predictors of study abroad intent, participation, and college outcomes
TRANSCRIPT
Predictors of Study Abroad Intent, Participation,and College Outcomes
Jiali Luo • David Jamieson-Drake
Received: 25 May 2013� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This study examined US undergraduate students’ intent to study abroad upon
college entry and their actual participation in study abroad during their undergraduate
years, correlating the college outcomes of three cohorts to identify trends. The findings
show that study abroad intent and participation are interrelated and shaped by an array of
factors, including gender, race or ethnicity, major, and involvement in college activities.
While mathematical ability and helping to promote racial understanding negatively
affected study abroad intent, aspiring to earn an advanced degree, time spent socializing
with friends, artistic ability, seeking to improve understanding of other countries and
cultures, and expectations to join a social fraternity or sorority, to be satisfied with college,
and to participate in student clubs or groups positively influenced study abroad intent.
Also, the findings indicate that involvement in the student government, a music or theater
group, a political club, club sports, and off-campus study negatively affected participation
in study abroad. Finally, the findings reveal that study abroad made a unique contribution
to college outcomes, such as understanding moral and ethical issues, communication skills,
academic performance, and overall satisfaction. Implications for higher education
researchers, study abroad professionals, senior administrators, faculty advisors, and college
students are discussed.
Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, May 18–22, 2013 LongBeach, California.
J. Luo (&) � D. Jamieson-DrakeOffice of the Provost, Duke University, 2024 W. Main St, Box 104405, Durham, NC 27705, USAe-mail: [email protected]
D. Jamieson-Drakee-mail: [email protected]
123
Res High EducDOI 10.1007/s11162-014-9338-7
Keywords Study abroad � Study abroad intent � Study abroad participation � Study
abroad participants � College activities � College outcomes
Introduction
According to the latest report by the Institute of International Education [Institute of
International Education (IIE) 2013], a record number of American students studied abroad
in 2011/2012, up from 71,154 in 1991/1992 to 283,332 in 2011/2012. Despite this tre-
mendous triple increase over the past two decades, study abroad participants during a
single academic year constitute less than two percent of over 21 million students enrolled
in US colleges and universities, still far from the national goal of sending one million
college students abroad each year (Lincoln Commission 2005). Research shows that study
abroad participants vary by gender, race or ethnicity, and major field (Dessoff 2006; IIE
2013; Lincoln Commission 2005; Salisbury et al. 2009; Stallman et al. 2010; Twombly
et al. 2012). Particularly noteworthy, women are consistently far more likely than men to
study abroad (Fischer 2012; IIE 2013; Salisbury et al. 2010). From 2002 to 2012, for
instance, nearly two-thirds of study abroad participants were women in each of the past 10
years, while only one-third of them were men. Also, Caucasian students studying abroad
outnumbered minority students by a margin of almost 4–1 during the same time period,
although the number of minority students participating in study abroad showed a slight
increase in recent years (IIE 2013). Additionally, students in the humanities were more
likely than students studying engineering to go abroad to pursue knowledge and per-
spectives unavailable at home (IIE 2013; Salisbury et al. 2009; Stallman et al. 2010; Stroud
2010; Twombly et al. 2012).
To help increase and diversify study abroad participants, recent research has begun to
examine students’ intent to study abroad. Using data from 19 colleges and universities
participating in the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education, for instance,
Salisbury et al. (2009) found that female and Caucasian students were more likely to plan
to study abroad and that students at liberal arts colleges were more likely than students at
research universities, regional institutions, and community colleges to consider study
abroad. Based on the integrated student choice model used in their 2009 study, Salisbury
and his associates continued their exploration of differences in study abroad intent between
men and women. Notably, they found that female students’ intent to study abroad seemed
to be affected by influential authority figures and educational contexts, while male stu-
dents’ intent to study abroad appeared to be primarily shaped by emerging personal values,
experiences, and peer influence (Salisbury et al. 2010). Also, they found that Asian-
American men, not women, were significantly less likely than their Caucasian peers to
intend to study abroad. In their examination of the differences between Caucasian and
minority students, Salisbury et al. (2011) did not find much difference between Caucasian
and Hispanic students, but interestingly, they found some significant opposing effects
between Caucasian and other racial or ethnic groups. An increase in human capital as
measured by ACT score, for example, did not affect Caucasian students’ likelihood of
study abroad intent, but it decreased African-American students’ likelihood of intending to
study abroad. While an increase in parental education increased Caucasian students’
probability of intent to study abroad, a similar increase in parental education decreased
Asian-American students’ likelihood of study abroad intent.
Res High Educ
123
Also, using data from the 2007 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP)
survey conducted at a large, public northeastern university in the United States, Stroud
(2010) found that being female, attending school more than 100 miles from home, and
expressing an interest in improving one’s understanding of other cultures and countries had
a positive influence on American students’ intent to study abroad. On a negative note, the
study showed that planning to pursue a master’s degree or higher, living with family while
attending school and majoring in engineering and professional areas such as architecture
and medicine negatively affected US student intent to study abroad. Moreover, in their
examination of whether values (i.e., beliefs about what is important to achieve in life) or
goals (i.e., the objects of a person’s ambition or effort) are better predictors of intent to
study abroad, Fornerino et al. (2011) found that the big drivers of US college students
seeking study abroad were (a) pleasing parents, (b) improving professional and social
status, and (c) having fun, while financial sacrifices and separation from family and friends
were their large hurdles.
Through rigorous examination of precollege characteristics that might distinguish study
abroad participants from non-participants, recent studies have made important and
insightful contributions to our understanding of factors affecting study abroad intent.
Nevertheless, these studies have some limitations. For instance, Salisbury et al. (2009,
2010, 2011) and Stroud (2010) did not examine college students’ actual participation in
study abroad or college outcomes and thus missed a crucial link in identifying the unique
learning outcomes from study abroad. As noted by Heisel and Stableski (2009), a gap may
exist between intent and engagement as many students’ robust interest did not result in
study abroad participation. Apparently, the underlying reasons as to why participation
levels fall far short of aspirations among college students need further study (Twombly
et al. 2012).
Moreover, most of previous studies on study abroad were cross-sectional and examined
merely one cohort, without cross-examination of the factors affecting study abroad intent
and participation, or the effects of study abroad on the development of desirable educa-
tional outcomes over time. Also, despite the positive findings from empirical studies
showing that study abroad participants demonstrated enhanced cognitive skills and
increased interest in international economic, political, and cross-cultural issues in com-
parison to non-participants (Geelhoed et al. 2003; Graban 2007; McKeown 2006; Pasca-
rella and Terenzini 2005), there have been concerns and challenges about the meaning of
study abroad in a globalized world as well as the outcomes of study abroad (Citron 2002;
Engle and Engle 2002; Salisbury 2011; Twombly et al. 2012). Engle and Engle argued, for
example, that the accelerating globalization due to rapid development of the Internet and
mass media rendered it difficult to find and send students to unfamiliar places, making
study abroad in a global age neither international nor educative. Clearly, there is a pressing
need to cross-examine study abroad intent, participation, and outcomes, to counter doubts
and address challenges about the benefits of study abroad, and to search for effective ways
to leverage study abroad programs.
Using comprehensive survey data across three cohorts, this study seeks to build on
previous research and examine the dynamic relationship between study abroad intent upon
college entry, participation during college, and outcomes at the exit point. In doing so, it
aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the characteristics and backgrounds of study
abroad participants and their college outcomes in comparison to their non-participating
peers, and to identify factors that are likely to promote or impede study abroad intent and
participation through the use of multiple cohorts to reveal trends. Three broad questions
guide this study: (a) Do students with a strong intent to study abroad display different
Res High Educ
123
characteristics and backgrounds upon college entry in comparison to their peers with a
weak intent to study abroad? (b) Does study abroad participation, as well as factors
influencing study abroad participation, vary with study abroad intent? And (c) Do study
abroad participants differ from their non-participating peers in their college outcomes,
academic performance, and overall satisfaction?
Review of Related Literature
Since its very beginning, study abroad has been promoted as a way to acquire new
knowledge and skills, enhance personal growth, and foster professional development
(Hoffa 2007). For this reason, it has long been considered a vital component of a liberal
arts education (DiBiasio and Mello 2004). Because of accelerating globalization in recent
decades, the world has become increasingly interdependent and culturally diverse. Rec-
ognizing the need to equip students to function effectively as citizens in an increasingly
globalized world, many colleges and universities are seeking ways to leverage their study
abroad programs to develop students’ intellectual skills and intercultural competence that
are assumed to be essential to living in the twenty-first century (Green et al. 2008; IIE
2013; Lincoln Commission 2005).
To provide evidence for this assumption, a growing body of research on study abroad
has emerged in the past decades. While some studies focus on language learning and
proficiency abroad, others concentrate on program evaluation and study abroad outcomes
through the application of Bloom’s (1994) framework on educational goals and objectives.
Research shows that study abroad benefits undergraduate students across a number of
cognitive, affective, and social dimensions (Salisbury et al. 2010). Some of the benefits
include (a) sophisticated cognitive skills (Graban 2007; McKeown 2006), (b) greater
intercultural awareness and communication skills (Gammonley et al. 2007; Kitsantas 2004;
Langley and Breese 2005; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005; Salisbury 2011; Williams 2005),
(c) advanced second-language skills (Cubillos et al. 2008; Magnan and Back 2007),
(d) greater tolerance and acceptance of others (Laubscher 1994), (e) increased interest in
international economic, political, and cross-cultural issues (Golay 2006; Paige et al. 2002;
Ryan and Twibell 2000), (f) higher commitment to peace and international cooperation,
and greater friendliness for visiting foreign nationals (Gary et al. 2002; Nesdale and Todd
1993), (g) enhanced personal development and global citizenship (Geelhoed et al. 2003;
Wynveen et al. 2012), (h) greater academic engagement (Dolby 2004, 2007; Hadis 2005;
Vande Berg 2007), and (i) higher graduation rates (Posey 2003).
Also, research shows that likelihood of intent and rates of participation are influenced
by an array of factors. They include (a) concerns about credit transfer (Carlson et al. 1990;
DiBiasio and Mello 2004; Goldstein and Kim 2006; Shirley 2006), (b) lack of faculty or
campus support (Matthews et al. 1998), (c) lack of foreign language knowledge (Dessoff
2006; DiBiasio and Mello 2004; Goldstein and Kim 2006; Matthews et al. 1998), (d) lack
of awareness or information (Coldwell 2013; Matthews et al. 1998; Peterson 2003),
(e) financial cost (Booker 2001; Clemens 2003; Lozano 2008; Van Der Meid 2003), and
(f) inflexible sequential curricular requirements for science and engineering students
(Carlson et al. 1990; Dessoff 2006; DiBiasio and Mello 2004).
As study abroad is educationally desirable and beneficial, one might assume that students
from various groups would take advantage of this distinct educational opportunity. However,
studies show that study abroad appears to have mainly attracted white, female, and human-
ities or social sciences majors (Hoffa 2007; IIE 2013; Lincoln Commission 2005; NAFSA:
Res High Educ
123
Association of International Educators 2003). In comparison to their respective peers,
minority students, male students, nontraditional aged students, community college students,
and students with disabilities (Booker 2001; Dessoff 2006; Matthews et al. 1998; Shirley
2006) were less likely to participate in study abroad programs. Despite the effort to rectify
such discrepancies by international educators, the success appeared to be limited (Salisbury
et al. 2010). Clearly, we need to further examine factors that are likely to promote or impede
study abroad in order to identify effective strategies to boost participation rates.
In his study, Washington (1998) found that financial constraints might be a major
barrier to minority students’ participation in study abroad, but Spiering and Erickson
(2006) found that financial concerns were not a key deterrent to participation. To identify
factors affecting study abroad intent, Salisbury et al. (2009, 2010, 2011) applied an inte-
grated model of the student-choice construct, used primarily in previous research on
enrollment and persistence decisions, to their examination of students’ aspiration to study
abroad. Deploying the integrated model, they explored the influence of human, financial,
social, and cultural capital on students’ intent to study abroad and revealed potential factors
shaping students’ plan to study abroad across gender and race or ethnicity, which we have
discussed in the early part of this paper.
At the core of the integrated, analytical model is the interplay of the aforementioned four
forms of capital in shaping intent to study abroad. According to Salisbury et al. (2009), human
capital represents an individual’s productive capacities, such as knowledge, skills, and
abilities. Financial capital is defined as an individual’s financial resources, such as income or
financial aid. Social capital refers to an individual’s access to networks, support systems, and
information resources, acquired through participation or interaction with other participants in
social networks or structures. Cultural capital is portrayed as an individual’s cultural
knowledge, language skills, educational credentials, and school-related information, typi-
cally derived from parental class status (see Salisbury et al. 2009 for a detailed description).
Using this integrated model, recent research has shed new light on students’ intent to study
abroad upon entry to college, and illuminated our understanding of the potentially con-
founding demographic, attitudinal, or aspirational characteristics that might distinguish study
abroad participants from non-participants. As most of the aforementioned recent studies were
cross-sectional and did not examine or cross-examine students’ actual participation in study
abroad or the effects of study abroad on college outcomes, however, much remains unknown
about the dynamic relationship between students’ intent to study abroad upon entry to college
and their actual participation in study abroad during their undergraduate years; whether study
abroad intent affects participation and college outcomes; and if so, in what ways.
In light of the findings from previous research and Salisbury et al.’s (2009) integrated
model, we hypothesize that a variety of factors affect study abroad intent, participation,
and college outcomes, and these factors include students’ background or precollege
characteristics and their college experiences. Also, we assume that because of students’
differing human, financial, social, and cultural capital, acquired prior to college and/or
during college, as well as their individual preferences and aspirations, these factors vary in
terms of their impact on students’ study abroad decisions. Moreover, we postulate that the
use of multiple cohorts to examine study abroad intent, participation, and outcomes may
reveal patterns over time. If intent affects participation, and participation affects outcomes,
then we could better identify these effects through cohorts and see whether the effects are
consistent or merely sporadic. Finally, we expect that, controlling for the effects of pre-
college characteristics and participation in college activities, study abroad makes a dis-
tinctive contribution to college outcomes.
Res High Educ
123
Data and Methodology
Data, Instrument, and Sample
This study used two data sources. The first one was the annual CIRP survey of incoming
first-year students, administered at college entry; and the second one was the annual Senior
Survey of graduating students, administered at the exit point. The CIRP survey was chosen
for this study for two major reasons. First, since its implementation in 1965, the CIRP
survey, conducted jointly by the American Council on Education and the University of
California at Los Angeles, is the nation’s longest and largest continuing, empirical study of
US higher education (Pryor et al. 2007; Stroud 2010). Second, it provides extensive
information on incoming first-year students’ characteristics, values, self-concept, behav-
iors, attitudes, life goals, and college expectations. The Senior Survey was selected for this
study for three main reasons as well. First, the survey instrument was developed by a
research consortium and designed to gather the perceptions of undergraduate seniors on a
variety of issues and has been used by the consortium members for more than three
decades. Second, the survey instrument included questions on students’ participation in
college academic and extracurricular activities and the evaluation of the contribution of
college to skill development in a wide range of areas. Third, as the Senior Survey was
administered to the same entering cohort at the exit point, we could link respondents who
participated in the CIRP Freshman Survey with their responses to the Senior Survey via the
identification numbers they provided for both surveys. We used the CIRP Freshman Survey
data to examine students’ intent to study abroad, and the Senior Survey data to explore
students’ actual participation in study abroad and their college development outcomes in
various areas as measured at the exit point.
For this study, we examined three entering cohorts (i.e., Cohorts of 2005, 2006, and
2007) and the corresponding graduating cohorts (i.e., Cohorts of 2009, 2010, and 2011) at a
medium-sized, private, highly selective research university (Barron’s Profiles of American
Colleges 1996). The university was chosen as a convenience sample (Creswell 2011) to
examine student intent to study abroad for two major reasons. First, it is coeducational and
residential and seeks to promote diversity in all aspects of university life and enroll a large
number of students from racially and ethnically different groups. Second, the university
has been offering study abroad for decades; currently, it administers semester, full-year,
and summer programs in more than a dozen countries, with a participation rate reaching
almost half of its undergraduate students.
Table 1 presents the general characteristics of a total of 3584 respondents to the CIRP
Freshman Survey from three entering cohorts, with the response rate ranging from 65.4 to
75.5 %. Although male respondents outnumbered female respondents in the 2005 entering
cohort (53 vs. 47 %), the gender representation in the 2006 and 2007 entering cohorts was
roughly equal. Excluding students who did not indicate their race or ethnicity, there were
roughly 25 % non-Caucasian students and 69 % Caucasian students in the 2005 entering
cohort; 28 % non-Caucasian students and 66 % Caucasian students in the 2006 entering
cohort; and 31 % non-Caucasian students and 63 % Caucasian students in the 2007
entering cohort. Although the 2005 entering cohort reported slightly higher concern about
their ability to finance their higher education than the 2006 and 2007 entering cohorts,
parental income and parental education level were virtually equal across all three entering
cohorts. Approximately 72–73 % of respondents intended to major in the arts and sciences,
and 17–19 % of respondents planned to study engineering. Nearly 90 % of students
indicated their home was over 100 miles away from college, and less than 1 % of students
Res High Educ
123
planned to live with their families. Across the three entering cohorts, 93–94 % of students
aspired to earn a graduate degree, and their average SAT score was virtually equal, ranging
from 1443 to 1449. Approximately 42 % of students in the 2005 entering cohort indicated
a strong intent to study abroad, and about half in both the 2006 and 2007 entering cohorts
reported so. A total of 1833 students from three graduating cohorts responded to the Senior
Survey. Compared with the CIRP Freshman Survey, the Senior Survey had a lower
response rate (34.8 % for the 2009 cohort, 42.2 % for the 2010 cohort, and 42.5 % for the
2011 cohort), but the sample representation by gender, race or ethnicity, major field, and
other attributes were consistent with the characteristics of the cohort population. For this
study, only respondents who indicated that they were US citizens were examined.
Variables and Analytical Procedures
As each of the three research questions of this study had a differing primary dependent
variable, the descriptions of the variables and analytical procedures for each question were
presented separately below for easy understanding.
Research Question 1: Do students with a strong intent to study abroad display different
characteristics and backgrounds upon college entry in comparison to their peers with a
weak intent to study abroad?
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable for the first research question was intent to study abroad. It was
derived from a question in the CIRP Freshman Survey that asked students to indicate their
likelihood of participating in a study abroad program on a 4-point scale (1 = no chance,
2 = very little chance, 3 = some chance, and 4 = very good chance). Based on the
responses to the aforementioned question, we grouped respondents into two broad cate-
gories: (a) strong intent (i.e., very good chance) and (b) weak intent (i.e., all other
responses), and these two categories were used in this and all other analyses.
Independent Variables
The selection of the independent variables for the first research question was guided by
the integrated model on study abroad intent and based on our review of research liter-
ature (e.g., Salisbury et al. 2009, 2010, 2011; Stroud 2010). From the CIRP Freshman
Survey, we selected only questions that could allow us to evaluate the sources or
opportunities that students might have had to acquire the human, social, and cultural
capital that might affect or influence their interest in study abroad before college. The
independent variables included student attributes (e.g., gender, race or ethnicity, major
field, home distance, and living with family members) and indicators of the four forms of
capital identified by Salisbury and his associates on study abroad intent. Specifically, the
indicators included (a) human capital as represented by SAT score, self concept (i.e.,
assessment of artistic and mathematical abilities), and advanced degree aspiration;
(b) financial capital as denoted by parental income and financial concern; (c) social
capital as portrayed by involvement with activities during the last year in high school
(i.e., performing volunteer work, asking teachers for advice after class, voting in student
elections, using the Internet for research or homework, and time spent studying and
socializing with friends); and (d) cultural capital as described by parental education. In
Res High Educ
123
addition to the goal of ‘‘improving my understanding of other countries and cultures’’
that was examined in Stroud’s (2010) study, we examined the importance of 7 other life
goals and college expectations (see Table 2 for the specific items and their respective
Table 1 Characteristics of respondents by entering cohort
Cohort 2005 Cohort 2006 Cohort 2007 X2/F
Gender
Male 52.6 % 49.6 % 48.8 % 3.73
Female 47.4 % 50.4 % 51.2 %
Race/ethnicity
African American 7.8 % 7.0 % 6.1 % 21.55**
Asian 13.7 % 17.0 % 20.4 %
Hispanic 3.6 % 3.9 % 4.3 %
Caucasian 69.4 % 65.7 % 63.2 %
Other 5.4 % 6.4 % 6.1 %
Parental income 163909 165790 170834 1.69
Financial concern 1.60 1.56 1.53 3.30*
Parental education
With a college degree or higher 81.5 % 80.4 % 80.6 % 3.18
Without a college degree 18.0 % 19.6 % 19.4 %
Major
Humanities 19.8 % 22.2 % 15.9 % 24.27**
Social sciences 22.2 % 20.4 % 25.6 %
Natural sciences 29.6 % 30.5 % 30.3 %
Engineering 19.3 % 17.2 % 16.8 %
Other/undecided 9.1 % 9.6 % 11.4 %
Home distance
100 miles or less 9.9 % 10.7 % 10.1 % .49
Over 100 miles 90.1 % 89.3 % 89.9 %
Living with family
With family or other relatives .7 % .4 % .7 % 1.24
All other response 99.3 % 99.6 % 99.3 %
Advanced degree planned
Bachelor’s degree or lower 6.2 % 6.6 % 7.4 % 1.07
Master’s degree or higher 93.8 % 93.4 % 92.6 %
SAT 1447 1449 1443 .74
Intent to study ABROAD
Strong intent 42.3 % 50.2 % 50.1 % 18.81***
All other 57.7 % 49.8 % 49.9 %
Number of respondents 1208 1265 1111
Response rate 69.9 % 75.5 % 65.4 %
Parental income was measured on a 14-point scale from 1 (less than $10,000) to 14 ($250,000 or more), andfinancial concern on a 3-point scale from 1 (no concern) to 3 (major concern). For this study, the familyincome categories were transformed into numerical values based on the mid-range of the income categoriesreported
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001
Res High Educ
123
response categories). As most of these items have not been examined in previous
research on study abroad intent and because students’ beliefs and attitudes tend to affect
student behaviors (Luo and Jamieson-Drake 2005; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991),
including these items in the analysis may shed light on the examination of study abroad
intent, participation, and college outcomes. Finally, as this study used three cohorts to
identify trends over time, we also included cohort in the set of the independent variables.
Analytical Procedure
To answer the first research question, as the dependent variable (i.e., intent to study abroad)
was categorical, we transformed the data to logistic distribution and conducted logistic
regression analysis to identify significant predictors of study abroad intent.
Research Question 2: Does study abroad participation, as well as factors influencing
study abroad participation, vary with study abroad intent?
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable for the second research question was study abroad participation.
Through the use of the Senior Survey data, we sought to address whether students with a
strong intent to study abroad and those with a weak intent to study abroad upon college
entry did actually participate in study abroad during their undergraduate years. Also, we
aimed to examine whether factors influencing study abroad participation were different for
those with a strong intent and those with a weak intent.
Independent Variables
For the examination of the effect of study abroad intent on study abroad participation, the
independent variables included gender, race or ethnicity, major, parental income, parental
education, and cohort in addition to study abroad intent. As many college activities com-
peted for students’ attention during the course of their undergraduate studies, our analysis of
the factors influencing study abroad participation included a set of 20 college activities as
well as student attributes. Through the examination of these potential, shaping factors, we
hoped to reveal the underlying reasons why participation rates fell far short of study abroad
aspirations among college students (Heisel and Stableski 2009; Twombly et al. 2012).
Analytical Procedure
In addressing the first part of the inquiry, we performed Chi square tests to determine
significant differences in frequency distributions and also conducted logistic regression
analysis on the effect of intent on participation with control for student demographic
characteristics. In addressing the second part of the inquiry, we first tested our model for
possible interaction between study abroad intent and other independent variables. As we
found that some of the interaction terms were significant, we then performed separate
logistic regression analysis on the impact of college activities on study abroad participation
for those with a strong intent and those with a weak intent upon college entry. For this
analysis, we combined students of color into one broad group and excluded unspecified
major fields due to the small number of respondents in this category.
Res High Educ
123
Table 2 Summary of logistic regression analysis predicting intent to study abroad
Predictor B S.E. Odds ratio
Gender (Male)
Female .62*** .12 1.87
Race or ethnicity (Caucasian)
African American .15 .26 .86
Asian -.45* .15 .64
Hispanic .09 .28 1.10
Other race -.16 .23 .85
Parental income .00 .00 1.00
Financial concern -.04 .10 .97
Parental education .17 .20 1.18
Distance .02 .17 1.02
Major (Humanities)
Social sciences -.18 .17 .84
Natural sciences -.36* .17 .70
Engineering -.92*** .19 .40
Other major .05 .22 1.05
Living with family -1.70 1.20 .18
SAT .00 .00 1.00
Advanced degree planned .47* .23 1.59
Cohort
Cohort 2006 .29* .12 1.33
Cohort 2007 .24 .13 1.27
High school activities
Performed volunteer work .02 .10 1.02
Asked a teacher for advice after class .13 .09 1.14
Voted in a student election .12 .09 1.13
Used the Internet: For research or homework .18 .16 1.20
Time use
Time spent studying/homework -.06 .03 .95
Time spent socializing with friends .13*** .04 1.14
Self concept
Artistic ability .14** .05 1.14
Mathematical ability -.16* .07 .86
Life goals
Influencing social values .07 .07 1.07
Helping others who are in difficulty .08 .08 1.08
Developing a meaningful philosophy of life .04 .06 1.04
Participating in a community action program .07 .08 1.07
Helping to promote racial understanding -.17* .08 .84
Keeping up to date with political affairs -.03 .07 .97
Becoming a community leader -.15* .08 .86
Improving my understanding of other countries and cultures .60*** .08 1.82
Res High Educ
123
Research Question 3: Do study abroad participants differ from their non-participating
peers in their college outcomes, academic performance, and overall satisfaction?
Dependent Variables
The examination of the impact of study abroad on college outcomes was based on students’
assessment of the university’s contribution to their development in 25 areas, which include the
core of what higher education institutions seek to deliver in the fulfillment of their educational
missions. Although we refer to gains in abilities in these 25 areas as ‘‘skill development,’’ most of
the items included actually involve complex development of not only intellectual and practical
competence but also social and leadership capacity, covering both cognitive and affective
college outcomes. To examine these areas’ internal structure, we conducted an exploratory,
principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation, which identified five factors,
accounting for roughly 58 % of the total variance (Table 5): (a) Intellectual Development
(a = .88), (b) Leadership Skills and Personal Development (a = .78), (c) Understanding Moral
Table 2 continued
Predictor B S.E. Odds ratio
College expectation
Participate in student government -.08 .07 .92
Join a social fraternity or sorority .33*** .06 1.39
Participate in student protests or demonstrations .11 .07 1.12
Be satisfied with your college .40*** .11 1.49
Participate in volunteer or community service work .13 .09 1.13
Communicate regularly with your professors .17 .10 1.18
Socialize with someone of another racial/ethnic group .02 .13 1.02
Participate in student clubs/groups .85*** .12 2.34
Constant -8.15
92 728.4
df 42
-2 log likelihood 2350.4
% correctly predicted Strong intent 72.3
Others 74.1
Total 73.2
For the regression analysis, the following coding schemes were used: (a) Gender: Female = 1, andMale = 0; (b) Race or ethnicity: African-American = 1, Asian = 1, Hispanic = 1, and Caucasian = 0;(c) Major field: Social sciences = 1, Natural sciences = 1, Engineering = 1, Other fields = 1, andHumanities = 0; (d) Cohort: Cohort 2006 = 0, Cohort 2007 = 1, and Cohort 2005 = 0); (e) ParentalEducation: Without a college degree = 1, With a college degree or higher = 0. (f) Home distance: Over100 miles = 1, 100 miles or less = 0; (g) Living with family: With family or other relative = 1, Allother = 0; and (h) Advanced degree planned: Master’s degree or higher = 1, Bachelor’s degree orlower = 0. Items coded as ‘‘0’’ were used as comparison groups. Measures for other items were: HighSchool Activities on a 3-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 3 (frequently); Time Use on a 8-point scale from 1(none) to 8 (over 20 h); Self Concept on a 5-point scale from 1 (lowest 10 %) to 5 (highest 10 %); LifeGoals on a 4-point scale (1 = not important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = very important, 4 = essential);College Expectation on a 4-point scale (1 = no chance, 2 = very little chance, 3 = some chance, 4 = verygood chance)
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001
Res High Educ
123
and Ethical Issues (a = .81), (d) Science Literacy (a = .76), and (e) Communication Skills
(a = .45). These five composite scale variables were used as the primary dependent variables in
regression analysis on the impact of study abroad on skill development. To examine whether
study abroad participants in our sample demonstrated higher academic engagement after their
return from abroad and were happy about their overall educational experience, we also included
students’ overall grade and satisfaction in the analysis.
Independent Variables
The key independent variables for examining the impact of study abroad on college out-
comes were made up of two sets of variables extracted from the Senior Survey data. The
first set included student demographic characteristics, such as race, gender, major field, and
year of graduation, and the second set consisted of involvement in college activities. By
taking account of these possible, influential factors, the unique contribution of participation
in study abroad to skill development could be accurately characterized.
Analytical Procedure
To answer the third research question, we controlled for students’ personal attributes and
cohort effects and performed multiple regression analyses to identify the unique contribution
of study abroad to skill development, academic performance, and overall satisfaction.
Results
Factors Influencing Intent to Study Abroad
As shown in Table 2, students’ demographic characteristics influenced their intent to study
abroad. Most notably, women were more likely than men to indicate a strong interest in
studying abroad upon entry to college, with their odds being 87 % greater than those for men.
Compared to Caucasians, Asian-American students were less likely to intend to study abroad,
while other students of color showed similarly high study abroad intent. Also, students
studying natural sciences and engineering were less likely to expect to study abroad, with
their odds being 30 and 60 % less than those for humanities majors, respectively.
Moreover, students who planned to pursue a master’s degree or higher were more likely
to plan to study abroad than students who intended to earn a bachelor’s degree. Further-
more, time spent socializing with friends during the last year in high school was positively
correlated with aspirations to study abroad.
Additionally, artistic ability and expectations to improve understanding of other
countries and cultures, to join a social fraternity or sorority, to be satisfied with college, and
to participate in student clubs or groups showed a positive influence on intent to study
abroad, while mathematical ability and helping to promote racial and cultural under-
standing displayed a negative correlation with intent to study abroad.
Factors Affecting Study Abroad Participation
As displayed in Table 3, study abroad intent was significantly correlated with study abroad
participation across three cohorts. Among 27 students in the 2009 graduating cohort who
Res High Educ
123
indicated a strong intent to study abroad upon entry to college, approximately 85 % of
them participated in study abroad during college. Similarly, among 60 students in the 2010
graduating cohort who indicated a strong intent to study abroad upon entry to college,
75 % of them studied abroad while in college. Also, among 72 students in the 2011
graduating cohort who indicated a strong intent to study abroad upon entry to college,
56 % of them participated in study abroad during their college years. While most students
Table 3 Participation in study abroad by intent to study abroad
Participation in study abroad by graduating cohort and intent to study abroad
Cohort 2009 Cohort 2010 Cohort 2011
Strongintent
Weakintent
Strongintent
Weakintent
Strongintent
Weakintent
Studied abroad (%) 85.2 32.2 75.0 27.5 55.6 33.9
Did not studyabroad (%)
14.8 67.7 25.0 72.5 44.4 66.1
N 27 31 60 51 72 56
92 16.48*** 25.03*** 5.93*
Logistic regression on the influence of study abroad intent on study abroad participation
B S.E. Odds ratio
Gender (Male)
Female .22 .32 1.24
Race or ethnicity (Caucasian)
African American -1.82 1.25 .16
Asian -.52 .41 .60
Hispanic 1.36 .84 3.91
Other race .62 .60 1.87
Major (Humanities)
Social sciences .31 .56 1.36
Natural sciences -.03 .62 .97
Engineering -.29 .63 .75
Other major -.11 .90 .90
Parental income -.02 .06 .99
Parental education -.95 .68 .39
Strong intent to study abroad 1.56*** .31 4.77
Cohort
Cohort 2010 -.94 .45 .39
Cohort 2011 -1.25 .44 .29
Constant .28 .82 1.33
For the regression analysis, the following coding schemes were used: (a) Gender: Female = 1, andMale = 0; (b) Race or ethnicity: African-American = 1, Asian = 1, Hispanic = 1, Other = 1, and Cau-casian = 0; (c) Major field: Social sciences = 1, Natural sciences = 1, Engineering = 1, Other = 1, andSocial sciences = 0; and (d) Cohort: Cohort 2010, Cohort 2011 = 1, and Cohort 2009 = 0. Parentaleducation: Without a college degree = 1, With a college degree or higher = 0. Intent: Strong intent = 1,and Weak intent = 0. Items coded as ‘‘0’’ were used as comparison groups
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001
Res High Educ
123
with a strong intent upon college entry participated in study abroad by their senior year, it
is disappointing to note that an increasing number of students who planned to study abroad
upon college entry did not participate in study abroad (15 % for the 2009 cohort, 25 % for
the 2010 cohort, and 44 % for the 2011 cohort). Meanwhile, it is encouraging to find that
across three cohorts, approximately one-third of students with a weak intent to study
abroad upon entry to college ultimately participated in study abroad during their college
years.
Overall, with control for gender, race or ethnicity, parental income and education, and
cohort effect, our logistic regression analysis on the impact of intent on participation
showed that students with a strong intent to study abroad were significantly more likely to
participate in study abroad than their corresponding peers with a weak intent to study
abroad, with their odds being about 4.77 times greater than the odds of other students.
In addition, as displayed in Table 4, our examination of the factors influencing study
abroad participation by intent showed that for students with a strong intent to study abroad
upon college entry, off-campus study in the United States and involvement in a music or
theater group and the student government negatively affected their participation in study
abroad. For students with a weak intent to study abroad upon college entry, parental
income and involvement in a political club and club sports had a negative impact on their
participation in study abroad.
Effects of Study Abroad on College Outcomes
With control for demographic variables and participation in college activities in a wide
range of areas, our regression analysis showed that participation in study abroad was
significantly, positively associated with student gains in the ability to understand moral and
ethical issues, communication skills, academic performance, and overall satisfaction
(Table 5). Also, we noted that a number of college activities made positive contribution to
college outcomes. Notably, doing research with faculty boosted students’ academic per-
formance. Involvement in a religious or spiritual group and a music or theater group
significantly enhanced students’ intellectual development, and participation in the student
government and intramural athletics considerably fostered students’ leadership skills.
Particularly noteworthy, participation in racial or cultural awareness or workshops was
positively correlated with not only leadership skills but also understanding moral and
ethical issues. Among the demographic variables, engineering (and social sciences as well)
was positively associated with science literacy, but it was negatively correlated with
understanding moral or ethical issues, communication skills, and overall academic per-
formance. While parental income was negatively related to understanding moral and
ethical issues, parents’ education level was positively correlated with communication
skills. Finally, compared with the 2009 cohort, the 2010 and 2011 cohorts scored higher
almost across the board. It is encouraging to note that with control for these various factors,
study abroad participation emerged as a significant, positive predictor of college outcomes,
which clearly supports the benefits of study abroad intended for participants.
Limitations
This study used a large sample of three entering cohorts for the study of students’ intent to
study abroad upon college entry, but the sample it could use to examine college outcomes
was relatively small. Additionally, because of its focus on student characteristics at an elite
Res High Educ
123
Table 4 Logistic regression analysis on the impact of college activities on study abroad participation byintent
Strong intent to study abroad Weak intent to study abroad
B S.E. Odds ratio B S.E. Odds ratio
Gender (Male)
Female .85 .69 2.35 -.37 .61 .69
Race or ethnicity (Caucasian)
Non-Caucasian .23 .73 1.26 .52 .70 1.68
Major (Humanities)
Social sciences 1.28 .88 3.59 .35 .92 1.42
Natural sciences .71 1.11 2.04 -.83 1.17 .44
Engineering .61 1.23 1.84 -.49 .99 .61
Parental income .22 .13 1.24 -.26* .11 .77
Parental education 1.42 1.29 4.15 -2.57 1.36 .08
Cohort
Cohort 2010 -2.41 1.27 .09 -1.40 .77 .25
Cohort 2011 -3.56** 1.29 .03 -.49 .75 .61
College activities
Independent Research for credit 1.25 .73 3.48 1.07 .71 2.90
Faculty research for credit -.02 .82 .98 -1.33 .76 .27
Faculty research no credit .92 .70 2.52 -.46 .78 .63
Publish or present a paper -.42 .90 .66 -.64 1.01 .53
Internship Abroad -.93 .71 .40 .15 .79 1.16
Off-campus study in US -2.31* .98 .10 -1.08 1.00 .34
Internship in US 1.01 .66 2.74 .79 .62 2.19
Racial or cultural awareness workshop -.79 .74 .45 1.17 .90 3.22
Sexual harassment seminar or workshop 1.43 .91 4.19 -.89 .92 .41
Alcohol awareness session .39 .72 1.47 -.20 .78 .82
Religious or spiritual group 1.13 .69 3.09 .45 .60 1.57
Music or theater group -1.71* .73 .18 1.13 .75 3.11
Student government -2.15* 1.02 .12 .09 .93 1.09
Political club .21 1.02 1.24 -3.47** 1.32 .03
Cultural or ethnic club .04 .83 1.04 -.83 .89 .44
Volunteer service .64 .62 1.90 .01 .69 1.01
Fraternity or sorority -.67 .69 .51 -.01 .66 .99
Intercollegiate athletics -.93 .99 .40 .24 .92 1.27
Intramural athletics 1.30 .78 3.66 .25 .65 1.28
Club sports -.96 .73 .38 -1.46* .72 .23
Constant -.40 2.11 .67 1.96 1.50 7.10
For the regression analysis, the following coding schemes were used: (a) Gender: Female = 1, andMale = 0; (b) Race or ethnicity: Non-white = 1, and White = 0; (c) Major field: Social sciences = 1,Natural sciences = 1, Engineering = 1, and Humanities = 0; (d) Cohort: Cohort 2010 = 0, Cohort2011 = 1, and Cohort 2009 = 0; (e) Parental education: Without a college degree = 1, With a collegedegree or higher = 0; (f) Participation in college activities: Yes = 1, and No = 0; and (g) Participation instudy abroad: Yes = 1, and No = 0. Items coded as ‘‘0’’ were used as comparison groups
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001
Res High Educ
123
Tab
le5
Sta
ndar
diz
edre
gre
ssio
nco
effi
cien
tsfo
ran
alyse
so
nth
eim
pac
to
fpar
tici
pat
ion
inst
udy
abro
adon
skil
ldev
elopm
ent,
acad
emic
per
form
ance
,an
dover
all
sati
sfac
tion
Fac
tor
stru
cture
of
skil
ldev
elopm
ent
item
sIn
tell
ectu
ald
evel
op
men
tL
ead
ersh
ipsk
ills
Un
der
stan
din
gm
ora
l&
eth
ical
issu
es
Sci
ence
lite
racy
Com
munic
atio
nsk
ills
Ov
eral
lg
rad
eO
ver
all
sati
sfac
tion
Ski
lld
evel
op
men
tsc
ale
label
an
dlo
ad
ing
item
sF
act
or
loa
din
gs
Ba
ckg
rou
nd
Fem
ale
.08
.17
*.0
9.0
2-
.05
-.0
4.0
5
Inte
llec
tual
dev
elopm
ent
(a=
.88
)A
fric
anA
mer
ican
.08
.10
.04
.08
.02
-.1
6*
.07
Th
ink
anal
yti
call
yan
dlo
gic
ally
.76
Asi
an-
.08
-.0
4-
.14
-.0
3-
.11
-.0
5-
.08
Acq
uir
en
ewsk
ills
and
kn
ow
led
ge
on
ow
n.7
4H
ispan
ic.0
2.0
3-
.03
.01
-.0
1-
.10
.05
Form
ula
te/c
reat
eori
gin
alid
eas
and
solu
tio
ns
.73
Oth
erra
ce.0
1.0
1.0
3-
.01
-.0
1.0
1-
.09
Pla
nan
dex
ecute
com
ple
xp
roje
cts
.62
So
cial
Sci
ence
s.1
5.1
2-
.11
.19
-.1
3-
.19
.02
Gai
nin
-dep
thk
no
wle
dg
eo
fa
fiel
d.6
0N
atu
ral
Sci
ence
s.0
7.0
0-
.11
.40
**
*-
.18
-.1
9.0
3
Ev
alu
ate
and
cho
ose
bet
wee
nal
tern
ativ
eco
urs
eso
fac
tion
.60
En
gin
eeri
ng
.16
.20
-.2
1*
.39
**
*-
.52
**
*-
.24
*.1
2
Sy
nth
esiz
ean
din
teg
rate
idea
san
din
form
atio
n.5
6O
ther
maj
or
.08
.09
.00
.12
-.0
8-
.15
.05
Fu
nct
ion
ind
epen
den
tly
,w
ith
out
sup
erv
isio
n.4
9P
aren
tal
inco
me
-.1
1-
.02
-.1
6*
-.0
7-
.04
.11
.11
Com
munic
ate
wel
lora
lly
.43
Par
enta
led
uca
tio
n.0
1.0
1-
.06
-.0
3.1
7*
.03
.06
Lea
der
ship
Sk
ills
(a=
.78
)C
oh
ort
20
10
.25
**
.13
.23
**
.21
*.2
0*
.06
.06
Dev
elop
self
-est
eem
/confi
den
ce.7
0C
ohort
2011
.35***
.19*
.23**
.19*
.25**
.14
.25**
Res
olv
ein
terp
erso
nal
con
flic
tsp
osi
tiv
ely
.68
Coll
ege
Act
ivit
ies
Res High Educ
123
Ta
ble
5co
nti
nued
Fac
tor
stru
ctu
reo
fsk
ill
dev
elo
pm
ent
item
sIn
tell
ectu
ald
evel
op
men
tL
ead
ersh
ipsk
ills
Un
der
stan
din
gm
ora
l&
eth
ical
issu
es
Sci
ence
lite
racy
Com
mu
nic
atio
nsk
ills
Ov
eral
lg
rad
eO
ver
all
sati
sfac
tion
Funct
ion
effe
ctiv
ely
asa
mem
ber
of
ate
am.6
4In
dep
enden
tre
sear
chfo
rcr
edit
.00
-.0
5-
.09
-.1
2-
.04
.01
-.1
2
Lea
dan
dsu
per
vis
eta
sks
and
gro
ups
of
peo
ple
.62
Fac
ult
yre
sear
chfo
rcr
edit
.05
.09
.13
.13
-.0
9.1
8*
.01
Under
stan
dow
nab
ilit
ies,
inte
rest
s,li
mit
atio
ns,
and
per
son
alit
y
.57
Fac
ult
yre
sear
chn
ocr
edit
.03
-.0
3.0
1.0
7.0
6-
.04
.07
Un
der
stan
din
gM
ora
lan
dE
thic
alIs
sues
(a=
.81
)P
ub
lish
or
pre
sen
ta
pap
er-
.02
-.0
1-
.03
.04
.06
.08
.10
Iden
tify
mo
ral
and
eth
ical
issu
es.6
9S
tud
yA
bro
ad.0
5-
.02
.19
**
.01
.16
**
.15
*.1
6*
Pla
cecu
rren
tp
rob
lem
sin
his
tori
cal/
cult
ura
l/p
hil
oso
ph
ical
per
spec
tiv
e
.68
Inte
rnsh
ipA
bro
ad.0
9.0
6.1
1-
.02
.11
.04
.01
Dev
elop
anaw
aren
ess
of
soci
alp
rob
lem
s.6
7O
ff-c
amp
us
stu
dy
inU
S-
.07
-.0
9-
.04
-.1
3.0
1.0
4.0
4
Ap
pre
ciat
ear
t,li
tera
ture
,m
usi
c,d
ram
a.5
6In
tern
ship
inU
S.0
4.0
2.0
2-
.04
.01
.12
-.0
6
Acq
uir
eb
road
kn
ow
led
ge
inth
ear
tsan
dsc
ien
ces
.54
Rac
ial
or
cult
ura
law
aren
ess
wo
rksh
op
.15
.26
**
.26
**
.08
-.0
4.0
7-
.03
Rel
ate
wel
lto
peo
ple
of
dif
fere
nt
race
s,n
atio
ns,
and
reli
gio
ns
.50
Sex
ual
har
assm
ent
sem
inar
-.0
7-
.10
-.0
6-
.07
-.0
5-
.05
-.0
5
Sci
ence
Lit
erac
y(a
=.7
6)
Alc
oho
law
aren
ess
sess
ion
.07
.05
.07
.03
.08
.04
.17
Res High Educ
123
Ta
ble
5co
nti
nued
Fac
tor
stru
ctu
reo
fsk
ill
dev
elo
pm
ent
item
sIn
tell
ectu
ald
evel
op
men
tL
ead
ersh
ipsk
ills
Un
der
stan
din
gm
ora
l&
eth
ical
issu
es
Sci
ence
lite
racy
Com
mu
nic
atio
nsk
ills
Ov
eral
lg
rad
eO
ver
all
sati
sfac
tion
Un
der
stan
dth
ep
roce
sso
fsc
ien
cean
dex
per
imen
tati
on
.87
Rel
igio
us
or
spir
itu
alg
rou
p.1
5*
.09
-.0
3-
.01
-.0
2-
.10
.08
Ev
alu
ate
the
role
of
scie
nce
and
tech
no
log
yin
soci
ety
.73
Mu
sic
or
thea
ter
gro
up
.15
*.0
9.0
8.1
0.0
8.0
6.1
3
Use
qu
anti
tati
ve
too
ls.7
1S
tud
ent
go
ver
nm
ent
.10
.16
*.0
3.1
1.0
0-
.01
.09
Com
munic
atio
nsk
ills
(a=
.45
)P
oli
tica
lcl
ub
-.0
6.0
0.1
1-
.12
-.0
1-
.04
-.1
4
Rea
do
rsp
eak
afo
reig
nla
ng
uag
e.7
5C
ult
ura
lo
ret
hnic
clu
b-
.01
-.0
1.0
2-
.05
.12
-.0
6-
.11
Wri
teef
fect
ivel
y.5
5V
olu
nte
erse
rvic
e-
.03
-.0
7-
.04
-.0
5.0
2.0
4-
.12
Fra
tern
ity
or
soro
rity
.14
.08
.04
.11
-.0
6-
.02
-.0
7
Inte
rco
lleg
iate
ath
leti
cs-
.04
-.0
8-
.08
-.0
4-
.04
-.0
9-
.06
Intr
amu
ral
ath
leti
cs.0
3.2
0**
.07
-.0
5.0
3-
.12
-.0
3
Clu
bsp
ort
s.1
0-
.02
.03
.10
.00
.02
.09
Ad
just
edR
2.1
0*
.09
*.1
9*
**
.13
**
*.2
4*
**
.09
*.0
5
Th
e2
5sk
ill
dev
elo
pm
ent
item
sw
ere
mea
sure
do
na
4-p
oin
tsc
ale
wit
h1
=‘‘
wea
ker
no
w’’
and
4=
‘‘m
uch
stro
nger
now
.’’T
hey
wer
ecl
assi
fied
via
fact
or
anal
ysi
sin
tofi
ve
cate
gori
es:
(a)
Inte
llec
tual
Dev
elopm
ent
(a=
.88
),(b
)L
ead
ersh
ipS
kil
ls(a
=.7
8),
(c)
Un
der
stan
din
gM
ora
lan
dE
thic
alIs
sues
(a=
.81
),(d
)S
cien
ceL
iter
acy
(a=
.76
),an
d(e
)C
om
mu
nic
atio
nS
kil
ls(a
=.4
5).
Th
efi
ve
fact
ors
had
eig
env
alues
rang
ing
from
9to
1an
dex
pla
ined
var
ian
cera
ng
ing
from
35
.3to
4.1
%w
ith
57
.7%
tota
lex
pla
ined
var
iance
.F
or
the
regre
ssio
nan
alysi
s,th
efo
llow
ing
codin
gsc
hem
esw
ere
use
d:
(a)
Gen
der
:F
emal
e=
1,
and
Mal
e=
0;
(b)
Rac
eor
ethnic
ity:
Afr
ican
-Am
eric
an=
1,
Asi
an=
1,
His
pan
ic=
1,
Oth
er=
1,
and
Cau
casi
an=
0;
(c)
Maj
or
fiel
d:
So
cial
scie
nce
s=
1,
Nat
ura
lsc
ien
ces
=1,
Engin
eeri
ng
=1
,O
ther
=1
,an
dS
oci
alsc
ien
ces
=0
;(d
)P
aren
tal
educa
tion:
Wit
hout
aco
lleg
edeg
ree
=1
,W
ith
aco
lleg
ed
egre
eo
rh
igh
er=
0;
(e)
Co
ho
rt:
Coh
ort
20
10
=0
,C
oh
ort
20
11
=1
,an
dC
oh
ort
20
09
=0
;(f
)P
arti
cipat
ion
inco
lleg
eac
tivit
ies:
Yes
=1
,an
dN
o=
0.
Item
sco
ded
as‘‘
0’’
wer
eu
sed
asco
mp
aris
on
gro
ups
*p
\.0
5,
**
p\
.01
,*
**
p\
.00
1
Res High Educ
123
private university, the findings of this study are not equally generalizable to students at all
institutions nationally. As student entering characteristics and educational experiences may
vary with types of institutions, students’ demographic characteristics and their collegiate
experiences at other types of institutions may be somewhat different. Moreover, as this
study focused on the correlation of study abroad intent with study abroad participation, it
did not examine the impact of the characteristics of various study abroad programs (e.g.,
duration, nature and content, and location) on students’ college outcomes. Because the data
were collected only on traditional matriculating freshmen, the findings of this study do not
inform the discussions about nontraditional students who may enter as a transfer and/or an
older student. Nevertheless, the methodology this study used may be worth noting. Other
institutions, private or public, may use the approaches to find out the specific profile of
their study abroad participants and identify their unique characteristics and needs so that
appropriate changes can be made to better serve them.
Discussion
This study has a number of interesting findings. Due to space constraints, however, we
discuss mainly in what follows the key findings regarding the predictors of study abroad
intent, the effect of intent on participation, and the effect of participation on college
outcomes.
First, consistent with previous research (Salisbury et al. 2009, 2010, 2011; Stroud 2010),
this study shows a large discrepancy in study abroad intent by gender, race or ethnicity, and
major field. Overall, women, Caucasian, and humanities majors were more likely to intend
to study abroad than their male, Asian, natural science majors, and engineering peers. Also,
it shows that student expectations about studying abroad considerably shaped student
participation in study abroad. This is especially true for women. Our follow-up logistic
regression analysis on the impact of gender on study abroad participation using the entire
graduating sample (i.e., not merely respondents who could be identified through their
participation in the CIRP Freshman Survey) revealed that the odds for women in our
sample to study abroad were about 1.94 times greater than the odds of their male peers
(Table 6).
While this study shows that Asian-American students were less likely than Caucasian
students to expect to study abroad, other students of color were similar to Caucasian
students in their expectations about studying abroad. The results from our follow-up
logistic regression analysis on student demographic characteristics on study abroad par-
ticipation revealed, however, that in addition to Asian-American students, African-
American students were less likely to study abroad than their Caucasian peers and that
parental income was positively related to student participation in study abroad. In view of
previous research showing that African-American students had relatively low participation
in study abroad (Dessoff 2006; Lincoln Commission 2005), this finding is revealing. It
suggests that African-American students had a similarly strong desire to study abroad
(Salisbury et al. 2009), but their family financial resources might have kept them from
participating in study abroad (Washington 1998).
Also, this study finds that in comparison to students in the humanities, engineering
students displayed not only lower interest in study abroad upon entry to college (Stroud
2010) but also lower participation in study abroad (Dessoff 2006; Lincoln Commission
2005). As previous research shows, unlike the coursework in the humanities, the course-
work for engineering is more structured and sequenced (Carlson et al. 1990; Stroud 2010),
Res High Educ
123
Ta
ble
6P
arti
cip
atio
nin
stud
yab
road
by
gra
du
atin
gC
oh
ort
Coh
ort
20
09
(N=
53
6)
Co
ho
rt2
01
0(N
=6
72
)C
oh
ort
20
11
(N=
62
5)
Stu
die
dab
road
(%)
Did
n’t
stu
dy
abro
ad(%
)X
2S
tud
ied
abro
ad(%
)D
idn
’tst
ud
yab
road
(%)
X2
Stu
die
dab
road
(%)
Did
n’t
stu
dy
abro
ad(%
)X
2
Gen
der
15
.46
**
*1
5.4
6*
**
15
.46
**
*
Mal
e4
0.3
59
.74
0.4
59
.64
4.0
56
.0
Fem
ale
61
.23
8.8
59
.94
0.1
55
.84
4.2
Rac
e/et
hn
icit
y8
.58
23
.28
**
*1
4.0
5*
*
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an6
0.0
40
.03
5.1
64
.93
7.5
62
.5
Asi
an3
5.8
64
.23
5.1
64
.93
7.5
62
.5
His
pan
ic50.0
50.0
62.5
37.5
50.0
50.0
Cau
casi
an56.6
43.4
59.6
40.4
54.6
45.4
Oth
er6
1.5
38
.55
2.4
47
.67
1.0
29
.0
Maj
or
12
.86
*2
0.8
0*
**
14
.65
**
Hu
man
itie
s6
1.8
38
.26
3.6
36
.45
3.0
47
.0
So
cial
Sci
ence
s6
0.7
39
.35
8.2
41
.85
9.6
40
.4
Nat
ura
lS
cien
ces
40
.85
9.2
38
.66
1.4
40
.06
0.0
Engin
eeri
ng
41.3
58.7
38.7
61.3
40.2
59.8
Oth
er5
0.0
50
.05
7.1
42
.95
2.9
47
.1
Lo
gis
tic
reg
ress
ion
anal
ysi
so
nst
ud
yab
road
par
tici
pat
ion
BS
.E.
Od
ds
rati
o
Gen
der
(Mal
e)
Fem
ale
.66
**
*.1
31
.94
Rac
e/et
hn
icit
y(C
auca
sian
)
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an-
.70
*.2
8.5
0
Res High Educ
123
Ta
ble
6co
nti
nued
Logis
tic
regre
ssio
nan
alysi
son
study
abro
adpar
tici
pat
ion
BS
.E.
Od
ds
rati
o
Asi
an-
.74
**
*.1
7.4
8
His
pan
ic-
.17
.34
.85
Oth
er.2
1.2
41
.23
Maj
or
(Hum
anit
ies)
So
cial
scie
nce
s.0
4.2
01
.04
Nat
ura
lsc
ien
ces
-.7
8*
**
.22
.46
En
gin
eeri
ng
-.5
8*
.24
.56
Oth
er-
.11
.43
.90
Par
enta
lin
com
e.0
5*
*.0
21
.06
Co
ho
rt
Coh
ort
20
10
-.1
5.1
6.8
6
Coh
ort
20
11
-.1
7.1
6.8
5
Co
nst
ant
-.1
4.2
8.8
7
Th
een
tire
sam
ple
of
thre
eg
rad
uat
ing
coh
ort
sw
asu
sed
for
this
anal
ysi
s.F
or
the
reg
ress
ion
anal
ysi
s,th
efo
llo
win
gco
din
gsc
hem
esw
ere
use
d:
(a)
Gen
der
:F
emal
e=
1,
and
Mal
e=
0;
(b)
Rac
eor
ethnic
ity:
Afr
ican
-Am
eric
an=
1,
Asi
an=
1,
His
pan
ic=
1,
Oth
er=
1,
and
Cau
casi
an=
0;
(c)
Maj
or
fiel
d:
So
cial
scie
nce
s=
1,
Nat
ura
lsc
i-en
ces
=1
,E
ng
inee
rin
g=
1,
and
Hu
man
itie
s=
0;
(d)
Coh
ort
:C
oh
ort
20
10
=0
,C
oh
ort
20
11
=1
,an
dC
oh
ort
20
09
=0
;an
d(e
)P
arti
cip
atio
nin
stu
dy
abro
ad=
1,
and
No
par
tici
pat
ion
inst
udy
abro
ad=
0.
Item
sco
ded
as‘‘
0’’
wer
eu
sed
asco
mp
aris
on
gro
ups
*p
\.0
5,
**
p\
.01
,*
**
p\
.00
1
Res High Educ
123
which does not provide students much leeway to study in countries where they could take
comparable courses to fulfill their degree requirements. As noted by Silver (2012), even if
engineering students managed to study abroad, they found it challenging to complete their
required coursework to graduate on time. Clearly, the low participation of engineering
students in study abroad may be due in part to the inflexible nature of their academic
requirements. Moreover, it is interesting to note that time spent socializing with friends had
a positive effect on intent to study abroad, suggesting that socially interactive students are
more likely to show interest in study abroad than their less interactive peers.
Like the study by Stroud (2010) and other research (Dessoff 2006; IIE 2013), students
with high artistic ability and students who considered it important to improve their
understanding of other countries and cultures were more likely to aspire to study abroad.
Also, this study shows that mathematic ability and helping to promote racial understanding
were negatively correlated with study abroad intent. This may be largely related to the fact
that engineering students in our sample rated their mathematical ability considerably
higher than all other majors and that students of color in our sample were more likely than
Caucasian students to value the importance of helping to promote racial understanding
across three cohorts. Studies show that minority students who studied abroad encountered
negative stereotyping, while those wanting to study abroad worried about facing dis-
crimination overseas (Carter 1991; Kasravi 2009; Van Der Meid 2003). In light of such
research findings, the negative correlation of helping to promote racial understanding with
intent to study abroad may also suggest that students who experienced discrimination
previously might have opted not to study abroad due to the fear of encountering more
discrimination in a foreign country. Finally, the designation of 2006 as the ‘‘Year of Study
Abroad’’ by the US Senate in November 2005 and the efforts made by colleges and
universities to expand international academic opportunities (Dessoff 2006) might in part
account for the increase in student aspiration to study abroad seen in the 2006 and 2007
entering cohorts.
Contrary to the study by Stroud (2010) showing aspiring to earn a master’s degree or
higher decreased intent to study abroad, this study reveals that advanced degree aspiration
positively shapes intent to study abroad: Planning to earn an advanced degree increased the
odds of study abroad intent by a factor of 1.59. This finding suggests that students who
attended elite private institutions differed from students who pursued their undergraduate
study at other types of institutions. Also, unlike Stroud’s study, home distance and living
with family members did not emerge as significant predictors of study abroad intent. This
is probably because nearly 90 % of the students in our sample attended college over 100
miles away from home. Additionally, the socio-economic status variables (i.e., parental
income, financial concern, and parental education) and SAT scores included in our logistic
regression model were not significantly correlated with intent to study abroad, which may
largely relate to the fact that on average most students in the sample were from relatively
wealthy families and had similarly high SAT combined scores.
Second, this study shows that intent to study abroad may not necessarily lead to par-
ticipation in study abroad (Heisel and Stableski 2009). While an array of factors may
impede student participation in study abroad, of college activities examined in this study,
domestic off-campus study, involvement in a music or theatre group, the student gov-
ernment, a political club, and club sports may act as a barrier to study abroad. As noted by
Dessoff (2006) and Silver (2012), student leaders, athletes, and club members might have
found it hard to get away from their organizations, teams, or clubs or to miss involvement,
practice, competition, or something important back on campus, for a whole semester,
season, or year.
Res High Educ
123
Third, this study affirms previous research on the impact of study abroad on college
outcomes (Lincoln Commission 2005; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005; Salisbury 2011).
With control for the effects of other college activities, this study reveals that study abroad
made a unique contribution to understanding moral and ethical issues and communication
skills. Also, study abroad was positively correlated with academic performance and overall
satisfaction, supporting previous studies showing that students demonstrated higher aca-
demic engagement upon their return from abroad (Dolby 2004, 2007; Hadis 2005) and
revealing that study abroad participants were happy about their overall educational
experience. In comparison to humanities majors, students in engineering scored consid-
erably lower on the measure of communication skills. This may largely relate to the fact
that engineering students were generally not required to take a foreign language course, so
their ability to read or speak a foreign language came naturally lower. Their lower score on
overall academic performance might also have a lot to do with the higher grading standards
that have been used in the field (Drew 2011). As they scored lower on the measure of
understanding moral and ethical issues, however, it seems that they certainly had room for
improvement in this area.
Implications
The findings of this study are a useful resource for higher education researchers, study
abroad professionals, senior administrators, and faculty advising students on study abroad
opportunities as well as college students. As this study shows, study abroad intent is a
robust predictor of study abroad participation, and that student intent to study abroad upon
entry to college could be either positively or negatively affected by their involvement in a
wide range of college activities. This provides opportunities for study abroad professionals
and faculty advisors to think about ways to direct students’ attention to meaningful,
educational activities that might otherwise go unnoticed or be ignored in order to help
students to maintain or develop their aspirations to study abroad. Institutions can seek
ways, on the one hand, to encourage students with a strong intent to translate their aspi-
rations into action plans and participation, and on the other hand, to help those with a weak
intent to identify the need and means for studying abroad. To stimulate such students’
interest in study abroad, institutions may proactively promote, for instance, the potential
benefits of study abroad and communicate evidence for meaningful and practical links with
their educational and professional goals.
As involvement in campus organizations and club activities may present potential
conflicting interests to students, institutions can develop study abroad programs (e.g.,
short-term or summer programs) that would best suit the needs of students who engage in
these organizations and clubs. Doing so will likely enable them to study abroad without
sacrificing their academic and/or extracurricular timetables to too great an extent.
Also, as research shows that study abroad can foster international interaction on campus
(Luo and Jamieson-Drake 2013), institutions may bring US students who have studied
abroad and international students on campus together to share their experiences and
knowledge with other students who have not studied abroad before due to various reasons.
Moreover, institutions can develop campus-based curricular programs to explore major
global issues from intercultural and interdisciplinary perspectives. As the number of stu-
dents able to study abroad is still extremely small on many campuses, such programs will
provide an avenue for students unable to study abroad to be cognizant of current global
issues. They will also offer opportunities for students who have studied abroad before to
Res High Educ
123
integrate their experiences abroad with their co-curricular experiences back on campus and
for international students to engage with their US peers. Doing so can not only promote
study abroad but also increase intercultural awareness and foster international interaction
on campus on a larger scale. For better results, intercultural communication experts should
be invited to help design and guide such programs or discussions.
Moreover, this and other studies show that a variety of factors affect ethnic-minority
students’ intent to study abroad. As noted by Van Der Meid (2003), those factors include
financial resources, support networks, peer mentors, family and social constraints, choice
and availability of program offerings overseas, and fear of discrimination overseas or travel
to unknown areas that do not have familiar social organizations at the destination site.
Also, as noted by Salisbury et al. (2010), while stereotype threat may affect African-
American students’ intent to study abroad, habitus may considerably constrain Asian-
American men’s interest in study abroad. As the undergraduate population is so diverse
today, study abroad professionals as well as student affairs professionals need to recognize
the myriad differences and identify the specific needs among racial or ethnic groups in
order to serve students in the most effective way.
Furthermore, the findings of this study show that study abroad benefits students in two
important dimensions of skill development, namely, the capacity to understand moral and
ethical issues, and communication skills. When checking the specific items included in
those two composite scales, we found that across three cohorts, students who studied
abroad indicated higher gains in the ability to place current problems in historical, cultural,
or philosophical perspective and to read or speak a foreign language. Study abroad is an
optional educational opportunity, but given that the world is becoming increasingly
interconnected and culturally diverse, it is, as remarked by Selingo (2013), one of the best
options for students to be put in unfamiliar situations for them to learn how to take
intelligent risks and gain first-hand experience about people and their languages and cul-
tures in a foreign country. Clearly, our findings support this assertion and that study abroad
is a worthwhile academic pursuit. When students pursue their academic study in a foreign
country, especially in a non-English speaking country, study abroad provides a valuable
opportunity for them to learn a foreign language or reinforce foreign language skills, to
gain exposure to and an understanding of a new culture, and to return with empirical
knowledge, fresh insights, and perspective-taking skills that can hardly be obtained without
leaving the campus and stepping out of the familiar environment and comfort zones. To
make use of this opportunity and reap the potential benefits of study abroad, students
should be proactive in planning early during their college years and consider where they
should study abroad, what study abroad programs are best suited to their particular goals,
and what resources they need to carry out their plans. As the study abroad experience and
benefits demand a significant amount of financial investment and time away from family
and friends (Fornerino et al. 2011; Salisbury et al. 2009, 2010, 2011; Van Der Meid 2003),
students should discuss their study abroad plans with their parents, relatives, and friends
and gain both their financial and psychological support if needed. Also, they should seek
advice from study abroad professionals about their concerns, and consult their academic
advisors about the academic courses they need to take and relevant course requirements,
and pursue the best options for study abroad in light of their academic and career goals. If
students are ultimately unable to study abroad after considering all possible options, they
should try every possible means to make use of the international interaction opportunities
and cultural events offered on campus to help develop their global awareness and inter-
cultural competence.
Res High Educ
123
Additionally, as study abroad needs careful management to be effective, institutions
should regularly review their study abroad programs and identify what has worked or fallen
short and why and come up with more effective strategies for improving their study abroad
programs or developing alternative ways for students to gain meaningful experiences
abroad. Increasing the participation rates in, and accomplishing the goals of, study abroad
offerings demands the motivation, commitment, and resources from students, families,
faculty, and institutions. When all parts find ways to work together for a common shared
goal, institutions can certainly hope to help students acquire the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes that they need to function effectively as global citizens in the twenty-first century.
Finally, the findings of this study have implications for future research. Our examination of
involvement in high school activities showed that spending time socializing with friends might
provide students with an avenue to acquire knowledge and information about study abroad and
its potential benefits. Considered in conjunction with the findings about the long-standing
disparity between women and men in study abroad participation and the lower likelihood of
Asian, engineering, and science students in study abroad participation, an examination of the
ways students are socialized before college toward meaningful, productive activities that might
enhance their college experience would provide further insight into study abroad participation
(Salisbury et al. 2009). Also, as planning to earn an advanced degree and seeking to improve
understanding of other countries and cultures were positively associated with study abroad
intent, future research may use the alumni survey data to examine whether study abroad
participants are more likely than non-participants to earn advanced degrees, promote inter-
cultural understanding, and engage in international endeavors in their life after college. Doing
so will likely illuminate our understanding of study abroad participants as well.
Conclusion
In this study, we examined students’ intent to study abroad upon college entry and their
actual participation in study abroad during their undergraduate years, correlating the col-
lege outcomes of three cohorts to identify trends. Our findings show that students’ intent to
study abroad upon college entry and their actual participation in study abroad during their
undergraduate years are interrelated and shaped by an array of factors, including gender,
race or ethnicity, major, and involvement in college activities. While mathematical ability
and helping to promote racial understanding negatively affected study abroad intent,
aspiring to earn an advanced degree, time spent socializing with friends, artistic ability,
seeking to improve understanding of other countries and cultures, and expectation to join a
social fraternity or sorority, to be satisfied with college, and to participate in student clubs
or groups positively influenced study abroad intent. Also, our findings indicate that
involvement in the student government, a music or theater group, a political club, club
sports, and off-campus study negatively affected participation in study abroad. Finally, our
findings reveal that study abroad made a unique contribution to college outcomes, such as
understanding moral and ethical issues, communication skills, academic performance, and
overall satisfaction. As the outcomes sample is from an elite private university, our find-
ings are not generalizable to students at all institutions. Our study provides, however, a
model for assessing the impact of study abroad experiences, and our findings hold
implications for college students, higher education researchers, study abroad professionals,
senior administrators, and faculty advisors, who seek information to leverage study abroad
programs to enhance students’ intercultural skills development and related educational
outcomes.
Res High Educ
123
Acknowledgments We would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their commentson the manuscript.
References
Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges. (1996). Hauppage. NY: Barron’s Educational Series.Bloom, B. S. (1994). Reflections on the development and use of the taxonomy. In L. W. Anderson & L.
A. Sosniak (Eds.), Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty year retrospective (Ninety third yearbook of the NationalSociety for the Study of Education, Part II) (p. 18). Chicago: National Society for the Study ofEducation.
Booker, R. W. (2001). Differences between applicants and non-applicants relevant to the decision to applyto study abroad. (Ph.D., University of Missouri—Columbia).
Carlson, J. S., Burn, B. B., Useem, J., & Yachimowicz, D. (1990). Study abroad: The experience ofAmerican undergraduates in Western Europe and the United States. New York: Greenwood Press.
Carter, H. (1991). Minority access to international education. In Black Students and Overseas Programs:Broadening the Base of Participation, CIEE, Ed., pp. 6–13, CIEE: Council on International Educa-tional Exchange, New York, NY, USA, 1991.
Citron, J. L. (2002). U.S. students abroad: Host culture integration or third culture formation? In W.Grunzweig & N. Rinehart (Eds.), Rockin’ in Red Square: Critical approaches to international edu-cation in the time of cyberculture (pp. 41-56). Munster, Germany: Lit Verlag.
Clemens, C. R. (2003). A descriptive study of demographic characteristics and perceptions of cross culturaleffectiveness of diverse students at Ohio University in relation to study abroad (Doctoral dissertation,Ohio University, 2002).
Coldwell, W. (March 6, 2013) Lack of information turns students off studying abroad. http://www.guardian.co.uk.
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cubillos, J. H., Chieffo, L., & Fan, C. (2008). The impact of short-term study abroad programs on L2listening comprehension skills. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 157–185.
Dessoff, A. (2006). Who’s not going abroad? International Educator, 15(2), 20–27.DiBiasio, D., & Mello, N. (2004). Assessing a nontraditional study abroad program in the engineering
discipline. Frontiers, 10, 237–252.Dolby, N. (2004). Encountering an American self: Study abroad and national identity. Comparative Edu-
cation Review, 48(2), 150–173.Dolby, N. (2007). Reflections on nation: American undergraduates and education abroad. Journal of Studies
in International Education, 11(2), 141–156.Drew, C. (November 4, 2011). Why science majors change their minds (It’s just so darn hard). The New
York Times.Engle, J., & Engle, L. (2002). Neither international nor educative: Study abroad in the time of globalization.
In W. Grunzweig & N. Rinehart (Eds.), Rockin’ in Red Square: Critical approaches to internationaleducation in the time of cyberculture (pp. 25–40). Munster: Lit Verlag.
Fischer, K. (2012, Februray 19). In study abroad, men are hard to find. Chronicle of Higher Education.https://chronicle.com/article/In-Study-Abroad-Men-Are-Hard/130853/.
Fornerino, M., Jolibert, A., Sachez, C. M., & Zhang, M. (2011). Do values or goals better explain intent? Across-national comparison. Journal of Business Research, 64, 490–496.
Gammonley, D., Rotabi, K. S., & Gamble, D. N. (2007). Enhancing global understanding with study abroad:Ethically grounded approaches to international learning. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 27(3–4),115–135.
Gary, K. S., Murdock, G. K., & Stebbins, C. D. (2002). Assessing study abroad’s effect on an internationalmission. Change, 34(3), 44–51.
Geelhoed, R., Abe, J., & Talbot, D. (2003). A qualitative investigation of US students’ experiences in aninternational peer program. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 5–17.
Golay, P. A. (2006). The effects of study abroad on the development of global-mindedness among studentsenrolled in international programs at Florida State University. (Ed.D., The Florida State University).
Goldstein, S. B., & Kim, R. I. (2006). Predictors of US college students’ participation in study abroadprogram: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 507–521.
Graban, J. L. (2007). The effects of study abroad experience on student cognitive and affective outcomes ofcollege. (Ph.D., Indiana State University).
Res High Educ
123
Green, M. F., Luu, D., & Burris, B. (2008). Mapping internationalization on US Campuses (2008th ed.).Washington DC: American Council on Education.
Hadis, B. F. (2005). Why are they better students when they come back? Determinants of academic focusinggains in the study abroad experience. Frontiers, 11, 57–70.
Heisel, M., & Stableski, R. (2009). Expanding study abroad: Where there’s a will, there’s a way. In P. B. R.Gutierrez (Ed.), Expanding study abroad capacity at US colleges and universities. New York: Instituteof International Education.
Hoffa, W. (2007). A history of US study abroad: Beginnings to 1965. Carlisle: The Forum on EducationAbroad.
Institute of International Education. (2013). Profile of US study abroad students, 2001/02–2011/12. OpenDoors report on international exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors.
Kasravi, J. (2009). Factors influencing the decision to study abroad for students of color: Moving beyond thebarriers (Ph.D., University of Minnesota-Twin Cities).
Kitsantas, A. (2004). Studying abroad: The role of college students’ goals on the development of cross-cultural skills and global understanding. College Student Journal, 38, 441–452.
Langley, C. S., & Breese, J. R. (2005). Interacting sojourners: A study of students studying abroad. TheSocial Science Journal, 42, 313–321.
Laubscher, M. (1994). Encounters with difference: Student perceptions of the role of out-of-class experi-ences in education abroad. Westport: Greenwood.
Lincoln Commission. (2005). Global competence and national needs: One million Americans studyingabroad. Final Report from the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Fellowship Program, WashingtonDC.
Lozano, J. E. (2008). Exploring students’ decisions regarding studying abroad: A study of private universitystudents in south Texas. Abstract retrieved December 20, 2009 from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(03). (UMI No. 3305622).
Luo, J., & Jamieson-Drake, D. (2005). Linking student precollege characteristics to college developmentoutcomes: The search for a meaningful way to inform institutional practice and policy. IR Applications,7, 1–17.
Luo, J., & Jamieson-Drake, D. (2013). Examining the educational benefits of interacting with internationalstudents. Journal of International Students, 3, 85–101.
Magnan, S. S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during study abroad. ForeignLanguage Annals, 40, 43–61.
Matthews, P. R., Hameister, B. G., & Hosley, N. S. (1998). Attitudes of college students toward studyabroad: Implications for disability service providers. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Dis-ability, 13(2), 67–77.
McKeown, J. S. (2006). The impact of study abroad on college student intellectual development. (Ph.D.,Syracuse University).
NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2003). Securing America’s future: Global education for aglobal age. Washington, DC: Report of the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad.
Nesdale, D., & Todd, P. (1993). Internationalizing Australian universities: The intercultural contact issue.Journal of Tertiary Education Administration, 15, 189–202.
Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J. C., & Lassegard, J. P. (2002). Maximizing study abroad: Astudents’ guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2): A third decade of
research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Peterson, D. L. (2003). The decision to study abroad: Contributing factors and implications for commu-
nication strategies (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses database. (UMINo. 3092192).
Posey, J. T. Jr. (2003). Study abroad: Educational and employment outcomes of participants versus non-participants. (Ph.D., The Florida State University).
Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Santos, J. L., & Korn, W. S. (2007). The American freshman: Forty yearstrends. http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/TFS/Trends/Monographs/TheAmericanFreshman40YearTrends.pdf.
Ryan, M. E., & Twibell, R. S. (2000). Concerns, values, stress, coping, health and educational outcomes ofcollege students who studied abroad. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 409–435.
Salisbury, M. H. (2011). The effect of study abroad on intercultural competence among undergraduatecollege students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 2011. http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1073.
Res High Educ
123
Salisbury, M. H., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2010). To see the world or stay at home: Applying anintegrated student choice model to explore the gender gap in the intent to study abroad. Research inHigher Education, 51, 615–640.
Salisbury, M. H., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2011). Why do all the study abroad students lookalike? Applying an integrated student choice model to explore differences in the factors that influencewhite and minority students’ intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 52, 123–150.
Salisbury, M. H., Umbach, P. D., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2009). Going global: Understandingthe choice process of the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 50, 119–143.
Selingo, J. (March 26, 2013). Wanted at work: Take more risks in college. http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130326135541-17000124-wanted-at-work-take-more-risks-in-college.
Shirley, S. W. (2006). The gender gap in post-secondary study abroad: Understanding and marketing tomale students (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Dakota, 2006). http://www.departments.dsu.edu/deanofstudents/steveshirleydissertation.pdf.
Silver, A. (March 7, 2012). Science concentrators less likely to study abroad. The Brown Daily Herald.Spiering, K., & Erickson, S. (2006). Study abroad as innovation: Applying the diffusion model to inter-
national education. International Education Journal, 7, 314–322.Stallman, E., Woodruff, G. A., Kasravi, J., & Comp, D. (2010). The diversification of the student profile. In
W. W. Hoffa & S. C. DePaul (Eds.), A history of US study abroad: 1965-present. Lancaster, PA:Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad.
Stroud, A. H. (2010). Who plans (not) to study abroad? An examination of US student intent. Journal ofStudies in International Education, 20(10), 1–18.
Twombly, S. B., Salisbury, M. H., Tumanut, S. D., & Klute, P. (2012). Study abroad in a new globalcentury: Renewing the promise, refining the purpose. ASHE Higher Education Report, 38 (4).
Van Der Meid, J. (2003). Asian Americans: Factors influencing the decision to study abroad. Frontiers, 9,71–110.
Vande Berg, M. (2007). Intervening in the learning of US students abroad. Journal of Studies in Interna-tional Education, 11(3/4), 392–399.
Washington, D. D. (1998). African-American undergraduate students’ perceptions of and attitudes towardstudy abroad programs. Dissertation. Virginia: George Mason University.
Williams, T. R. (2005). Exploring the impact of study abroad on students’ intercultural communicationskills: Adaptability and sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9, 356–371.
Wynveen, C. J., Kyle, G. T., & Tarrant, M. A. (2012). Study abroad experiences and global citizenship:Fostering proenvironmental behavior. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6(4), 334–352.
Res High Educ
123