions (Toncar& Cudmore, 2000); aspects crucial to the mandate of preparing ourstudents for an increasingly global society (H.R. 100, 2005). It can

Table 1Study abroad programs.

Month/Year Destination Duration (days) # of Participantsa

May 2002 Switzerland and France 13 14May 2003 Italy 14 8May 2004 Denmark, the Netherlands

and Germany14 11

March 2005 Switzerland 7 19March 2006 Italy 9 24March 2007 Belgium, the Netherlands

and Luxembourg8 25

March 2008 Switzerland 8 24May 2008 China 29 18March 2009 Portugal 8 21March 2010 Belgium and Luxembourg 8 18May 2010 Australia 28 12

Mean: 13.27 Total: 194

a Therewere several adult auditors and recent graduates on some of the programswho were not participating in a gradable context.

C. Behnke et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 271e281274

also be argued that exposing students to international culturescontributes to American security in an increasingly global society.The benefits of studying abroad, both real and perceived, are many;and yet, reports indicate that few students study abroad (IIE, 2012b;NAFSA, 2003), while key federal funding has decreased (H.R. 100,2005).

With regards to hospitality-oriented study abroad programs, anearlier work by Bosselman, Fernsten, Manning, and Kisseleff (1989)investigated short-term hospitality study abroad programs using adeveloped instrument to evaluate students’ study abroad experi-ences. This study was an early foray into hospitality study abroadprograms examining a full academic year study abroad programwith 24 students, and found that students commented favorably ontheir personal growth and cultural openness, and suggested thathospitality students with cross-cultural experience would be betterprepared for their career. Other studies focused on study abroadprograms examined international students coming to the U.S.(Stephenson, 1999) or investigated study abroad as a form of stu-dent exchange program (Praetzel, Curcio, & DiLorenzo, 1996).

In spite of these benefits, some question whether study abroadprograms are worth the cost, both financially and academically(Marcum & Roochnik, 2001). Another noted that the self-absorbedfocus of today’s students leads them to focus on a study abroadjourney as a self-challenge, rather than focusing on the people andculture they were visiting (Freinberg, 2002). Given the issues offormal program assessment (Gillespie, 2002), study abroad pro-grams are sometimes perceived as glorified vacations; the value ofthe educational experience can be overshadowed by a perceivedlack of academic rigor.

Issues of rigor, focus, and finances are indeed challenges asso-ciated with study abroad programs; however, these issues are notinsurmountable. Study abroad programs can be academicallyrigorous, while students can be guided away from a self-centeredfocus. Financial constraints represent a more tangible barrier toparticipation, and are likely to grow in the current fiscal environ-ment faced by colleges and universities, yet these, too, can beaddressed. Ultimately, improvements in study abroad programscan lead to more positive student experiences resulting in personalgrowth and development. However, if participation continues to belimited, then few will benefit. Considering the growing importanceand merits of study abroad programs, a systematic longitudinalstudy investigating students’ satisfaction with study abroad pro-grams is warranted. Consequently, this study proposed to examinea decade’s worth of short-term educational travel program evalu-ations in order to determine the characteristics that past studentsidentified as important or preferable, as well as those characteris-tics that were less positively received. Specifically, the objectives ofthis study were to:

1) Analyze participants’ program evaluation comments aboutstudy abroad programs from 2002 to 2010.

2) Examine factors influencing participants’ satisfaction with theirstudy abroad experience.

3. Methodology

This study adopted a mixed methods approach using qualitativeand quantitative analyses to systematically examine students’program evaluations of hospitality-oriented, educational travelprograms as well as to identify factors influencing their satisfactionwith the programs. The use of mixed methods is consideredbeneficial in terms of obtaining rich and valid results (Kitchell,1995). Previous hospitality research has adopted this approach inorder to generate comprehensive results. For example, the mixedmethod used by O’Leary and Deegan (2003) combined both

quantitative (e.g., self-administered survey) and qualitativemethods (e.g., content analysis) to examine the image of tourismdestinations. Hence, this study utilized both qualitative and quan-titative analyses to examine the students’ program evaluations.Following the guidance of communication research (Riffe, Lacy, &Fico, 2005), qualitative content analysis was applied, while Anal-ysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used as a quantitative analysis inorder to identify factors affecting students’ satisfaction with theirprograms.

3.1. Data

The data used for this study included students’ evaluations fromeleven short term (1e4 week) hospitality-oriented, educationaltravel programs spanning nine years from 2002 to 2010. Since thisdatawas collected for the purposes of programmatic improvement,no formal hypotheses were identified in advance. Use of this his-torical data for analysis was approved by the University’s Institu-tional Review Board on the condition that the data remainedanonymous.

The programs traveled to a number of destinations and tookplace either in May or March (Table 1). The general focus of theprograms was the cuisine and culture of the destination countries.The programs were elective in nature and open to the Universitypopulation; however, the majority of participants were hospitalityand tourism management students. The program evaluations useda 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 ¼ strongly disagree and5 ¼ strongly agree. The evaluation had twelve questions. The firstquestion asked students to rate their experiences (site specific). Forexample, this question asked students to rate specific airfare andlodging arrangements, guided city tours, operational facility tours,meals, museums, and free time. In general, shorter programs wouldhave about 25 specific experiences to rate, while longer programsmight have about 40 experiences.

The question that followed the site specific ratings asked stu-dents to evaluate the program on an overall basis (1 ¼ lowest and5 ¼ highest), after which open-ended questions solicited qualita-tive input; for example, program likes, dislikes, value for price paid,pre-trip information provided, and general comments/suggestions.Remaining questions sought feedback pertaining to future sitevisits and duration, programmarketing, and program repetition, aswell information regarding gender and age.While there were slightchanges in the program evaluation instrument over the course oftime, these changes were minimal in nature, and tended towardsrequesting more information rather than less.

The surveys were administered on the final day of the programwhile the students were at the airport waiting to board the return

C. Behnke et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 271e281 275

flight. Since the instrument was designed for program improve-ment, no personal data was requested and the surveys werecollected by a designated student, who delivered them to admin-istration upon return to the United States.

3.2. Qualitative data analysis: content analysis

Content analysis procedures were chosen to analyze students’comments about study abroad programs. Content analysis isdefined as a systematic research technique appropriate foranalyzing text-oriented data (Rourke & Anderson, 2004). In theinterests of full disclosure, it must be noted that the primaryresearcher was also involved in the development of all of the studyabroad programs in question.

The first step of content analysis was to select the text population,which isdefinedasasetof text that a researcherattempts toanalyzeorgeneralize (Stepchenkova & Eales, 2011). In this study, the text pop-ulation was the total of 185 students’ comments about study abroadprograms from 2002 to 2010. As the second step, a preliminary anal-ysis was performed in order to identify themes. Two researchersperformed an open coding by reviewing the students’ commentsabout the study abroad programs to explore those components thatrepeatedly appeared. The unit of analysis was a sentence. When asentence implied any of the themes identified in the preliminaryanalysis, the sentence was coded as a reference to the theme. Aftersignificant revisionanddiscussionabout thebroad themes, consensuswas reachedonfive themes: Pleasure, culture, academic, logistics, andinstructors. The first component, “Pleasure,” included commentsrelated to enjoyment and friendship. “Culture” included commentsabout local food (a particular focus of these programs), sightseeing,and overall experience during the trip. “Academic” contained com-ponents related to activities, lectures andoverall learninggained fromthe programs, while “Logistics” included comments about programplanning, food, hotel, travel, and tour. Lastly, “Instructors” containedcomments related to leadership and locality of instructors (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Tree nodes for

The textual population was divided into three groups: “Overall”comments, “Positive” comments, and “Negative” comments. An-swers to the question, “what do you think about this program inoverall?”, were considered “Overall” comments; answers to thequestion, “what do you like about this program?” were considered“Positive” comments; and answers to the question, “what do youdislike about this program?” were considered “Negative” com-ments. Analyzing the responses to these questions separately hel-ped to identify patterns within the student comments.

The last step of content analysis was to analyze the text-orienteddata using the identified themes. Based on those identified fivethemes, students’ “Overall,” “Positive,” and “Negative” commentsabout their respective experiences were analyzed using NVivo 9software. The NVivo 9 program was designed to assist the proce-dure of content analysis in terms of categorizing sentences intospecific themes and efficiently displaying the analysis results. Forexample, a comment like “The tour was well organized, interesting,and informational” was categorized as “logistics” because thecomment addressed the logistic component of the trip. Anotherexample is a comment like “I enjoyed learning so much about theactual traditions of Italian cuisine and seeing that they are still verymuch alive” which was categorized as “culture” because thecomment involved a cultural perspective of the trip.

3.3. Quantitative data analysis

The second method of analysis used in this study was quanti-tative and applied Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedures to testthe effect of characteristics of discrete program experiences onstudents’ overall satisfaction. Thus, the dependent variable was theoverall satisfaction scores about the study abroad program. In orderto identify the independent variables, a full understanding of theexperiences within each study abroad program was needed.Therefore, the instructor (also one of the primary researchers) whowas involved in the development and administration of all of the

content analysis.

Table 3Descriptive statistics of study abroad programs from 2002 to 2010.

Year Destination # of surveyrespondents

Gender(Female)

OverallsatisfactionMean (SD)

2002 Switzerland and France 16a 75% 4.62 (.50)2003 Italy 8 50% 4.68 (.45)2004 Denmark, the

Netherlands andGermany

12a 92% 4.66 (.44)

2005 Switzerland 19 88% 4.92 (.25)2006 Italy 23 88% 4.86 (.34)2007 Belgium, the

Netherlands andLuxembourg

22 80% 4.52 (.49)

2008 Switzerland 24 60% 4.54 (.50)2008 China 16 75% 4.87 (.34)2009 Portugal 19 59% 4.91 (.28)2010 Belgium and

Luxembourg18 75% 5.00 (.00)

2010 Australia 8 68% 4.83 (.38)Total: 185 74% Mean: 4.87

a The 2002 and 2004 program evaluations included three adult auditor evalua-tions. Since the evaluations were anonymous, there was no way of identifying andremoving those data from analysis.

C. Behnke et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 271e281276

study abroad programs in question reviewed and coded each pro-gram experience for which Likert-type data were collected basedupon the criteria shown in Table 2. Each experience was coded interms of (1) General nature of experience (cultural/hospitality), (2)Degree of engagement with experience (passive/active), and (3)Instructional source of the experience (non-local/local).

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive statistics

Students’ evaluations about eleven study abroad programs from2002 to 2010 were analyzed in this study (Table 3). Destinationsincluded Northern Europe, Switzerland, France, Italy, China,Portugal, and Australia. The total number of respondents was 185;there were 137 females (74%) and 48 males (26%). The overallsatisfactionwas relatively high (mean¼ 4.87 out of 5), showing thatthe students were favorably inclined toward their study abroadexperience.

4.2. Information source

The program evaluation asked students how they learned aboutthe program prior to enrollment. The marketing source mostcommonly identified was word-of-mouth from professors (32%),and from friends (25%), following by in-class presentations (19%),Student Association websites (11%), study abroad fairs (6%), other(3%), directmail (2%), and flyers (2%). The “Other” category includedinternet, hospitality student organization, mom, campus visit, andprior trip experience (Table 4). Face-to-face communication ini-tiatives seem most successful at recruiting program participants.This is consistent with Mazzarol and Soutar’s (2002) study thatfound recommendations from friends and relatives were a keyinfluencing factor motivating international student destinationchoices.

Table 2Criteria for categorizing the experience-based factors of the study abroad programs.

Sources Variables Criteria

General natureof experience

Cultural The experience involved walking aroundand being immersed in a cultural topicspecific to the course of study. Forexample, touring historical cities orcultural museums.

Hospitality The experience involved walkingaround and being immersed in ahospitality topic specific to the courseof study. For example, an operationalfacility tour of a 5-star hotel.

Degree of engagementwith experience

Passive The experience did not involve anysort of active participation on the partof the student, who generally would sit,listen or just watch. For example,listening to a lecture or seminar.

Active The experience required activeparticipation by the students, suchas making something, handling tangibleobjects, or participating in a tastingactivity. For example, making traditionalcheese or food and wine tastings.

Instructional sourceof experience

Non-local The experience was led by the courseinstructor, who may not have hadpersonal or native experience, orin-depth understanding of the topicin question.

Local The experience was led by a localguide with specific expertise orunderstanding of the experience.

4.3. Repeating intention and destinations

When asked about future intentions for repeating this or asimilar study abroad program, 94.6% of respondents werewilling toparticipate in another program while 4.8% showed no intention offuture participation. Considering a large number of students indi-cating repeating intentions, the result implies a high level ofsatisfaction with their study abroad program experience.

Respondents were askedwhere theywould like to go on a futurestudy abroad program. Sixty eight percent of respondents indicatedEurope, following by Asia (12%), Australasia (7%), South America(4%), Africa (2%), Middle East (2%), and North America (1%) (Fig. 2).In comparison, a study examining the study abroad motivationsand preferences of Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean undergraduatestudents majoring in hospitality and tourism management pro-grams (N ¼ 1040) found that 31.6% expressed a preference forstudying in the United States, followed by Switzerland (22.3%), theUnited Kingdom (10.7%), France (8.0%), Australia (7.3%), and Japan(6.6%) (Kim, Guo, Wang, & Agrusa, 2007).

Among European countries, Italy was identified as the mostpopular destination for students from the United States, followedby France, Spain, Ireland, Greece, England, Germany, andSwitzerland. The result are partly consistent with Open Doors datarevealing that UK was the most frequently visited destination in2008e2010 (12.1%), Italy (10.3%), and Spain (9.4%) (IIE, 2012a).Among Asian countries, Japanwas ranked as the number one Asiancountry that U.S. students wished to visit (43%), followed by China(32%), India (11%), Korea (4%), Vietnam (4%), Hong Kong (4%), andThailand (4%). Among South/North American countries, Brazil andMexico were ranked as the most popular countries (31%), followingby Argentina (15%), Chile (8%), the Caribbean (8%), and Canada (8%).

Based on the survey results, the data identified the top tenglobal destinations that these students wished to visit on futurehospitality study abroad programs. Because respondents wereallowed to indicate more than one destination, a total of 309 re-sponses about future destinations were obtained (Table 5).

4.4. Content analysis

Using content analysis procedures, participants’ “Overall,”“Positive,” and “Negative” comments were analyzed over fivethemes: pleasure, culture, academic, logistics, and instructor. The

Table 4Study abroad program marketing source.

Professor Friend Class presentation SA website Study abroad fair Other Direct mail Flyer

2002 Swiss/Francea e e e e e e e e

2003 Tuscany 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 12004 North Europe 5 2 0 1 0 1 0 12005 Switzerland 5 3 6 3 2 2 0 12006 Italy 8 5 4 2 2 0 2 02007 North Europe 6 13 6 1 0 0 0 02008 China 6 2 6 1 0 0 0 02008 Switzerland 11 6 5 4 2 1 0 02009 Portugal 7 7 1 3 3 0 0 02009 North Europe 3 5 4 4 1 1 1 02010 Australia 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 0

Total 60 47 35 21 11 6 4 3% of total 32% 25% 19% 11% 6% 3% 2% 2%

a The question was not asked to participants in 2002.

Fig. 2. Future destination by geographical region.

C. Behnke et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 271e281 277

unit of analysis was a sentence. For “Overall” comments, studentremarks most frequently mentioned topics related to logistics(28.84%) and culture (28.54%), followed by pleasure (20.65%), aca-demic (16.01%), and instructor (5.95%) (Table 6). In “Positive”comments, Logistics (40.68%) was again mentioned mostfrequently, followed by Culture (23.50%), Academic (20.05%),Pleasure (8.16%), and Instructor (7.61%). It seemed that many of thestudents’ positive comments reflected topics related to logisticssuch as hotel, food, and program planning as well as culturalcomponents. Interestingly, student remarks about what they dis-liked the most about the program also seemed to revolve around

Table 5Top 10 destinations for hospitality study abroad programs.

Destination # %

1 Italy 48 16%2 France 29 9%3 Spain 23 7%4 Ireland 23 7%5 Greece 22 7%6 England 16 5%7 Germany 15 5%8 Japan 12 4%9 China 9 3%10 Switzerland 5 2%

logistics (77.97%), again in relation to program planning, food, ho-tels, travel, and tours. Students were not satisfied with particulartour aspects such as repeated museum tours. They also sometimescomplained about the amount of time spent at specific locations.Clearly, logistical issues were a foremost concern of participants.

One finding was that there were more positive comments(n ¼ 203) than negative comments (n ¼ 134) in students’ evalua-tions, while many of the overall comments (n ¼ 221) were alsopositive in nature. The results implied students were favorablydisposed toward their study abroad experience.

Examples of comments relating to the most frequently notedthemes from Table 6 are provided in Table 7.

4.5. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results

In order to test the effect of academic experience-based factorson students’ overall satisfaction, this study used ANOVA pro-cedures. The dependent variable was overall satisfaction on a 5-point Likert-type scale (from 1 ¼ poor to 5 ¼ excellent). The in-dependent variables were derived from student responses, also ona Likert-type scale (1 ¼ poor to 5 ¼ excellent) to each specificexperience. These academic experiences were then coded as (1)General nature of experience (cultural/hospitality), (2) Degree ofengagement with experience (passive/active), and (3) Instructionalsource of the experience (non-local/local) (Table 8). Coding specific

Table 6Thematic analysis of participants’ comments.

Total # of references Pleasure (%) Culture (%) Academic (%) Logistics (%) Instructor (%)

Overall comments 2002 Swiss/France 24 20.83 25.00 12.50 41.67 0.002003 Tuscany 14 14.29 50.00 7.14 21.43 7.142004 North Europe 23 21.74 4.35 17.39 47.83 8.702005 Switzerland 32 15.63 37.50 12.50 34.38 0.002006 Italy 26 19.23 30.77 19.23 26.92 3.852007 North Europe 24 20.83 16.67 8.33 50.00 4.172008 China 11 36.36 27.27 9.09 18.18 9.092008 Switzerland 30 20.00 33.33 13.33 33.33 0.002009 Portugal 19 15.79 31.58 31.58 21.05 0.002009 North Europe 8 12.50 37.50 25.00 12.50 12.502010 Australia 10 30.00 20.00 20.00 10.00 20.00

Mean % 221 20.65 28.54 16.01 28.84 5.95

Positive comments 2002 Swiss/France 10 0.00 50.00 10.00 30.00 10.002003 Tuscany 18 22.22 27.78 11.11 27.78 11.112004 North Europe 20 0.00 25.00 20.00 50.00 5.002005 Switzerland 19 15.79 31.58 10.53 26.32 15.792006 Italy 26 15.38 30.77 23.08 30.77 0.002007 North Europe 29 3.45 10.34 17.24 62.07 6.902008 China 12 0.00 8.33 16.67 58.33 16.672008 Switzerland 28 3.57 14.29 25.00 50.00 7.142009 Portugal 22 18.18 18.18 13.64 50.00 0.002009 North Europe 9 11.11 22.22 33.33 22.22 11.112010 Australia 10 0.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 0.00

Mean % 203 8.16 23.50 20.05 40.68 7.61

Negative comments 2002 Swiss/France 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.002003 Tuscany 13 0.00 0.00 23.08 76.92 0.002004 North Europe 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.002005 Switzerland 17 0.00 0.00 5.88 94.12 0.002006 Italy 7 14.29 0.00 0.00 71.43 14.292007 North Europe 24 20.83 0.00 12.50 62.50 4.172008 China 10 10.00 0.00 20.00 70.00 0.002008 Switzerland 17 0.00 0.00 5.88 88.24 5.882009 Portugal 9 11.11 0.00 33.33 44.44 11.112009 North Europe 9 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 0.002010 Australia 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 83.33 0.00

Mean % 134 5.11 0.00 13.70 77.97 3.22

Bolded numbers represent the categories with the highest percentile ratings.

C. Behnke et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 271e281278

experiences in this fashion allowed the aggregation and analysisacross programs.

ANOVA results revealed that the degree of student engagementwith specific experiences (F ¼ 5.306, p < .05) and the instructionalsource of experience (F ¼ 8.928, p < .05) were significant factorsinfluencing overall satisfaction. According to the descriptive sta-tistics, students who participated in a program with more activecomponents showed higher satisfaction (mean ¼ 4.46) comparedto those who experienced a program having more passive com-ponents (mean¼ 4.28). Thus, students reported greater satisfactionwhen a program contained more active components than passiveelements. Source of experience was another significant determi-nant; students reported a greater satisfaction when the experiencewas guided by local personnel (mean¼ 4.43) than a non-local guide(mean ¼ 4.20). With regards to the general nature of experience,whether a program focused on cultural or hospitality componentsdid not significantly influence participants’ satisfaction with theirstudy abroad experience.

5. Conclusion and discussion

5.1. Student preferences

This study analyzed students’ evaluations of their hospitalitystudy abroad programs using longitudinal data from 2002 to 2010.By combining qualitative and quantitative methods, the studyinvestigated major themes associated with “Overall,” “Positive,”and “Negative” comments, and identified academic experience-based factors that influenced students’ satisfaction. Content

analysis revealed five major themes within the students’ evalua-tions: Pleasure, Culture, Logistics, Academic, and Instructors. On anoverall basis, comments were mostly related to logistics, culture,and pleasure. Logistics (e.g., program planning, hotel, food) wasfound to be the most frequently noted theme from both a positiveand negative perspective. ANOVA results indicated that degree ofstudent engagement with specific academic experiences and theinstructional source related to those experiences significantlyinfluenced their satisfaction with the study abroad program,implying that students were more satisfied when a programincluded active components than passive components, and when aprogram was guided by local personnel than a non-local guide.

In comparison, Mazzarol and Soutar’s (2002) study of studentsfrom Indonesia, Taiwan, India, and China, indicated that key factorsinfluencing their decision to study overseas was driven by courseselection and quality, as well as a desire to gain a better under-standing of the West. Students also rated as highly important theease of information access on potential study destinations as wellas the relative level of knowledge that the students possessed aboutthese study destinations; to quote Mazzarol and Soutar, “the hostcountry must have a reputation for quality education services, itsqualifications must be recognized by the source countries and thehost country must have a high international profile” (p.84).

One interesting finding was the overall satisfaction of partici-pants in the program was high (4.87 out of 5.0), indicating thatmost students responded favorably to their study abroad experi-ence. When respondents were asked if they would like to partici-pant in abroad subsequent program, 94.7% indicated theirwillingness to repeat the experience. Moreover, there were more

Table 7Examples of student comments by most common theme.

Nature Theme Examples of comments

Overallcomments

Logistics The tour was well organized, interesting, and informational. <2002 Swiss/France>In the short amount of time we were in Italy, I feel that we went above and beyond and visited many of the places where manypeople cannot go. <2006 Italy>Would have been nice to have more free time and some tours of factories, etc. were boring (too much time spent on the bus). <2007North Europe>

Culture It was a rich cultural experience, I feel, and to think only for two weeks. The combination of art and culinary was also a good choice.<2003 Tuscany>This is a terrific way for me to tune my palette to other types of cuisine around the world. It has also helped me diversify my viewpoints on other cultures. <2005 Swiss>I felt our experience was so unique and could not parallel a trip by one’s self. We were able to learn so much about the culture, notjust the tourist spots and views. <2006 Italy>

Pleasure It was educational but a lot of fun! <2002 Swiss/France>Trip was out of my comfort zone, but had lots of fun & felt safe. <2008 China>Overall, I really enjoyed the experience and am very happy to have been on a study abroad. <2010 Australia>

Positivecomments

Logistics I like how organized everything was and how we got to see so many things in such a short period of time. <2006 Italy>The ability to do and see so many activities and sights in such a short time. Also not having to worry about planning ororganizing. <2007 North Europe>I thoroughly enjoyed the consistency and scheduling of great places! The program included so many great opportunities. <2008 Swiss>

Culture The experience and new information that I gained about food, wine, and the culture of Swiss and French people. <2002 Swiss/France>I enjoyed learning so much about the actual traditions of Italian cuisine and seeing that they are still very much alive. <2003 Tuscany>I enjoyed the introduction to food & the way in which we truly learned about the crafts that people were engaged in. <2009 North Europe>

Academic I like the activities we did. It was a good selection and very enjoyable. <2002 Swiss/France>Wine tasting and cooking classes were the most fun and most valuable things I took from the trip! <2006 Italy>I also appreciated the mix of activities that we engaged in allowing me to understand multiple facets of the culture. <2009 North Europe>

Negativecomments

Logistics Too much free time in Lausanne and Hotel City. Not going as a group to exchange money and having free day on Sundays wheneverything is closed. <2002 Swiss/France>I didn’t like the amount of travel to Valais. I wish we would have squeezed more into the day by stopping in Gruyere. Also, I wanted tospend more free time in Lucern. <2005 Swiss>I thought we should’ve spent more time in Beijing & Shanqhai. <2008 China>

Academic I thought some workbook activities were a bit excessive like some of the writing exercises. <2005 Swiss>The work books need to be spaced evenly with the amount of days spent in a city. For instance, Hong Kong had 4 or 5 pages (most ofthem essays) and we only spent 3 days there. <2008 China>Less museums, more demonstrations. <2009 North Europe>

C. Behnke et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 271e281 279

positive comments than negative comments in students’ evalua-tions, implying participants’ favorable attitudes toward, and highsatisfaction with, their study abroad experience. The favorableattitude of U.S. students towards international study abroad pro-grams is consistent with the earlier work of Bosselman et al. (1989),implying the continuous popularity of hospitality study abroadprograms among students. Bosselman et al. (1989) also assertedthat cross-cultural experiences gained from study abroad programswill likely enhance students’ future career, a finding supported byTrooboff et al. (2007) who found that completing a study abroadprogram was highly valued by employers.

This longitudinal study offers useful empirical findings toschools currently considering hospitality-oriented study abroad

Table 8Effect of academic experience-based factors on overall satisfaction with the studyabroad program.

Descriptive statistics ANOVA

N Mean SD F Sig

General nature of experience Culture 77 4.28 .56 2.663 .105Hospitality 95 4.41 .42

Degree of engagement withexperience

Passive 100 4.28 .54 5.306 .023*Active 65 4.46 .40

Instructional source of experience Non-local 59 4.20 .55 8.928 .003**Local 113 4.43 .44

Note: Items coded as “logistic” (n ¼ 40) were removed from the analysis becausethere was no academic aspect to these experiences, for example, an incidental mealon the road. With regards to engagement, there were 7 items coded as “no-basis”which meant that students were turned free to explore a particular site and therewas no way of knowing exactly what kind of educational experience theyencountered. The removal of these items resulted in variances within item codings.

programs. Although Sachau, Brasher, and Fee (2010) providedguidelines on how to start study abroad programs, their study didnot include information from students. In contrast, the currentstudy collected nine years of study abroad participant feedback,which offers educators guidance on how to develop hospitalitystudy abroad programs based on an enhanced understanding ofstudents’ preferences. Descriptive statistics provided useful cuesabout the participants in that there were more females than malesparticipating. Moreover, the most frequently identified marketingsource was word-of-mouth communication from professors andfriends; thus, instructors seeking to recruit participants for theirstudy abroad program should focus on direct marketing tech-niques; consider having prior participants come to classes andcallouts to speak firsthand about their experiences abroad. Addi-tionally, the list of top 10 destinations that students expressed adesire to visit may help instructors determine programdestinations.

Content analysis results offered criteria evaluating students’comments about study abroad program. The five emergent themes(pleasure, culture, logistics, academics, instructors) representedstudents’ comments about their experience, and further, mayrepresent key factors influencing their satisfaction towards studyabroad program;moreover, the analysis of “Overall,” “Positive,” and“Negative” comments were revealing. The frequency with whichlogistics were mentioned in both positive and negative commentsimplied that in the short-term (at the point of evaluation), studentstended to remember and evaluate their experience based uponaspects such as program planning, hotel, food, and travel, perhapsreflective of their personal insecurities. Students responded favor-ably to the cultural aspects of the trip, while they tended tocomplain about academic components. Thus, instructors may

C. Behnke et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 271e281280

design a study abroad program with emphasis on cultural aspects,while carefully selecting and integrating academic activities. Forexample, a positive comment from 2003 Tuscany trip indicated thatthe student enjoyed learning about Italian cuisine, and a commentfrom 2009 trip to North Europe expressed satisfaction whenexperiencing local food and crafts. An example of a negativecomment about the academic components can be found in acomment from 2005 Switzerland trip indicating that some work-book and writing activities were excessive, as well as a complaintfrom 2009 North Europe trip about going to too many museums.Those examples offer useful guidelines for instructors planningfuture study abroad programs by helping them understand hospi-tality student preferences with regards to study abroad experi-ences, in support of Duke (2000) who noted that the stops onmulti-location tours, oftentimes short term in nature, must becarefully selected to enhance the academic experience and tominimize the logistical time requirements. The results of this studyoffer program developers guidance in terms of considering studentpreferences when planning program agendas and curricularactivities.

The effect of academic experience-based factors on students’satisfaction broadened understanding on hospitality students’ ex-pectations for study abroad programs. Results indicated that stu-dents were more satisfied with program experiences that hadactive components and were guided by local experts than thosewith passive elements and a non-local guide. It is possible that thisis a reflection of the authenticity that a local expert brings to anexperience. Instructors designing a hospitality study abroad pro-gram should attempt to include more active components thanpassive components, a finding that supports McLaughlin andJohnson (2006) who concluded that active and inquiry-basedlearning approaches integrated before, during and after the pro-gram permitted faculty to maximize the value of the experience.For instance, specific program experiences analyzed in this studyincluded active activities, such as making traditional cheese orparticipating in cooking classes, while passive activities includedlistening to a lecture or seminar, either in a classroom or museum.

Another way to integrate students into the study abroad programwould be to have them actively participate in the planning andoperation of the study tours. Thiswould achievemultiple goals in thatthe studentswould cultivate a familiaritywith thedestination culture,history, and geography prior to the actual experience. It would alsogive the students practical experience with the logistics involved indesigninga travelprogramepotential careerexploration.However, todo sowouldnecessitate another semester class, because theplanning,contracts, and deposit payments for short term travel programsgenerally start 6e8months prior to the startof the trip. Still, this couldbe an invaluable academic experience.

With regards to program duration, all of the evaluated programsfell under the category of short term, educational travel. Admittedly,these types of programs are limited in that the student experience ishighly structured with limited opportunities for authentic culturalinteractions, as compared to what a student might experience on asemester or year-long program; opportunities for disorienting di-lemmas are more limited in short term programs. However, shorttermprograms are growing inpopularityand fulfill a necessary role inproviding opportunities for low income, non-traditional, and firstgeneration college students to have a positive first experience abroad,a need identified byNAFSA (2003). Additionally, short term programssatisfy student desire to travel abroad without slowing down theiracademic progress, while possibly saving costs (IIE, 2009), whichmayexplain their increasing popularity (IIE, 2012a). Short term programsmay also lead to further travels abroad (Marklein, 2004) by reducingtravel-relatedanxieties instudentswhohadneverbeforebeenabroad(McKeown, 2006).

From a theoretical standpoint, the finding that the students“Overall” tended tomake note of logistical components, such as theprogram planning, hotel and food could reflect personal in-securities. Yet, these concerns also represent potential disorientingdilemmas that could lead to transformative learning experiences.At the same time, student’s apparently favorable attitudes towardsthe cultural aspects could be reflective of a willingness to grow andcultivate new frames of reference. Student preferences for programexperiences with active learning components and local expertisereflect the experiential nature of studying abroad; personalengagement with these experiences can contribute to the criticalreflection components that both Mezirow (1997) and Hunter(2008) deemed crucial to transformative learning.

Study abroad offers multiple opportunities for the kind of dis-orienting dilemmas that Hunter (2008) identifies as necessary foreffecting a change in the learner’s frame of reference. However, inorder for that to happen in a study abroad context, program ac-tivities and experiences must be carefully chosen so that they aremore than just tourist experiences; experiences that have the po-tential to shake up a learner’s perspective. Taylor’s (2007) meta-analysis noted that experiences that best foster transformativelearning are those that are “direct, personally engaging and stim-ulate reflection upon experience” (p.182). He goes on to note theneed to provide these experiences inmore informal, less instructor-centered environments that are more susceptible to external in-fluences e all characteristics of studying abroad.

5.2. Limitations and recommendations for future studies

Limitations of this study include the use of a conveniencesample of respondents from a hospitality program at one univer-sity. In addition, while the eleven study abroad programs shared asimilar course focus, those trips took place in different locationsover the years and had different durations, although all wouldqualify as “short term” educational travel. In addition, there was nopossibility of inter-rater reliability since there was only one personwith personal knowledge and experience of every program.Because of the nature of the specific experiences, there were alsolimitations related to cross-coding. Some experiences could becoded in multiple fashions. For example, a wine tasting included aspart of a wine museum tour could simultaneously be consideredactive (tasting), passive (touring), hospitality (wine), and cultural(wine and/or museum location). For the purposes of this study,these experiences were coded in accordance with the predominantnature of the experience. Lastly, the program evaluation instrumentwas designed for the purposes of programmatic improvement, notspecifically for research, and there were someminor changes in theevaluation form over the decade.

Using the five emergent themes, future studies may investigatestudents’ experiences and satisfactions with their educationaltravel experience. Further, future studies may develop a moregeneralized instrument to effectively evaluate programs of varioustypes across different locations and cultures. In addition, such aninstrument could be customized based upon the nature of the studyabroad experience such as short term, semester, or yearlong, oradministered to multiple programs within a shorter time span.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the study abroad offices ofPurdue University and the College of Health and Human Sciencesfor their continued support of the School of Hospitality and TourismManagement’s Study Abroad programs, as well as program co-leaders Drs. Cai, Adler and Day for their support in developingand leading short term study abroad programs.

Carl Behnke is an assistant professor in the School ofHospitality and Tourism Management at Purdue Univer-sity. Prior to his appointment, Dr. Behnke spent almost 30years in the foodservice industry as an executive chef. Hisresearch focuses on the areas of restaurant operations andhospitality education.

Soobin Seo is an assistant professor in the Department ofHuman Sciences at The Ohio State University. Her mainresearch includes food safety at foodservice operations,brand management under crises, crisis management, andsocial media communication. Her research has been pub-lished in leading journals including International Journalof Hospitality Management and Journal of FoodserviceBusiness Research.

Kay Miller is a graduate student in the School of Hospi-tality and Tourism Management at Purdue University. Herresearch interests include human resource managementand foodservice operations management.

C. Behnke et al. / Tourism Management 42 (2014) 271e281 281

References

Armstrong, G. K. (1984). Life after study abroad: a survey of undergraduate aca-demic and career choices. The Modern Language Journal, 68(1), 1e6.

Bodger, D. H., Bodger, P. M., & Frost, H. (2006). Educational travel e Where does itlead. Nottingham: Tourism and Travel Research Institute, University ofNottingham.

Bosselman, R. H., Fernsten, J. A., Manning, P. B., & Kisseleff, M. (1989). The inter-national study abroad experience and its effects on hospitality students. Journalof Hospitality & Tourism Research, 13(3), 287e297.

Brokaw, S. C. (1996). Planning, organizing, and executing short term internationalexposures for U.S. students of marketing and business: an alternative method.Marketing Education Review, 6, 87e95.

Cash, R. W. (1993). Assessment of study-abroad programs using surveys of studentparticipants. ERIC Document Reproduction Service.

Duke, C. R. (2000). Study abroad learning activities: a synthesis and comparison.Journal of Marketing Education, 22(2), 155. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/204425582?accountid¼13360. on 3/22/2011.

Freinberg, B. (2002). What students don’t learn abroad. Chronicles of Higher Edu-cation, 48(34), B20.

Geelhoed, R., Abe, J., & Talbot, D. (2003). A qualitative investigation of U.S. students’experiences in an international peer program. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 44(1), 5e17.

Gillespie, J. (2002). Colleges need better ways to assess study-abroad programs.Chronicles of Higher Education, 48(43), B20.

Goldstein, S. B., & Kim, R. I. (2006). Predictors of US college students’ participation instudy abroad programs: a longitudinal study. International Journal of Intercul-tural Relations, 30, 507e521.

Gordon, P., & Smith, D. K. (1992). Planning, organizing and executing short terminternational exposures for U.S. students of marketing and business. MarketingEducation Review, 2, 47e56.

H.R. 100, 109th Congress. (2005). Expressing the sense of congress that the UnitedStates should establish an international education policy (109th ed.).

Hunter, A. (2008). Transformative learning in international education. In V. Savicki(Ed.), Developing intercultural competence and transformation (pp. 92e107).Sterling, Va: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Institute of International Education (IIE). (2009). Expanding study abroad capacity atU.S. colleges and universities. In Meeting America’s Global Education Challenge, 6.Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Research-Projects/Study-Abroad-Capacity-Research-Initiative.

Institute of International Education (IIE). (2012a). Duration of U.S. study abroad,2000/01e2010/11. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange.Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors.

Institute of International Education (IIE). (2012b). Fast facts. Open Doors Report onInternational Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors.

Johnson, D., & Mader, D. (1992). Internationalizing your marketing course: theforeign study tour alternative. Journal of Marketing Education, 14(2), 26e33.

Kauffmann, N. L., & Kuh, G. D. (1984, April). The impact of study abroad on personaldevelopment of college students. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerica educational research association, New Orleans, LA.

Kim, S. S., Guo, Y., Wang, K., & Agrusa, J. (2007). The study motivations and studypreferences of student groups from Asian nations majoring in hospitality andtourism management programs. Tourism Management, 28, 140e151.

Kitchell, S. (1995). Corporate culture, environmental adaptation, and innovationadoption: a qualitative/quantitative approach. Journal of the Academy of Mar-keting Science, 23(3), 195e205.

Kitsantas, A. (2004). Studying aboard: the role of college students’ goals on thedevelopment of cross-cultural skills and global understanding. College StudentJournal, 38(3), 441.

Marcum, J. A., & Roochnik, D. (2001). What direction for study abroad? 2 views.Chronicles of Higher Education, 47(36), B7.

Marklein, M. B. (2004, February 2). Study abroad: The short course. USA Today.Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. (2002). “Pushepull” factors influencing international student

destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 82e90.McKeown, J. S. (2006). The impact of study abroad on college student intellectual devel-

opment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://surface.syr.edu/he_etd/3.McLaughlin, J. S., & Johnson, D. K. (2006). Assessing the field course experiential

learning model: transforming collegiate short-term study abroad experiencesinto rich learning environments. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of StudyAbroad, 13, 65e85.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: theory to practice. In New directions foradult and continuing education. No. 74, summer 1997. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Moncrief, W. C., Shipp, S. H., & Lamb, C. W. (1995). Student journal writing in aninternational setting. Journal of Marketing Education, 17(71). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027347539501700208.

NAFSA. (2003). Securing America’s future: Global education for a global age (Report ofthe strategic task force on education abroad). Washington, DC: NAFSA:

Association of International Educators. Retrieved from http://www.nafsa.org/Resource_Library_Assets/Public_Policy/Securing_America_s_Future/.

O’Leary, S., & Deegan, J. (2003). People, pace, place: qualitative and quantitativeimages of Ireland as a tourism destination in France. Journal of Vacation Mar-keting, 9(3), 213e226.

Praetzel, G. D., Curcio, J., & DiLorenzo, J. (1996). Making study abroad a reality for allstudents. International Advances in Economic Research, 2(2), 174e182.

Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. G. (2005). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitativecontent analysis in research. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educa-tional Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5e18.

Sachau, D., Brasher, N., & Fee, S. (2010). Three models for short-term study abroad.Journal of Management Education, 34(5), 645e670.

Schuster, C. P. (1993). Planning and implementing overseas travel classes for ex-ecutive MBA students. Marketing Education Review, 3, 54e62.

Stepchenkova, S., & Eales, J. S. (2011). Destination image as quantified mediamessages: the effect of news on tourism demand. Journal of Travel Research,50(2), 198e212.

Stephenson, S. (1999). Study abroad as a transformational experience and its effectupon study abroad students and host nationals in Santiago, Chile. Frontiers: TheInterdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 5(2), 1e38.

Sumka, S. (1999, May/June). The impact of study abroad. Transitions Abroad Maga-zine, XXII.

Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: a critical reviewof the empirical research (1999e2005). International Journal of Lifelong Educa-tion, 26(2), 173e191.

Toncar, M. F., & Cudmore, B. V. (2000). The overseas internship experience. Journalof Marketing Education, 22(1), 54e67.

Trooboff, S., Vande Berg, M., & Rayman, J. (2007). Employer attitudes toward studyabroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 17e33.

Wortman, T. I. (2002). Psychosocial effects of studying abroad: Openness to diversity(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu.