study abroad literature review

Running head: DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHSIS PROJECT 1

Developmental Synthesis Project: Students who Study Abroad

Sally Blechschmidt

Loyola University Chicago

DEVELOPMENTAL SYNTHESIS PROJECT 2

Student affairs practitioners expect that study abroad programs provide developmental

opportunities for students, yet a comprehensive literature review of developmental gains is

unfounded. In an effort to identify and consolidate research on how students develop while

studying abroad, this paper includes potential gains in cognitive, psychosocial and social identity

development. The paper also considers implications for practice and suggestions for future

research opportunities. However, before one can discover how development occurs as a result of

studying abroad, one must first understand what study abroad is and who participates.

Students who Study Abroad

Kitsantas (2004) defined study abroad as any education which occurs outside of one’s home

country. Mohajeri Norris and Steinberg (2008) more explicitly described study abroad as:

A holistic educational experience that affords participants opportunities to develop new

academic interests, participate in academic internships, establish friendships with host

country nationals, explore a new culture, expand their worldview and sense of self, as well as

improve their target language skills. (p. 108)

In regard to those who participate, the population doubled in the past decade, with 260, 327

students studying abroad in the 2008-09 academic year (Institute for International Education

[IIE], 2010a). Women represented nearly 65% and men occupied the remaining 35% of the

study abroad population, with no designation for transgender students (IIE, 2010b).

Additionally, White students comprised 80.5% of this population followed by Asian or Pacific

Islander (7.3%), Hispanic or Latino (6%), Black or African American (4.2%), Multiracial

(1.6%), and American Indian or Alaska Native students (0.5%) (IIE, 2010b). Nearly 55% of

students studied abroad for less than eight weeks, 41% studied abroad for a semester, and 4%

studied abroad for an entire academic year (IIE, 2010a).


Study abroad is potentially instrumental in college students’ development because there is a

greater need to work, live, understand and volunteer with others from different cultures and

countries (Braskamp, Braskamp, & Merrill, 2009; Kitsantas, 2004; Mohajeri Norris & Gillespie,

2009). In the field of business, international experience is not only desired, but it is also

expected (Peppas, 2005). Similarly, in the fields of nursing and social work, cultural competence

is necessary to become an effective practitioner (Edmonds, 2010; Lindsey, 2005). In order to

build these skills, students pursue study abroad programs. As a result, students who study abroad

have many opportunities to develop cognitively, psychosocially, and socially; and, researchers,

student affairs professionals, and faculty have recognized that students can develop in each of

these areas (Braskamp et al., 2009; Hadis, 2005; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004).

Developmental Theories

Cognitive Development

Studying abroad provides multiple opportunities for students to develop cognitively. Merely

living in a foreign country and encountering different methods to address issues, ideas and

policies can promote this development (Bender, Wright, & Lopatto, 2009; Hendershot &

Sperandio, 2009). For example, a student’s perception of a situation may vary from host

nationals, and this difference of opinion may provide a basis for dissonance in what one believes

as truth (Perry, 1981). As a result, students exposed to diverse approaches to perceive and

interpret the world may develop in their cognitive complexity (Dwyer, 2004; Lindsey, 2005).

With very few studies focusing exclusively on cognitive development while abroad, the

outcomes in existing literature vary. Doyle (2009) found that students reported less faith in

authority figures and became more self-reliant in their search for truth, which correlates to

Perry’s (1981) transition from dualism to multiplicity. Similarly, Hadis (2005) found that


students developed in their cognitive complexity. This researcher reported that students who

experienced culture shock upon return to their home country preferred pursuing knowledge to

acquiring knowledge. Perhaps returning home and encountering their family and friends, who

had not developed cognitively, encouraged students to move to a higher level of cognitive

ability. Similar to Perry’s (1981) theory of cognitive and ethical development, these students

may now embrace the idea that “knowledge is qualitative” (p. 80), which represents a component

of relativism. However, when Braskamp et al. (2009) specifically studied cognitive

development, they found no gains in students’ integrative and reflective thinking. Rather,

students were only accumulating more knowledge about other cultures.

Yet, the curriculum of a study abroad program could impact cognitive development.

Students, who completed specific reflection requirements, began to identify that they could be

authorities on their own knowledge (Elola & Oskoz, 2008; Lindsey, 2005). In one program,

students wrote blogs about their experiences in Spain and received comments and questions from

students in Spanish language classes at their home institution (Elola & Oskoz, 2008). In order

for these students to answer their colleagues’ questions, they sought the information and made

judgments about living and learning abroad in Spain. As a result, the students began to think

more critically about their experiences abroad and how they, rather than a member of the faculty

or administration, were experiencing the culture (Elola & Oskoz, 2008).

Certainly, this body of research includes strengths and limitations. In a large, representative

study, approximately 95% of students reported that studying abroad influenced how they

perceive the world (Dwyer, 2004). Practitioners can find value in this universal agreement and

they should recognize the potential opportunities for cognitive development. However, one

should interpret this finding with caution. First, this study used retrospective data which could


include participant bias. Furthermore, because the study relied on asking questions about

experiences which occurred up to 40 years ago, the participants may have failed to recognize

other factors which contributed to their cognitive development. Nevertheless, research suggests

that cognitive development can occur during and as a result from a study abroad program.

Another notable strength within this research is the identification of innovative methods to

encourage cognitive development. The design of some of these programs promoted reflection

and supported students in gauging similarities and differences between home and host cultures.

Students confronted, addressed, and potentially resolved dissonance. However, very few studies

described how modifying curriculum can promote cognitive development. Certainly, student

affairs professionals would benefit from more detailed research.

Psychosocial Development

In contrast to the limited research on students’ cognitive development during study abroad, a

multitude of psychosocial development research exists. However, similar to the cognitive

development research, students who study abroad have multiple opportunities to obtain

psychosocial developmental gains. As a manner of comparison, Chickering and Reisser’s (1993)

vectors will be a baseline of psychosocial development.

Multiple researchers found that students who interact frequently with host nationals can

develop psychosocially (Doyle, 2009; Dwyer, 2004; Engle & Engle, 2004; Kitsantas, Mohajeri

Norris & Steinberg, 2008). Through conversations and discussions about politics, host nationals

challenge students to represent their home country (Doyle, 2009). Especially in the past decade,

students are more likely to explain, defend, and/or dissociate oneself from their country’s

actions. The ability to engage in dialogue, listen, and maintain patience with a host national

requires students to be aware of how they are interacting. In these situations, students must also


manage any feelings of stress which could result (Kitsantas, 2004). These developmental gains

relate to Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) vectors of intellectual and interpersonal competence,

management of emotions and forming close relationships with others.

Studying abroad also influenced other areas of students’ psychosocial development. Students

who studied and/or worked abroad during their undergraduate degree were much more likely to

solidify their career plans and majors, improve their language ability, and decide to attend

graduate school upon return to their home country (Doyle, 2009; Dwyer, 2004; Ingraham &

Peterson, 2004; Mohajeri Norris & Gillespie, 2009; Mohajeri Norris & Steinberg, 2008). These

findings were especially true if the student studied abroad for a full year (Dwyer, 2004).

Similarly, students who conducted independent research abroad were more confident in their

decision to pursue more demanding research (Bender et al., 2009). Perhaps, a contributing factor

is that 96% of students endorsed an increase in self-confidence because they studied abroad

(Mohajeri Norris & Gillespie, 2009). Once a student is more confident in decision-making, the

student may recognize that they are productive in their field (competence), are choosing the

correct field (purpose), can make decisions on their own (autonomy), and are personally relating

to their field of choice (identity) (Braskamp et al., 2009; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Hadis,

2005; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004).

For students who were already committed to a specific career field, the study abroad

experience strengthened their motivation for learning and self-efficacy in a short time period

(Edmonds, 2010; Lindsey, 2005; Peppas, 2005). In a two-week graduate business abroad

program, which included site visits and reflections about the respective culture, students reported

an increase in knowledge about international business and an understanding of how culture

affects practice (Peppas, 2005). In another short-term program, social work students endorsed a


greater connection and commitment to their field after studying abroad (Lindsey, 2005). For

undergraduate nursing students also in a two-week program, the opportunity to work in a new

environment with minimal orientation encouraged the students to think quickly about how to

intervene (Edmonds, 2010). These findings suggest that for students who are comfortable with

their current identity and purpose may need less time to obtain psychosocial gains while abroad.

Similar to the limitations found in the cognitive development literature review, participant

bias may potentially influence the generalizability of these results (Dwyer, 2004; Mohajeri

Norris & Gillespie, 2009; Mohajeri Norris & Steinberg, 2008). The studies included participants

over the previous 49 years and other factors may confound the researchers’ findings. However,

this body of research provides support that psychosocial development can and does occur in

students while studying abroad. Student affairs practitioners can connect the experiences abroad

to Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) vectors of building competence, managing emotions,

becoming more autonomous, cultivating relationships, finding and solidifying one’s identity, and

developing one’s purpose.

Other limitations for this family theory is that no research indicated any development of

Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) vectors of interdependence or integrity. Although Doyle (2009)

suggested that students are potentially exposed to interdependent living while studying abroad,

students did not significantly develop this vector. Perhaps, students only build their base of

autonomous living while abroad and the development of an interdependent lifestyle follows after

return to their home country. Furthermore, the vector of integrity may take longer to develop.

Perhaps, as one learns more about oneself and interacts with host nationals, they are more

inclined to act congruently. Overall, additional research is needed to comprehensively

understand the extent of psychosocial development during a studying abroad program.


Yet, student affairs professionals must ask whether students who choose to study abroad are

already likely to make psychosocial gains (Dwyer, 2004). Are there already specific

developmental differences between those students who study abroad for a full year and those

who choose a shorter program? Are there differences between students who choose to study

abroad in a second language with those who study in English? Certainly, variance exists within

and between programs and further research is needed to identify how students can find the best

program to meet their needs.

Social Identity Development

Social identity development can also occur during a study abroad program. A model often

used to measure a student’s degree of intercultural development is Bennett’s developmental

model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS) (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003; Rexeisen & Al-

Khatib, 2009; Rexeisen, Anderson, Lawton, & Hubbard, 2008). Based on one’s behavior and

beliefs toward one’s own and other cultures, a person is identified along an ethnocentric

(denial/defense, reversal, minimization) - ethnorelative (acceptance, adaption, integration)

continuum. The structure of this model is consistent with Helms’s racial identity theory, which

becomes more complex as a person interacts with others from similar and different backgrounds;

and, then also reflects on these similarities and differences (Helms & Cook, 1999). Additionally,

this model allows one to exhibit aspects of multiple statuses simultaneously (Hammer et al.,

2003).

Within this model, variance exists in the research outcomes of students’ social identity

development. For students who are consistently operating at an ethnorelative status, they

maintained their developmental gains months after studying abroad; whereas, students reporting

an ethnocentric perspective were less likely to maintain any ethnorelative gains (Rexeisen & Al-


Khatib, 2009; Rexeisen et al., 2008). Similarly, Medina-López-Portillo (2004) found that

students in shorter programs (seven weeks compared to 16 weeks) reported ethnocentric

perspectives, whereas all of the students in the 16 week program obtained an ethnorelative

perspective. However, Anderson, Lawton, Rexeisen, and Hubbard (2006) found that students in

a four week program moved upward or above their intercultural status. The differences between

these finding may suggest how the type of program affects the outcome of social identity

development (Rexeisen & Al-Khatib, 2009; Rexeisen et al., 2008).

In studies which did not utilize this model to measure social identity development,

researchers found that students reported an increase of self-awareness and a greater awareness of

others (Bender et al., 2009; Hendershot & Sperandio, 2009; Lindsey, 2005). Comparable to

ethnic identity models, as students learned about another culture they were more likely to reflect

on their own culture (Ingraham & Peterson, 2004). Similarly, in Doyle’s study (2009), students

who were abroad began identifying more closely with their racial and ethnic heritage, which

could relate to Helms’s statuses of Immersion/Emersion (Helms & Cook, 1999). Especially for

students who are typically in the majority culture in their home country, being abroad and

identifying as a minority provided another lens to view themselves and to recognize the

difficulties of being a foreigner (Doyle, 2009; Lindsey, 2005; Medina-López-Portillo, 2004).

Furthermore, after education and work abroad, students reported continued interest in other

cultures, lasting relationships with host nationals, a willingness to live and work abroad again,

and a stronger commitment to social activism (Bender et al., 2009; Dwyer, 2004; Hadis, 2005;

Hendershot & Sperandio, 2009; Mohajeri Norris & Gillespie, 2009). For example, graduate

business students reported improved interactions with international colleagues upon return from

a short-term program, which related to advancement in one’s career (Peppas, 2005). Edmonds


(2010) also found that cultural competence in nursing students improved while abroad and

integrated into better performance with diverse others upon return to their home country.

Additionally, with the identification of activism to promote positive change, students may be

exhibiting the last statuses of Helms’s racial or white identity theories (Helms & Cook, 1999).

Such sustained gains provide additional support that studying abroad can influence students’

social identity development.

However, study abroad students can also regress in their intercultural sensitivity (Engle &

Engle, 2004; Rexeisen et al., 2008). For example, students may encounter cultural differences

which they construe as abnormal behavior or beliefs (Engle & Engle, 2004). This finding is

especially true if the student is encapsulated with others from their home institution or culture,

rather than being immersed in the host country (Rexeisen et al., 2008). Or, students may dismiss

the value of their home country and view their host country as superior (Rexeisen et al., 2008).

Nevertheless, this experience may have value in introducing dissonance into a student’s thinking

(Helms & Cook, 1999).

Many researchers reported that students became more culturally sensitive or aware from

studying abroad. However, similar to cognitive and psychosocial development, all of these

studies are based on self-report and are subject to participant bias. Similar to Dervin (2009),

merely because someone believes they have intercultural skills does not necessarily equate to

utilization of those skills. Although using a control group or implementing a proactive study

may be nearly impossible, these outcomes should be accepted with caution.

Another limitation is that students who study abroad may already be open to learning about

other cultures, and consequently, obtain greater gains in social identity development (Anderson

et al., 2006; Edmonds, 2010). Dwyer (2004) stated that “this finding raises the question of


whether the experience promotes greater racial, ethnic, and cultural tolerance, or whether the

students who study abroad are a priori a self-selected, more tolerant group” (p. 158). Students

who prefer to remain in their own culture and do not study abroad may have the most to gain in

regard to racial, ethnic, and sexual identity development. However, Salisbury, Paulson, and

Pascarella (2011) suggested that because students of color are already likely imbedded in a cross-

cultural environment while attending college, they do not feel the need to obtain additional

international cross-cultural experiences. Consequently, the White students’ perspectives may

skew the results of many of these studies.

Implications for Practice

Multiple researchers (Engle & Engle, 2004; Mohajeri Norris & Gillespie, 2009; Mohajeri

Norris & Steinberg, 2008) found differences between students who study abroad in a foreign

language and those who study abroad with English as the main language. These researchers

suggested that a foreign language component correlated with greater developmental gains.

Additionally, some researchers reported that students who partake in longer programs (six

months to one year) benefit more than students in shorter programs (Engle & Engle, 2004;

Medina-López-Portillo, 2004). However, Anderson et al. (2006) purported that a four-week,

English-focused course also promoted developmental gains. Certainly, variance exists between

types of programs and the subsequent outcomes; however, student affairs practitioners should

remember that nearly each program involves some form of student development.

Nevertheless, student affairs practitioners should attempt to recommend the best program to

fit a student’s needs. Would the student benefit more from an independent immersion program

or a shorter term island program? Should students exhibit a higher level of development in order

to succeed in an immersion program? If students commit themselves to a field of study, are


shorter term programs more effective to improve cultural awareness and self-efficacy (Edmonds,

2010; Peppas, 2005)? Although this recommendation is not yet based entirely in research,

identifying a student’s current developmental level may assist in directing the student to the most

appropriate program.

Additionally, the structure of a study abroad program influenced the promotion of student

development (Kitsantas, 2004). Hadis (2005) found that students involved in decision-making

about their curricular and co-curricular activities reported increases in their cognitive and

psychosocial complexity. Additionally, including frequent interaction with host nationals

promoted students’ development. Furthermore, reflection about similarities and differences

between home and host cultures improved one’s possibility for developmental gains (Braskamp

et al., 2009; Elola & Oskoz, 2008). If student affairs professionals can add these components to

study abroad programs, development gains are likely to occur.

Given that studying abroad may be one of the most influential aspects of an undergraduate

career, students would likely benefit from debriefing about their time abroad. As a result,

student affairs professionals may need to refer a student to or conduct personal or career

counseling. Practitioners should be proactive and anticipate students’ potential concerns (Doyle,

2009). Especially if institutions hope to maintain students’ developmental gains, efforts should

be made to ensure students are integrating what they learned from studying abroad as well as

successfully reacclimating to their home institution.

A final implication for practice is identifying methods to ensure higher numbers of non-

White and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) students study abroad. How can

student affairs professionals address these students’ financial, social, and cultural concerns which

likely hinder them from studying abroad (Salisbury, et al., 2011)? Study abroad promotes


student development and should continue to be a viable educational experience for all students

(Mohajeri & Steinberg, 2008). Certainly, how study abroad programs are marketed and

structured can influence who participates, and student affairs practitioners should seriously

consider how to conduct outreach.

Gaps in Research and Future Directions

An area of needed research is the intersectionality of cognitive, psychosocial, and social

identity development as a result of studying abroad (Braskamp et al., 2009; Hadis, 2005;

Medina-López-Portillo, 2004; Rexeisen & Al-Khatib, 2009). Students with gains in

psychosocial development were positively correlated to more complex statuses of social identity

development (Braskamp et al., 2009; Hadis, 2005; Medina-López-Portillo, 2004). Similarly,

students exhibiting greater cognitive complexity were more likely to report higher levels in the

ethnorelative perspective (Rexeisen & Al-Khatib, 2009). Perhaps, students must develop

cognitively and psychosocially before they can develop interculturally. King and Baxter

Magolda (2005) reiterated these findings when stating that “demonstrating one’s intercultural

skills requires several types of expertise, including complex understanding of cultural differences

(cognitive dimension), capacity to accept and not feel threatened by cultural differences

(intrapersonal dimension), and capacity to function interdependently with diverse others

(interpersonal dimension)” (p. 574). Consequently, additional research is needed to decipher

how families of theories intersect when a student studies abroad.

Other significant components missing from this research are discussions about students of

color, LGBT students, and gender issues. Although researchers studied why students of color

are less likely to study abroad (Salisbury et al., 2011), no research identified how students of

color develop from studying abroad. Moreover, the literature lacked information about LGBT


students, whether they chose to study abroad or if developmental gains occurred. Additionally,

gender differences clearly exist in the number of men and women who study abroad, yet no

discussion occurred on how gender may affect one’s development while abroad (Salisbury,

Paulson, & Pascarella, 2010).

Potential research questions to explore theses absences are: How salient is the student’s

social identity (race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation), and how does a student’s

development of oppressed identities affect their holistic development (Torres, Jones, & Renn,

2009)? What, if any, additional barriers do LGBT students face when studying abroad? Do the

countries in which they will reside accept, respect, and provide a safe environment for LGBT

students? Does one’s gender affect developmental gains? Certainly, the field of higher

education needs to understand how similarities and differences exist within and between racial,

ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation groups. Without such research, student affairs

practitioners may inadvertently utilize methods which have no merit to engage a population.

Another frequent concern for practitioners is whether a program is developmentally

appropriate and effective. Should practitioners recommend shorter or longer term programs?

Should practitioners recommend immersion or English only programs? How can a student’s

developmental level be accurately assessed when recommending a study abroad program? As

noted above, research exists to support both short and long programs, as well as immersion and

island programs. Yet, how can a practitioner know what is the best fit for each student? Also,

because students study abroad more consistently in shorter programs, how can institutions

structure these programs to promote development? Clearly, with a rise in accountability,

researchers must begin to answer these questions if study abroad is to remain a critical tool to

promote development.


However, once students return to their home country, will they sustain the developmental

gains obtained from learning abroad? Multiple researchers discussed how students maintained

their developmental gains after numerous years; yet, three of these studies utilized data from the

Institute for the International Education of Students (IES) (Dwyer, 2004; Mohajeri Norris &

Gillespie, 2008; Mohajeri Norris & Steinberg, 2008; Rexeisen et al., 2008). These findings are

potentially biased because the researchers only studied students who went abroad with IES.

Although these studies provide rich information about long-term effects, additional longitudinal

studies outside of IES would enhance this field of higher education.

A final direction for future research is identifying the differences between students’

development at the home institution and at institutions abroad (Ingraham & Peterson, 2004).

Would the same level of development occur if the student was at their home institution?

Although one could suggest that experiences outside of one’s home country would result in more

development, without a control group, the significance between these settings is unknown.

Considering that study abroad is a costly endeavor, it would behoove practitioners to provide

evidence that study abroad programs promote development outside the realm of the home

institution.

Conclusion

Students who study abroad have innumerable opportunities to develop cognitively,

psychosocially, and socially. Ingraham and Peterson (2004) discussed that “study abroad

provides an opportunity for a synergy to be established between the academic, professional,

personal, and intercultural components of the experience, leading to an overall effect greater than

the sum of the individual pieces” (p. 98). Although the option of studying abroad is not a recent

addition to the university system, the majority of students who participate are still White and


female. With this disparity in representation, practitioners must identify how to advocate and

promote study abroad programs for all students. In order to have a clear understanding of how

students develop abroad, more research should focus between and within groups. Overall,

institutions should continue to support study abroad programs through policy, financial,

assessment, research and programmatic efforts so that students may further develop.


References

Anderson, P. H., Lawton, L., Rexeisen, R. J., & Hubbard, A. C. (2006). Short-term study abroad

and intercultural sensitivity: A pilot study. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 30, 457–469.

Bender, C., Wright, D., & Lopatto, D. (2009). Students' self-reported changes in intercultural

knowledge and competence associated with three undergraduate science experiences.

Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 307-321.

Braskamp, L. A., Braskamp, D. C., & Merrill, K. (2009). Assessing progress in global learning

and development of students with education abroad experiences. Frontiers: The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 101-118.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Dervin, F. (2009). Transcending the culturalist impasse in stays abroad: Helping mobile students

to appreciate diverse diversities. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study

Abroad, 18, 119-141.

Doyle, D. (2009). Holistic assessment and the study abroad experience. Frontiers: The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 143-155.

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

The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 151-163.

Edmonds, M. (2010). The lived experience of nursing students who study abroad: A qualitative

inquiry. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5), 545-568.

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2008). Blogging: Fostering intercultural competence development in

foreign language and study abroad contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 454-477.


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

development in relation to study abroad program design. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary

Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 219-236.

Hadis, B. F. (2005). Why are they better students when they come back? Determinants of

academic focusing gains in the study abroad experience. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary


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

intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27,

421-433.

Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy:

Theory and process. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hendershot, K., & Sperandio, J. (2009). Study abroad and development of global citizen identity

and cosmopolitan ideals in undergraduates. Current Issues in Comparative Education,

12(1), 45-55.

King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity.

Journal of College Student Development, 46, 571-592.

Kitsantas, A. (2004). Studying abroad: The role of college students’ goals on the development of

crosscultural skills and global understanding. College Student Journal, 38, 441–452.

Ingraham, E. C., & Peterson, D. L. (2004). Assessing the impact of study abroad on student

learning at Michigan State University. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study

Abroad, 10, 83-100.

Institute of International Education (2010a). Open doors 2010 fast facts. Open Doors Report on

International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from


http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/Fast-Facts

Institute of International Education. (2010b). Profile of U.S. study abroad students, 1999/00-

2008/09. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from

http://www.iie.org/opendoors

Lindsey, E. W. (2005). Study abroad and values development in social work students. Journal of

Social Work Education, 41, 229–249.

Medina-López-Portillo, A. (2004). Intercultural learning assessment: The link between program

duration and the development of intercultural sensitivity. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary


Mohajeri Norris, E., & Gillespie, J. (2009). How study abroad shapes global careers: Evidence

from the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), 382-397.

Mohajeri Norris, E., & Steinberg, M. (2008). Does language matter? The impact of language of

instruction on study abroad outcomes. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of

Study Abroad, 17, 107-131.

Peppas, S. C. (2005). Business study abroad tours for non-traditional students: An outcomes

assessment. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 11, 143-163.

Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W.

Chickering, & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college (pp. 76-116). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rexeisen, R. J., & Al-Khatib, J. (2009). Assurance of learning and study abroad: A case

study. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 20(3), 192-207.

Rexeisen, R. J., Anderson, P. H., Lawton, L., & Hubbard, A. C. (2008). Study abroad and

intercultural development: A longitudinal study. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal

http://www.iie.org/opendoors

http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/Fast-Facts


of Study Abroad, 17, 1-20.

Salisbury, M. H., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2010). To see the world or stay at home:

Applying an integrated student choice model to explore the gender gap in the intent to

study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 51(7), 615-640.

Salisbury, M. H., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2011). Why do all the study abroad

students look alike? Applying an integrated student choice model to explore differences

in the factors that influence White and minority students' intent to study abroad. Research

in Higher Education, 52(2), 123-150.

Torres, V., Jones, S. R., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Identity development theories in student affairs:

Origins, current status, and new approaches. Journal of College Student Development, 50,

577-596.

study abroad literature review

Documents

white students

college students development

transgender students

developmental opportunities

defined study

alaska native students

participants opportunities

multiple opportunities