Introduction Globalization has emerged over the past few decades
Globalization has emerged over the past few decades as an important engine for
economic growth, intellectual and educational advancements, transportation technology, and
workforce mobility (Carano, 2018; Jacobs & Sjoer, 2018; Oxfam, 2018; OECD, 2017).
Globalization questions and undermines nation-states since national borders are slowly
disappearing (Hirst, Thompson, & Bromley, 2015). The nature of globalization tends to break
down barriers and bring people together. Operating uniquely within the borders of any country is
no longer an option for any government and its citizens, as globalization is shaping our daily
routines as never before (Banks, 2015; Friedman & Friedman, 2013). National economies and
borders are dissolving and the dynamics of the world economy are the dominant forces leading
to a society without boundaries (Friedman & Friedman, 2013; Hirst & Thompson, 2003;
Longworth, 2012; Oxfam, 2018; Scholte, 2002). For many, globalization is perceived as a
complex and dynamic connection between the local (regional and national) and the global,
geographically the North to the South, and the East to the West (Steger, 2017).
Given the technological, cultural, political, and economic aspects of globalization, not all
scholars agree it has solely positive outcomes and effects (Guttal, 2012). Proponents argue it is
an inevitable outcome of technological progress with benefiting economic consequences. Critics
claim globalization is a hegemonic capitalist expansion and a threat to local and national
economies (Mourdoukoutas, 2015).
The positive effects of globalization include money flows across borders, increased
aggregate demand, and creating new employment and GDP growth. However, as some
researchers point out, the negative side of globalization is about survival of domestic and local
commodity markets, intensified competition, unstable national economies, and unpredictable
business opportunities (Mourdoukoutas, 2015).
Regardless of how positive or negative the effects of globalization might be, the fact is
the world has become interconnected, faster moving, and more dynamic than during any other
era in history (Archambault, 2015; Carano, 2018). In a pluralistic society as seen today, the
majority of people can no longer avoid meeting, communicating, and living with others from
different cultural backgrounds. Surrounded by a global environment, one might need to adjust
thinking and living with others in order to learn and survive in the global world (Banks, 2015;
Mansilla & Jackson, 2011). With the ongoing developments and changes in the world, the
majority of corporations must focus on global management of human resources and talent.
Global Workforce
One dimension of globalization is workforce outsourcing. Outsourcing is no longer a
solution to capacity issues and cost reduction. It represents a change in the way companies
manage and sustain their global operations by contracting business processes to businesses in
other countries (Vance & Paik, 2015). Multinational corporations (MNCs) use outsourcing both
domestically and abroad to increase their strategic advantage in addition to lowering their
production costs (Vance & Paik, 2015). The revenue of the global outsourced industry has grown
from $45.6 billion in 2000 to $88.9 billion in 2017 (Statista, 2018). U.S. companies and affiliates
employ approximately 14 million global workers in areas of technology, call centers, human
recourses, and manufacturing. India, the world leader in outsourcing information technology (IT)
services account for $30 billion, and is introducing outsourcing of its own operations to other
countries to meet the industry demand (Statista, 2018). Outsourcing giants like Infosys and Tata
Consulting are expanding their production and operations to developed countries with a goal to
hire and train local workers (Vance & Paik, 2015). Large investments in information technology
have been made to increase global broadband connectivity, e-mail software updates, and search
engines, such as Google, to enable people to be productive from anywhere in the world (Alon &
McAllaster, 2005; Friedman & Friedman, 2013). Most companies believe, in order to stay
competitive on the global market, they should both maintain the quality of their services and
products while decreasing their operating costs. The strategy of global outsourcing allows
corporations to restructure their business core such as labor, production, and technologies by
relocating into lower-cost countries (Mocombe, 2018).
However, outsourcing can also pose a few downfalls. When a corporation shifts its
business processes to another country (outsourced country), it has to consider some of the side
effects. There is a potential threat of losing control over the quality of services and products
manufactured in the outsourced country as it might be difficult to enforce similar production and
quality control practices supported in the home country. Other challenges might include cross-
cultural management, distance and time zones, team collaboration and dynamics, as well as
different legal environments (Mishra & Mishra, 2011).
Another threat to global expansion and outsourcing comes from the rising wave of
protectionism as seen with the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom in the early 2017 and
the current U.S. administrations’ put America first initiatives (Beck, 2018). New tariffs on steel
and aluminum are one example of a trade policy designed to protect domestic industries from
foreign competition and to keep companies from outsourcing (Steger, 2017). Building trade
barriers and relying uniquely on a domestic product not only weakens the industry and the
country as a whole, but also causes domestic product to lose its competitive advantage and
eventually decline in quality. As the U.S. and other countries affected by protectionism become
less competitive, their economies could experience a slower economic growth eventually causing
increased inflation and layoffs (Amadeo, 2018).
Whether companies conduct businesses overseas or nationally, there is an increasing
shortage of skilled workers. Many companies compete for quality, trainable, and retainable talent
in order to increase their competitive advantage (Vance & Paik, 2015). Human resources (HR)
managers and executives focus on a fundamental set of skills and attitudes their employees
should possess. As Vance and Paik (2015) argue, some of the skills required from newly hired
employees include specific forms of cultural awareness such as geocentrism (recognizing global
mindset), regiocentrism (focusing on the culture of countries of the same region such as the
European Union), and cultural relativism (the opposite of ethnocentrism where one’s own
identity is superior to others). In addition to a cultural awareness, a truly global workforce is
equipped with distinguished competence relative to global market demands—global competence.
Global competence is an example of a capacity allowing individuals to understand other
worldviews, learn to adapt, and to work with others (Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), 2017).
The global business arena is increasingly demanding a skilled workforce able to thrive in
the global environment. Individuals should realize the importance of an international mindset not
only for their professional development, but also for their career growth (Vance & Paik, 2015).
There is a need for employees with the capacity to examine global issues, take different
perspectives, and effectively interact with people from other cultures (Sjøberg, 2015). Businesses
seek individuals who know how to work with others in a global setting. Global competence
bridges the gap between professional skills (sometimes called “soft skills”) and the global work
environment. Individuals possessing global competence increase their opportunities to
effectively work and live in a transnational environment and global society (Cascio & Boudreau,
2016).
Global Competence
Leaders of universities and colleges face many challenges to correctly characterize and
define global competence to address the need for globally competent graduates and students
globally prepared for our multicultural society. In the past years, the majority of U.S. colleges
and universities have increased their efforts and included intercultural practices in their programs
of study and curricula (Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006). Global competence is an important
concept, which builds on the premise that an individual understands how to interact with other
cultures, how to be open to accepting people from culturally diverse backgrounds, and how to
build and sustain relationships in the cross-cultural world (Braskamp et al., 2008; Hunter et al.,
2006; Sjøberg, 2015).
Possessing global competence is an important career component for college graduates
(OECD, 2017). As a result, students are encouraged to explore a variety of different programs to
fit their academic goals, development, and career growth. Programs such as study abroad,
foreign language requirements, and internships are being embedded in current curricula in order
to meet the global market demands for competitive job seekers. As stated by Ramos (OECD,
2017):
Reinforcing global competence is vital for individuals to thrive in a rapidly changing
world, and for societies to progress without leaving anyone behind. Against a context in
which we all have much to gain from growing openness and connectivity, and much to
lose from rising inequalities and radicalism, citizens need not only the skills to be
competitive and ready for a new world of work, but more importantly they also need to
develop the capacity to analyze and understand global and intercultural issues. Together,
we can foster global competence for more inclusive societies. (p. 2)
Education is also undergoing major changes due to the technological effects of
globalization (Mishra, 2015). The transformation of higher education, as seen in many parts of
the world, resulted in shifting from a system of teaching to learning. Institutions and their leaders
realize the importance of learning as a conscious process that can also provide measurable
outcomes. Global learning methodologies and outcomes align with new technologies such as
virtual and cooperative teaching, as well as involvement of industrial experts in the classrooms.
Global thinking, the integration of different cultural values and perspectives, skills such as
critical thinking, interpersonal communication and leadership are being introduced in curricula
and college major programs (Mishra, 2015). As the new role of education emerges, the
expectation of universities and colleges is to educate students on an increasingly global scale
(Cascio & Boudreau, 2016). Further, globalization of education is perceived to provide a key
competence for students willing to work in multinational companies (Verger, Lubienski, &
Steiner-Khamsi, 2016).
Considering the increased global interest in cultural and business collaborations,
educational partnerships and student global experiences, colleges and universities can directly
benefit from globally competent students. American college students will most likely find
themselves involved in rising levels of global communication and interaction, often in their
work, in classrooms, in leisure activities, and always in their citizenship (Stearns, 2009).
Educating for global competence is slowly becoming a norm for developing a greater awareness
of diverse parts of the globe (OECD, 2017). Generations of the 21st century have new
educational expectations of institutions as they have unlimited access to information, and are
more aware of global power and the technological competition presented in the business,
economic, and political arena.
Learning systems across the world produce new ideas; recognize diverse values and
knowledge with the effect of shifting student and teacher roles, and evolving our society from an
industrial to an information orientation (Spring, 2014). The rise of new cultural patterns is
shaping students into citizens of the world—global citizens, acquiring a range of skills and
knowledge to apply to world challenges, to compete on global markets, and to thrive in the
interdependent world (Mishra, 2015).
Global Citizenship
The idea behind global citizenship is that people are citizens of the world (Tan, 2017).
Even though there are many definitions among researchers, the consensus seems to be a global
citizen is a member of the larger community of the world, or at least of the portion that is bigger
than that of a state or a nation normally thought to be a community (Oxfam 2018; Schattle, 2008;
Sexton, 2018). Colleges and universities across the U.S. have been developing a variety of new
programs and initiatives to promote global experiences to build their students’ competitive global
advantage, and to increase their global interactions to become global citizens (Association of
American Colleges & Universities (AACU), 2018; Sterns, 2010). For example, the Global
Citizens initiative at the University of South Florida (USF) has identified key components
contributing to student success and citizenships as Global Awareness, Global Responsibility, and
Global Participation (USF Global Citizens Project, 2013; Schattle, 2008).
According to the goals of the USF Global Citizens Project, students who possess the
three specific qualities are recognized as global citizens. The university originally piloted the
Global Citizens Project in 2011 with a small group of faculty and students with a focus on
general education. In 2013, the program’s strategic plan aimed for the preparation of “well-
educated and highly skilled global citizens through continuing commitment to student success”
(USF Global Citizens Project, 2013, p.1). One of the primary qualities of a global citizen is
global competence, the ability to interact with people from other cultures, to accept people from
culturally diverse backgrounds, to build and sustain relationships in the cross-cultural world, and
to understand how ideas, people, places, and events affect each other (Braskamp et al., 2008;
Hunter et al., 2006; Sjøberg, 2015). According to one of the Global Citizens Project platforms,
studying abroad is a form of a global participation where students travel and study abroad with
the goal to make a difference (Schattle, 2008). Many American students take part each year in
study abroad. Their experiences assist in bridging the gap between the world taking shape around
them and their own worldview. Better equipped for a global future, these students can embrace
drawbacks and challenges of current global trends (Stearns, 2009).
Study Abroad
Many colleges and universities emphasize courses and programs, which assist students
with discovering other cultures, worldviews, and experiences different from their own (Kuh,
2001). In partnership with the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU), Kuh
identified High-Impact Educational Practices (HIP) as a set of practices highly correlated with
“positive educational results from students from widely varying backgrounds” (Introduction, p.
1). One of the 11 practices was diversity and global learning. Students learn through experiential
learning by studying abroad and reflecting on their preparation as global citizens while exploring
cultural differences such as racial, ethnic, and gender inequalities (Kuh, 2001).
Study abroad programs provide one way to help ensure that students become global
citizens, and develop needed global competence (University of South Florida (USF), 2018).
Study abroad programs enable students to broaden their education, explore new languages and
cultures, increase their professional and personal development, and strengthen their life and
leadership skills (USF, 2018).
As students study abroad, they immerse themselves in different cultures, explore foreign
languages, and adapt to different environments (Norris & Gillespie, 2009). Study abroad
opportunities may improve students’ global competence and career preparedness in a competing
and cooperative world (Black & Duhon, 2006). While developing global competence through
study abroad experiences, students gain cultural awareness, sensitivity, and multiple global skills
for individual career successes (Vance, 2005).
Measuring the success of students participating in study abroad experiences, as well as
the success of program goals and learning outcomes has become an important task for many
higher education institutions (Gillespie, 2002). More American colleges and universities have
started developing systems, which accurately measure the goals and results of study abroad
programs in an effort to understand the effectiveness and increase accountability of the programs
about students’ gained competence. The goal to measure study abroad experiences relative to
global competence fits in the framework of the global participation scale used by the University
of South Florida (Global Citizens Project, 2013). The Global Perspective Inventory (Braskamp,
Braskamp, & Merrill, 2008) has been adopted by the USF Global Citizen Project in an effort to
measure global competence: students’ attitudes, skills, and knowledge of global issues within a
society. The Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) will be used for this study as a validated
instrument.
Study abroad programs in combination with well-designed global education coursework
create a partnership to develop students and prepare them to become global citizens possessing
needed global competence (Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2002). Participation in study abroad
programs tends to increase self-confidence, the ability to deal with different cultural and political
views, further educational goals, and provide an acquired skill set that enhances students’ future
career opportunities (Nguyen, 2012). Students who study abroad can gain necessary skills and
knowledge to boost their employability. Employers seek graduates who can differentiate
themselves by learning about other cultures, studying foreign languages, and applying learned
skills to the global context (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
2017). Research on undergraduate college students showed students made choices based on the
expectations of meaningful employment. Among variety of majors, business students associated
their prospective careers with success, financial awards, and personal fulfillment (Kim,
Markham, & Cangelosi, 2002).
Business Students
The main two reasons for college students to declare business as a major are competitive
starting salary and more attractive career opportunities (Kim et al., 2002). Students’ perceptions
of needed skills often connect to personal wealth and attractive career opportunities (Kim et al.,
2002). Business colleges tend to develop and offer lectures allowing students to develop
leadership and communication skills. Through cooperative education programs, internships and
study abroad opportunities, business students learn how to differentiate themselves and use such
skills during the interview process to prepare for attractive future careers (Orahood, Kruze, &
Pearson, 2004). Strategies to internationalize business school curricula include increasing the
number of business students studying abroad ranging from few weeks to one year. Based on
several research studies, both students and their parents believe studying abroad, and immersing
in other cultures, enhances career opportunities (Anderson & Lawton, 2015). As a result, many
prestigious colleges and universities design study abroad programs strictly for undergraduate
business students (Orahood et al., 2004). The Kelley School of Business (KSB) at Indiana
University has been implementing a variety of study abroad programs for its business students to
enhance the international experiences needed to secure a business career. Based on the KSB
learning outcomes assessments, business students who studied abroad recognized skills such as
open-mindedness and cultural awareness as important in their job search. Further, 80% of the
students who studied abroad used the experience as a marketable skill during job interviews
(Orahood et al., 2004).
Statement of the Problem
Higher education institutions play an important role in identifying specific ways students
can become competitive and cooperative in global thinking and cultural awareness. As discussed
in the prior section, global competence is now one of the key knowledge areas for future careers
of college graduates (Norris & Gillespie, 2009). Employers are seeking graduates able to live,
communicate, and successfully compete on the global job markets (OECD, 2017). Educating
students for global competence is an important goal for institutions to meet the demands of
employers and to ensure their graduates gain key career skills and competitive jobs (OECD,
2017).
One of the highly immersive experiences to gain global competence is a study abroad
experience. Students participating in study abroad programs often gain a better perspective on
world issues, comprehend and adapt to diverse cultures and languages, and grow academically
and personally (Braskamp et al., 2008; Kuh, 2001; Scholte, 2002). Study abroad programs have
become popular among many students as a way to explore different cultures and travel to gain
competitive global knowledge. For institutions, study abroad programs provide the opportunity
to increase students’ academic performance, professional development and growth, and,
additionally, to decrease time-to-graduate (Ingraham & Peterson, 2014).
Colleges and universities recognize the importance of learning outcomes including global
competence (Soria & Troisi, 2014). Educating business students for global competence that
encourages global experiences can benefit both the education institutions by graduating globally
aware students, and providing them with necessary skills and abilities, which can contribute to
their future employers’ bottom-line. Business students gain knowledge and skills in their
classrooms in accounting, finance, marketing, management, and information technology (IT).
Given the awareness of the competitive job market and the need to develop the key business
skills, adding a global competence level should be a beneficial aspect leading to students’
successful career experiences (Vance, 2005). As students analyze and study challenging business
cases about international concepts of accounting, global marketing, and global cybersecurity
issues, they face decisions about cultural awareness and differences. For this reason, business
students might already be aware of the benefits of study abroad programs and have an
appreciation for global competence with a goal to be successful in the business world.
Given the rising number and popularity of study abroad programs, there is limited
research regarding these programs in relation to business students’ change scores in global
competence. Due to the increased attention to business graduates’ career success, higher
education institutions seek ways to improve the initiatives to better support these students.
There is a body of research regarding study abroad as one of the student success initiatives.
However, little evidence exists about change scores in global competence because of study
abroad experiences. Although studies exist related to global competence and study abroad
participation, the efforts to assess the relationship have been rather sporadic (Soria & Troisi,
2014).
Theoretical Framework
Historically, the number of college students participating in study abroad became one of
the key measurements for program quality and institutional goals (Sutton & Rubin, 2004).
However, simply recognizing the number of participants who studied abroad does not reflect the
level of knowledge, gained skills, or resources used (Gillespie, Braskamp, & Braskamp, 1999).
Assessment of the effects of study abroad programs on students’ global competence necessitates
an examination of theories related to multiculturalism. As educational leaders study students’
global competence, they also should look into ways students communicate with other cultures, as
a part of the global competence. This study uses theoretical frameworks of King and Baxter
Magolda (2005) and Chen and Starosta (1996).
Intercultural communication scholars (Chen & Starosta, 1996) contributed to the global
competence arena by recognizing three developmental components: cognitive, affective, and
behavioral (GPI, 2017). Their model of Intercultural Communication Competence addressed the
important aspects of successful communication in a global context. According to the model,
effective communicators develop their skills in complex situations, not in an isolated
environment. King & Baxter Magolda (2005) explored the domains further in the context of a
global cultural context. As individuals transform their knowledge, views, and identity, they are
able to reach their intercultural maturity.
Without clear, precise and organized communication between people of different
cultures, it is very difficult to successfully send and receive the correct message. Following the
increasing trend of the global career market, there is a high need for graduates competent in
effective communication with different cultures. King & Baxter Magolda’s (2005) framework
addressed the various domains of communication as a necessity to gain global competence.
Global competence serves as the holistic approach for researchers to understand how students
think (cognitive), perceive themselves (intrapersonal) and relate to people from other cultures
(interpersonal) (Braskamp et al., 2009). As students increase their capacity for intercultural
communication and awareness, they are able to better comprehend a variety of intercultural
issues and dynamics. This framework was developed by the authors of the instrument Global
Perspective Inventory (GPI) (Braskamp et al., 2009) to analyze college business students’
interpretations of their intercultural experiences, and also to illustrate the developmental
trajectory described in King & Baxter Magolda’s conceptual framework described by Braskamp
et al. (2009) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Major components of the Global Perspective Inventory
(Braskamp et al., 2009, Global Perspective Inventory)
As people develop skills to communicate across different cultures and environments, they
also develop specific behaviors and thought processes—cognitive component (Chen & Starosta,
1996). The cognitive domain relates to epistemology—study of knowledge and knowing, and in
this case, it accounts for a cultural perspective. As people learn and discover the depth of their
own thinking and thought processes, they start to develop a knowledge of multicultural
environments, global issues, and as a result, their communication across cultures vastly improves
(Braskamp et al., 2009).
The second domain, intrapersonal, focuses on people becoming aware of their own values
and self-identity, and such awareness transfers into incorporating their own ideas within a
multicultural world. Several intercultural communication scholars have identified the
intrapersonal domain as gaining identity, emotion, and cultural awareness (Braskamp et al.,
2009).
The last domain, interpersonal, guides people’s social interactions as they engage in
communication with other cultures, gain deeper understanding of social responsibility, and
become culturally sensitive (Braskamp et al., 2009). The three domains—cognitive,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal—together create a holistic interconnectedness and integration for
human development. Each domain functions interdependently with the others to clearly
communicate and understand another culture (See Figure 2 depicting the interdependence).
Figure 2. Cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal components of the
Global Perspective Inventory
(Braskamp et al., 2009)
Chen & Starosta (1996) have recognized the need to measure all three domains in order
to consider the effectiveness of the overall intercultural competence. The researchers
conceptualized intercultural sensitivity to include skills such as the ability to receive and send
emotional signals while interacting with people from other cultures (Fritz et al., 2005).
Because of their work regarding intercultural sensitivity as a global competence, Chen &
Starosta (1996) developed the Intercultural Awareness Scale. In their instrument, the authors
addressed intercultural awareness as a skill to understand and explain different cultures (Fritz et
al., 2005). Intercultural awareness became the cognitive component of intercultural (global)
competence. The authors further explored a different context within the intercultural awareness
dividing this dimension into self-awareness and cultural awareness (Chen & Starosta, 1996). The
behavioral component of the instrument the authors identified as intercultural adroitness. It
embodies the goal of intercultural communication where people effectively “get the job done and
attain communication goals in intercultural interaction” through behavioral performance (Dai &
Chen, 2014, p.3). According to Tamam (2010), intercultural adroitness described skills and
abilities promoting interaction management, behavioral flexibility, and relationship cultivation.
For students to be effective communicators, it is important to be fully immersed in other cultures.
Studying abroad involves surrounding oneself with people from other cultures as it also opens
doors to a better comprehension of unknown environments and effective interactions with others.
All three discussed components of the GPI directly relate to the level of participation in global
awareness and activities such as found in study abroad experiences. This study will look into
study abroad participation (as a way to build global competence) and the domains of global
competence (based on the theoretical framework).
While this study looks at study abroad experiences generally, additional investigations
will be needed regarding different types of study abroad programs (geographical location,
housing, experiential initiatives, role of a faculty pre- and post-study abroad, and language
competency).
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to assess the perceived levels of business students’ global
competence for both those who study abroad and those who do not, and to explore a possible
relationship between individual study abroad participation and global competence levels using
the Global Perspective Inventory instrument (GPI, 2014). Specifically, the study seeks to
understand the relationship between students who studied abroad and demographic information
(gender, ethnicity/race, parental education, foreign language fluency, service learning, age,
global issue course completion) in comparison to those who did not.
This quantitative quasi-experimental study consists of two parts. The first phase
comprises a pretest survey sent to business students registered for classes in spring 2018. The
second phase, the posttest survey was administered in the fall/winter semester of 2018 to
examine specific study abroad experiences obtained by the participating students in the summer
semester of 2018.
Study results may assist institutions and all involved in global programming to evaluate
existing programs and students’ educational experiences. Because globalization itself is a
multifaceted phenomenon, it can be difficult to measure the direct results of a specific student
group or a program. This study may provide suggestions to enhance curricula for global
competence to address the needs for business graduates competing on global markets.
Research Questions
This research study will address the following questions:
1. To what extent, if any, are there differences in perceived global competence domains
(cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) between business students who studied abroad
and those who did not study abroad?
2. To what extent, if any, does participation in study abroad experiences relate to students’
perceived global competence domains (cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal)?
3. To what extent, if any, for those business students who do study abroad, do the perceived
changes in their level of global competence domains (cognitive, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal) relate to their demographic information?
Significance of the Study
Global workplaces are increasingly demanding graduates with a strong knowledge of
global business skills and their application (OECD, 2017). Many higher education institutions
are beginning to incorporate programs into their curricula to meet the demands of the global
business environment. Such programs and initiatives include well-organized and effective study
abroad programs as one way to increase students’ global competence. There is a lack of research
supporting the effectiveness of study abroad programs despite the rising popularity among
students. Nationally, the number of U.S. students studying abroad for course credit during the
2015-2016 academic year grew by 3.8% from 313,415 students to 325,339 students (NAFSA,
2018). This represents just over 1.6% of all U.S. students enrolled at institutions of higher
education in the United States and about 10% of U.S. graduates. In the 2014 U.S. Business
Needs for Employees with International Expertise survey, almost 40% of companies surveyed
had to decline international business opportunities because of a lack of globally competent
employees (Daniel et al., 2014). Global economies need business graduates with global
perspective, awareness and an appreciation for cross-cultural differences. In order to respond to
challenges of the global business environment, educational leaders cannot afford to ignore this
essential aspect of higher education. There is a need for more studies addressing measurement of
specific global skills and experiences to guide student success initiatives and strategic goals set
by higher education institutions’ leadership teams.
Further, there is a lack of clear consensus on effective assessment of global competence
since researchers use the term interchangeably (global awareness, intercultural sensitivity). This
study will address current topics regarding clearly defined global competence, global citizens,
and existing studies on study abroad programs with a goal to focus on effective assessment of
specific levels of global scales through the Global Perspective Inventory (Braskamp et al., 2014).
Using the validated GPI instrument, I will explore relationships between study abroad
experiences and levels of global competence. Using a control group of students who did not
study abroad, I will seek to explore the differences concerning students’ global competence
levels.
While there are other instruments to measure the intercultural sensitivity, awareness, and
competence (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992; Chen, 1997; Chen & Starosta, 1996; Hammer, Bennett, &
Wiseman, 2003; Hett, 1993; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005), the GPI instrument is unique
because it measures all three domains (interpersonal, intrapersonal, and the cognitive) relative to
global competence with a study abroad component (Braskamp et al., 2014). This study has the
potential to expand research in other fields, in addition to business, with the goal of assessing
university-wide study abroad programs and perceived global competence of college students and
graduates. Given the numerous and sometimes unclear definitions of global competence, I will
provide an organized overview of global competence scales based on very specific questions
divided into cognitive, interpersonal, and interpersonal domains. Lastly, this study’s results
might provide a helpful resource for university leaders and program coordinators to build and
promote study abroad programs and guide conversations related to student learning and
institutional goals. As research shows, only about 10% of U.S. college graduates participate in
study abroad (NAFSA, 2018). The results of this study might assist in better promoting,
planning, and executing of study abroad programs to increase the participation rate.
Limitations of the Study
Based on the lack of research on the effects of study abroad programs, there is a clear
need for more studies and assessments of global competence. The current study has several
limitations. One limitation will be generalizability since it investigates a specific group of
students within one large public research university. The sample is most likely not representative
of all university students. The selection of business majors was based on a perceived interest in
global business acumen and knowledge of global economic functions. Those traits might not be
applicable to non-business students. Another limitation might be that the study uses a survey
design and students self-report skills and experiences. Responses to the survey questions might
be potentially superficial and inflexible to the scales provided with no space for written
feedback. However, many of the studies on the relationship between self-reports of college
students in educational experiences and self-reports of academic development have shown
beneficial results (Pike, 1995).
Another factor limiting the study is I did not take into account the socio-economic factor
of students and their family background. Even though some students qualify for study abroad
scholarships, the majority of the participants in the programs still need to provide substantial
funding. Selection bias is also another limitation as there might be pre-existing differences in
previous global experiences between students who studied and who did not study abroad. I also
do not possess knowledge of the extent of previous (if any) study abroad experiences. While this
study reviews study abroad experiences generally, additional investigations will also be needed
regarding different types of study abroad programs (geographical location, housing, experiential
initiatives, role of a faculty pre- and post-study abroad, and language competency).
Definition of Terms
Since many researchers and practitioners tend to use the same terms interchangeably and
at times with ambiguity, the following terms have been defined to clarify language used in this
research study.
Affective Domain—a set of behavioral characteristics related to emotions, values, and beliefs,
sense of self-identity and self-direction. (Bennet, 1993; Kegan, 1994; King & Magolda, 2005).
Also referred to as intrapersonal (Braskamp et al., 2014).
Business Students—college students who declared an undergraduate business major under the
College of Business at an American university. Business students in this study cover areas of
accounting, finance, marketing, management, global business, entrepreneurship, and business
analytics and information systems.
Cognitive Domain—one’s knowledge, understanding, application, analysis, and evaluation of
information and creation of ideas (Krathwohl, 2002). Cognitive domain takes into account the
cultural perspective and combines knowledge with a greater complexity of knowing (Bennet,
1993; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005).
Globalization—global interconnectedness due to a rise of technological advancements, rapid
communication, interdependence and movement of capital and people (Beck, 2018; Friedman,
2005; Guibernau, 2001; Woods, 1998).
Global Citizen—a person possessing global competence to be able to adapt to cultural
differences, to live, and to work effectively in another country (OECD, 2017; Sellar & Lingard,
2014; Snyder et al., 2008).
Global Competence—a set of skills, knowledge, and abilities to understand other cultures,
tolerate ambiguity, develop cultural self-awareness, obtain cultural knowledge, and cultural
sensitivity (Hammer et al., 2003; OECD, 2017). Some of the past and present literature suggests
there is no clear consensus about global citizenship and global competence.
Interpersonal Domain—one’s willingness to interact with others, feeling of being comfortable
while relating to people with different cultural backgrounds. (Bennet, 1993; Braskamp et al.,
2014; Kegan, 1994; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005).
Study Abroad—an activity involving college student(s) traveling outside the United States for the
purpose of taking one or more classes (in some cases at a foreign educational institution) taught
by either an instructor accompanying the student(s) or already teaching at that institution.
Summary
Many researchers and educational leaders suggested the need to educate graduates for
global competence and to equip them with skills to be able to compete in global markets
(AACU, 2018; Sutton & Rubin, 2004). This study addresses the relationship between perceived
global competence of business majors and study abroad participation. Since many university
leaders identified study abroad as means to gain global competence, this study explores whether
business majors possess global competence and to what extent it relates to their study abroad
experiences.
In the following chapter, the review of related literature presents what has been done and
what needs to be done in regard to global competence and study abroad assessment. Chapter 2
presents historical views on globalization, includes background on the development of the term
global competence and its definitions, and stresses out the importance of study abroad, global
citizenship, and global competence in college graduates.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between study abroad programs
and perceived levels of undergraduate business students’ global competence. This chapter
presents what is known about globalization, global citizenship, global competence, and about
study abroad programs for college students. It further reviews scholarly literature on the
internationalization of higher education, and summarizes some of the challenges such as the
demand for globally competent graduates and effective assessment of global competence.
Globalization
“Your Highnesses determined to send me, Christopher Columbus, to the countries of
India, to learn their disposition and the proper method of converting them to our holy faith; and
furthermore directed that I should not proceed by land to the East, as is customary, but by a
Westerly route, in which direction we have hitherto no certain evidence that anyone has gone.”
- Extract from The Journal of Christopher
Columbus (The History Guide, 2002)
To understand the concept of globalization, it is important to critically look at the
extended history of today’s society and seek the similarities of how the world functions today.
Over 500 years ago, Columbus left Spain with the Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa María and
sailed west to find a shorter, more direct route to India. Finding a better route meant a gain for
more power and wealth both for him and the Spanish King (Friedman, 2005).
His miscalculations led to the discovery of the New World and to a confirmation that the world
was indeed round. Columbus not only discovered America, but also began a new era of world
trade, and workforce mobility, which led to the modern age of globalization (Friedman, 2005).
Europeans started to demand tobacco and sugar while corn, beans, tomatoes, potatoes, and other
produce became popular in kitchen across the world. Europe benefited from growing new
produce as it helped to reduce the wide spread famine; China’s population boom, for example,
was a consequence of the import of sweet potatoes (Mann, Leipziger, & Canuto, 2011). As the
post-Columbus world experienced new channels of trade, labor migration, and technological
advances, globalization also possibly resulted in a few negative consequences and contributed to
international conflicts (O’rourke & Williamson, 2001). Disease played a deadly role in this era,
and not only for the Native Americans. Slavery evolved into means to import workers to the
Americas. Malaria, yellow fever, measles, and other deadly illnesses became endemic. As the
American silver trade proved critical in the building of the Chinese Great Wall, and became the
main currency for American colonies, it consequently fueled many wars in both East and West
continents (Friedman, 2005; Mann, 2011).
Globalization came to scholarly attention in the early 1990s (Beck, 2018). To many
researchers, globalization symbolizes the increasing integration and interdependence of local and
national economies, providing society with technological advances such as global broadband
connectivity, e-mail software, and search engines such as Google (Friedman, 2005; Hirst et al.,
2015; Longworth, 2012; Oxfam, 2018; Scholte, 2002). Others see globalization as a birth of
individualism and nationalism, increased inequalities between developed and developing
countries, and a rise of great challenges with regard to integration, cultural conflicts, and political
struggles (Berry, 2008; Schattle, 2008; Carano, 2018).
Both the dynamics and the struggles of global development have become dominant forces
leading to intellectual growth and to societies without boundaries (Friedman, 2005; Oxfam,
2018; Scholte, 2002). Operating only within a country’s own borders is no longer an option,
because national economies are becoming largely interdependent and borders are slowly
dissolving (Beck, 2018; Guibernau, 2001; Woods, 1998). Growing economic integration, driven
by technology, played a key role in lowering the cost for global business. Economic integration
enabled the expansion of business giants and multinational corporations such as Apple, Google,
IBM, Infosys, and Amazon (Friedman, 2005). Businesses, venture capitalists, management
consultants, and other professionals started to seek graduates and individuals who thrive in the
new and global environment (Schattle, 2008).
There are many reasons to see globalization as a progressive engine that improves
people’s lives. There are also arguments suggesting the opposite. According to Baylis, Smith,
and Owens (2017), globalization is merely a buzzword describing just another stage of
capitalism. Hirst and Thompson (2003) argued national governments appear almost powerless
under the idea of globalization without boarders where states are subject to global economic
trends. Probably the most common argument against globalization is that it has uneven effects.
According to Baylis et al. (2017), developed countries seem to get the most benefits, while still
developing countries, in reality do not see the same positive effects since not everyone has the
same access to technology or means to study and travel globally. Other critics also noted that
globalization enabled exploitation of the poorer nations and created a more divided world where
success is seen only through the lenses of the capitalistic Western nations (Baylis et al., 2017).
Regardless of the effects and different viewpoints between proponents and critics of
globalization, the 21st century brings a rapidly evolving age where societies and governments
become interconnected, and where people face challenges in regard to their traditional way of
thinking and communicating (Baylis et al., 2017; Friedman & Friedman, 2013). Preparation of
college graduates to meet the needs of the global economies poses a challenge not only to the
educators, but also to other stakeholders. Parents, students, and business communities ought to
take part in the system change to educate future generation to thrive in the interdependent and
globalized environment. As institutions provide students the opportunity to face challenges of
globalization, students will realize the importance of global markets and thus increase their
chances for successful employment (Kedia & Daniel, 2013).
Globalization in a business context. The dynamics driving globalization and integration
can be seen in multinational companies (Friedman, 2005). The expansion of transportation
systems due to railroads and later due to combustion engines enabled a rise in joint ventures and
capital investment companies. The invention of telegraphs, telephones, personal computers (PC),
fiber-optic cables, and the internet enabled fast speed communication across the oceans, mobility
of workforce, and disintegration of bricks and mortar due to e-commerce (Beck, 2018).
Economic growth set the global economy on a path of growing income levels with the
employment boom, and with the creation of trade agreements such as North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Asia Pacific Economic Corporation (APEC), Association of South
East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and uniting Europe under the European Union (Mourdoukoutas,
2015). With the increasing impact of globalization for business enterprises and environments, the
key questions for educational leaders began to focus on the identification of specific skills
needed for students to compete globally (Kedia & Daniel, 2013). Employees with global
competence, foreign language skills, and international business degrees are needed to meet the
demands of global businesses (Caligiuri & Sinha, 2010; Dunning, 2014).
According to researchers, successful managers should possess some type of formal
education and training in international business, regardless of the scope of their position with
foreign operations or export/import businesses (Ali & Garg, 2017; Dunning, 2014; Nehru 1997).
Based on a “US Business Needs for Employees with International Expertise” survey developed
by Kedia and Daniel (2013), as an extension to the Moxon et al. study (2001), there is a need for
a globally competent workforce. The survey confirmed an increasing growth of global presence
of US companies as an important strategic goal. Based on the collected data, 80% of the
surveyed companies believed that if their employees had better global skills education, their
operations and consequently profit would increase. Understanding cross-cultural differences,
possessing international skills in management, and foreign language skills were all noted as very
important to successfully compete in global markets. Lastly, the two most important conclusions
based on the analyzed data were that employers believed there should be a stronger international
business emphasis in higher education institutions, with an increased focus on learning about
other cultures, countries, and regions (Kedia & Daniel, 2013).
Given the importance of employees possessing global competence to increasing company
profits, sustain growth, and develop new products and services, it is up to the education
institutions to take necessary steps and promote global opportunities, such as study abroad, for
business students. If corporations prefer to employ business graduates with global competence,
that is, the skills, knowledge, and capacity to understand and act on issues of global significance,
U.S. educators face a new critical imperative to prepare their students accordingly (Cascio &
Boudreau, 2016). Business students should be equipped for roles in an environment where
success increasingly requires the ability to compete, connect, and cooperate on an international
scale. Building on best practices, global business curricula and effective programs seem to be a
viable approach for educational institutions to meet the requirements of rising global markets
(Kedia & Daniels, 2013).
Globally competent managers are critical for the future success of many multinational
ventures. Recognizing this human resources need, many companies and HR departments have
launched global management and global leadership business programs to prepare their future
talent (Caligiuri & Santo, 2001). Using focus groups, Caligiuri and Santo led a research study to
assess the differences in global competence in terms of specific dimensions of knowledge,
abilities, and personality characteristics of their new employees before and after their global
leadership development programs. The study concluded that the knowledge dimensions of global
competence can be developed, and that personality characteristics do not change when
employees take on a global task. Finally, employees scored lower on the global ability dimension
during and after global assignment suggesting that they become more sensitive to different
cultures and environments. In other words, these employees now “know what they do not know”
(Caligiuri & Santo, 2001, p.27). Other researchers in the area of global business have also
followed this trend by analyzing the impact of global practices on the multinational corporation’s
bottom line. According to Stroh and Caligiuri, developing leadership through developmental
cross-cultural assignments was ranked one of the top five practices leading to increased profit
and efficiency (1998). Their study showed a positive relationship between a companies’ bottom-
line financial success and their ability to develop global leadership competence successfully
(Caligiuri & Santo, 2001).
Other experts in global management and leadership development agreed that in order for
the majority of multinational companies to stay profitable and competitive, they must properly
train and develop their young employees to face international business challenges (Adler &
Bartholomew, 1992). Many business organizations offer students and graduates the opportunity
to start their career training in a global leadership development program. Students are assigned to
work in foreign subsidiaries and are often part of a rotational program that can last up to two
years in a specific location (Thaler-Carter, 2001). Considering the results of Caligiuri and
Santo’s (2001) study and the amount of resources spent on global business development
programs by multinational companies, global competence should be part of business students’
academic experiences. Study abroad programs might be helpful in creating such environments
where students are encouraged to communicate, make decisions, solve problems, and adapt to
new life situations in order to develop into future global leaders. As many researchers agreed,
one way to measure readiness of graduates to thrive in the global environment is the scale of
global competence (Asia Society, 2018; Braskamp et al., 2014; Hunter et al., 2006; OECD,
2017).
Theoretical concept of global competence
As more researchers began to study various types of learning strategies for gaining global
competence, Bennett (1993) established a developmental model for intercultural sensitivity
(DMIS), conceptualizing orientations toward cultural differences based on different stages of
personal growth. The specific kinds of experiences spread across the continuum from
ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism (Wurzel, 2004). The most ethnocentric experience, according
to Bennett (1993), was the denial of cultural difference, followed by the defense against cultural
difference. In the middle of the continuum is the minimization of cultural difference leading to
the ethnorelative form of acceptance of cultural difference. The sequence of these experiences
became the stages of the DMIS (Wurzel, 2004). The DMIS constitutes ethnocentric orientations
(Denial, Defense, Minimization) and three ethnorelative orientations (Acceptance, Adaptation,
Integration). Adaptation and integration lies at the heart of the model where students take the
opportunity to participate in study abroad experiences (Bennett, 1993).
The assumption that Bennett held is as one’s experience of cultural difference becomes
more complex, one’s potential competence in intercultural relations increases (Hammer, Bennett,
& Wiseman, 2003). The term intercultural sensitivity refers to a conscious status of recognizing
and relating to cultural differences and global competence, and describes the ability to act and
think in a globally acceptable manner (Hammer et al., 2003).
Several researchers have suggested that global competence is the same as global-
mindedness and have described it as one’s worldview reflecting a connection to a global
community, responsibility and respect shown to its members and their environment under the
lenses of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors (Carano, 2018; Hett, 1993). While developing a
measurement instrument for assessing global-mindedness, Hett (1993) examined the idea of
college students’ perspective on global communities, and the development of a worldview in
their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. A total number of 396 undergraduate students at the
University of California, San Diego, completed Hett’s (1993) Global-mindedness scale.
Significant differences in scores showed among students who participated in globally focused
programs and activities and those who took five or more global studies courses, with females
scoring higher than their male counterparts (Kehl & Morris, 2008).
In a Stanley Foundation study presented in 1996 by the American Council on
International Intercultural Education (ACIIE) titled Educating for the Global Community: A
Framework for Community Colleges, the definition of the globally competent learner was an
individual who is:
able to understand the interconnectedness of peoples and systems, to have a general
knowledge of history and world events, to accept and cope with the existence of different
cultural values and attitudes and, indeed, to celebrate the richness and benefits of this
diversity. (Hunter et al., 2006, pp. 130-131)
The idea of students possessing global competence articulates the kind of knowledge and skills
needed in the 21st century. Globally competent students are informed about world issues, have a
better understanding of cultural difference, and are well equipped to make a difference in society
(Asia Society, 2018). As OECD’s (2017) Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) exam of 15-year olds in developed countries around the world suggests, a cultural
perspective is defined as one of the key component of global competence. According to Bennett
(1993) and Winn (2003), to establish and appreciate different worldviews, one should consider
as many cultural perspectives as possible. In addition to that, one also should be interested in
other cultures, become culturally sensitive, be willing to accept cultural differences, and take
appropriate actions to respect other cultures (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992). In the Perez-Vidal (2014)
study, 82 students from six colleges and universities participated in a survey to determine their
intercultural experiences relative to their developmental capacities and intercultural maturity.
Perez’s study confirmed and expanded on King and Baxter Magolda's (2005) Model of
Intercultural Maturity as the final data revealed additional developmental features within the
initial, intermediate, and mature levels of the model.
In the context of a global environment, both models of Intercultural Maturity and
Intercultural Sensitivity led to the development of the six Global Perspective Inventory (GPI)
scales (Braskamp et al., 2008) used to measure students’ perceived gains of global competence in
relationship with study abroad experiences. Further, the models also support the refinement of
the three personal developmental dimensions – cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal.
Perspectives on Global Competence
The term global competence has been used and discussed in areas of education, sciences,
technology, and skills development (Bennett, 1993). Lambert (1996) analyzed global
competence as set of skills empathizing with others, being knowledgeable of current events, and
having the ability to understand foreign values (Bird & Osland, 2004; Hunter et al., 2006). An
international education initiative, called global competence, was first reported in 1988 by the
Council on International Education Exchange with a goal to promote exchange programs to
universities abroad and to send American students to countries where English was not the main
language (Hunter et al., 2006).
Deardorff (2009) recognized that global competence must relate to one’s ability to
function in different cultures, similar to one of the key dimensions of Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) (OECD, 2017). In her research, Deardorff also noted
that in order to possess global competence, one must be able to effectively communicate and
cooperate with people from other cultures with different worldviews. Across the variety of global
competence definitions and terms, there seems to be a consensus that global skills are necessary
for students in order to effectively live in an evolving society and successfully compete in the
global career marketplace.
In support to this consensus, the Swiss Consulting Group, a transnational management
consulting company with two decades of operational experience, published in Global
Competence Report 2002 a definition of global competence as “the capacity of an individual or a
team to parachute into any country and get the job done while respecting cultural pathways”
(Hunter et al., 2006, p.274). The report further stated that global competence is a necessary skill
of communication, diverse leadership, best practices, and influence on the world (Swiss
Consulting Group, 2002).
Even though there seems to be no one definition of global competence, the existing
literature provides numerous key concepts that have similarities with respect to the sectors of
education, business and government. Early research concerning workers’ professional
development, cognitive behavior, and skills defined competence as a specific performance
measure (Bowden & Marton, 1998). The idea behind the competence movement involved
specification of necessary skills for each sector within variety of industries. As workers gained
required skills and knowledge, they became experts in given tasks and their competence to
perform increased. As globalization became more prominent in the business industry, the term
global competence emerged.
Researchers at times interchangeably used global competence with terms such as
intercultural competencies and intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 1993; Chen & Starosta, 1996;
Deardoff, 2004). However, a majority of the literature defines it as a set of skills, knowledge, and
abilities to understand other cultures, tolerate ambiguity, develop cultural self-awareness, obtain
cultural knowledge, and cultural sensitivity (Cascio&Boudreau 2016; Hammer et al., 2003;
OECD, 2017; Schattle, 2008; Scholte, 2002; Vance, 2005 ).
For this current study, I followed the definition of the 2017 PISA Assessment by the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as it addresses the latest
development in global environment and market demands:
Global competence is a multidimensional capacity. Globally competent
individuals can examine local, global and intercultural issues, understand and
appreciate different perspectives and worldviews, interact successfully and
respectfully with others, and take responsible action toward sustainability and
collective well-being. (OECD, 2017, p. 4)
As educational institutions started to adopt versions of global competence and embed its key
components into their curricula, businesses leaders also realized students that demonstrated the
competence became more employable. The gap between what businesses sought in graduates
and what educational institutions offered began to be bridged (Bowden & Marton, 2003).
Continuing on the newly developed trend of global skills proposed by the business environment,
the educational focus has shifted from passive to an active learning environment where students
acquire skills, knowledge, and abilities in professional settings and are able to read, write,
discuss, and analyze specific issues (Bonwell & Eisen, 1991). These researchers argued that as
students gain knowledge and think about what they do, they are able to learn more effectively,
and understand problems presented to them as well as interact with others in a professional
manner.
For this study, the operational definition of global competence expands on active
learning, but mainly provides a basis for understanding of the three personal development
dimensions on how students think (cognitive), view themselves (intrapersonal), and relate to
other people from different cultures and backgrounds (interpersonal) (Braskamp et al., 2008). In
addition, the operational definition provides understanding about student’s perceived recognition
of cultural context, awareness of other cultures and their impact on society, accepting one’s
identity, and being interdependent when engaging with others.
Educating for Global Competence
Many researchers acknowledge global competence as an important international business
skill for ongoing student career success (Hunter et al., 2006; OECD, 2017; Passarelli & Kolb,
2012; Vance, 2005). The development of global competence can not only assist college
graduates with future careers, but also promote their cultural awareness and interactions with
other cultures (OECD, 2017). Studies on global competence have indicated a positive effect on
measures of worldmindedness (Hett, 1993) and the general international knowledge (Anderson &
Lawton, 2015, Archambault, 2015) of students involved in activities with cross-cultural content.
Research further showed students, who were exposed to international content in their classes or
studied abroad, demonstrated a greater level of foreign language skills, knowledge of world
geography, and attitudes to other cultures (Shcheglova et al., 2017). As a result, students gained
the ability to communicate effectively in cross-cultural situations, related appropriately in a
variety of cultural contexts, and became globally competent.
The role of higher education in educating for global competence. There is an
increased recognition that promoting the importance of diversity and global context in education
is inevitable (Cummings, 2001; Shcheglova et al., 2017). The National Education Association
(NEA) argued that public education is a key platform through which students and future
graduates gain global competence (Van Roekel, 2010). According to the NEA President,
educational institutions should re-examine their policies, goals, and strategies to provide students
with skills enabling them to thrive in the global society (Van Roekel, 2010). Snyder et al. (2008)
suggested a system of building global competence based on individual ability to thrive in global
environments. As the education institutions create conditions and environments for students to
grow, develop, and embrace diversity, students will ultimately become globally competent
citizens. Cascio and Boudreau (2016) argued that globally competent citizens have significant
knowledge of world geography, current world affairs, and are aware of their role in the world. As
other researchers pointed out, geographic knowledge is an important and sometimes overlooked
part of building global competence (OECD, 2017; Trivedi, 2002).
As many research universities embraced the responsibility to prepare students to live and
work in a world that is both multicultural and global, they also realized the importance of
creating a global strategy to fulfill the task of educating students for global competence.
According to Shcheglova et al.’s (2017) research, universities across the U.S. introduced a
variety of tasks aimed to fulfill the responsibility:
1. internationalizing strategic planning;
2. internationalizing curricula;
3. developing study abroad programs;
4. increasing the number of international students on campus;
5. requiring foreign language proficiency;
6. creating international internships;
7. hiring international faculty;
8. incorporating international contributions into the faculty reward system;
9. upgrading senior international officers’ reporting relationships;
10. placing senior international officers on key council committees;
11. drawing upon the expertise and experience of immigrant communities; and
12. forging global partnerships.
As each university has its own perceived mission, these tasks were clearly set with each
of its strategic priorities and goals. The importance and connection between study abroad,
foreign languages, and geography as a platform to build global competence can be seen in other
studies. According to Trevedi (2002), the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the developed
countries in the daunting task of to educating for global literacy, which ought to be a priority.
According to the National Geographic – Roper 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey,
the majority of American students, especially those, who are minorities and low income, fall
behind their counterparts in other developed countries for subjects such as geography, foreign
languages, math, and science. The survey polled more than 3,000 students in the ages of 18-24
from Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, and the U.S.
Sweden scored the highest, Mexico the lowest and the U.S. was next to last (Trivedi, 2002).
Based on the results, about 11% of young citizens of the U.S. could not locate the U.S. on a map;
29% did not know where the Pacific Ocean is; and, 69% could not locate the United Kingdom
(Trivedi, 2002). As many researchers agreed, having a sufficient knowledge of geography is a
great asset for future business leaders as it emphasizes the importance of places, territories as
well as cultures and people related to specific space (OECD, 2017; Trivedi, 2002).
In order to compete in the global world, each nation needs to develop individuals who
possess global competence. The goal of higher education institutions both across the U.S. and
across the world ought to be to produce graduates as high performing citizens and leaders who
possess global competence (Knight, 2004; Osfield & Terrell, 2009). Some researchers suggested
there is a lack of match between the theoretical focus on global competence and actual
curriculum development (Snyder, James, & Fredriksson, 2008). Based on Snyder et al.’s (2008)
study, educational institutions do not seem to pay enough attention to pedagogy that effectively
prepares students to enter the global workplace. Even though institutions spend resources on
global competence and raising awareness about the importance of educating for a global society,
only a few of these concentrate on schooling in a global society, effectively addressing both
social development and workforce preparedness within curriculum (Snyder et al., 2008). More
studies are needed to support educational institutions with up-to-date information about the
importance of global competence concerning student workforce development and preparedness.
A study supporting the need for curriculum adjustment to address global competence was
led by Friedman & Friedman (2013). They argued that the relationship between education and
globalization could be seen as the changed relationship between education and economies. In the
past, the environment enabled traditional approaches to education such as developing skilled and
reliable workforce, however, the new global economy calls for a different set of skill. Moxon et
al. (2001) further called for classroom instruction that addresses the necessary issues about
complex global environments and their effects on college students. International education in the
United States has the responsibility to educate its students on foreign cultures, languages,
diplomacy, and to assist with students’ global skill development to become competitive in the
global career markets (Moxon et al., 2001).
Educating students for global competence requires different programs in global
education, intercultural exchanges, global citizen projects, and cultural sustainability (OECD,
2017; Pashby, 2018; Ross & Davies, 2018). Students possessing global competence might not
have a specifically defined set of skills but rather a plethora of knowledge and attitudes leading
to problem solving, support for individual encounters with different cultures, and a critical
reflection on global differences (OECD, 2017).
As each institution of higher education sets goals to produce competitive and successful
candidates thriving in the global world, it also needs to rethink the current curriculum, and
concentrate on developing students’ ability to think critically, and appreciate diversity. Education
for global competence is designed to promote cultural awareness, interactions with diverse
societies and the ability for young people to appreciate the global environment, and cooperation
(Griffith, Wolfeld, Armon, Rios, & Liu, 2016; OECD, 2017).
Student participation in activities enhancing global competence, such as study abroad
programs, is a key strategy for universities to successfully educate their students in global issues
and prepare them as 21st century professionals and leaders (Institute for International Education
(IIE), 2018). College curricula and their developmental changes play crucial roles in students’
processes to gain needed information about business systems, technologies, cultures, and social
responsibility. In addition to receiving classroom knowledge, college graduates need to be savvy
in global competence, cooperation, and social responsibility (Archambault, 2015). As a result,
universities, colleges, and their governing bodies are being held to a higher level of
accountability by their stakeholders—students, parents, and communities—for the resources they
receive (Black & Duhon, 2006; Gillespie et al., 1999).
Oxfam (2018) stressed that educational institutions ought to offer curricula including
diversity, cultural sensitivity training, knowledge, and attitudes fostering global-mindedness. As
Bakke and Tharp (1996) pointed out, “Global education is too important to delay, too vital to be
ignored, and too urgent to be frustrated by indifference or ignorance” (p. 11). If university
leaders support the development of programs recognizing cultural differences, adaptation in
foreign environments and successful communication with people from different cultures and
background, students can gain in perceived global competence levels.
Global Citizenship
Strategic development of global competence is a key asset for many students in the 21st
century. As new global competency tests have been implemented worldwide since 2018 under
the new PISA assessment, intercultural competencies play an important role in global citizenship
education (Reimers, Chopra, Chung, Higdon, J., & O’Donnel, 2016). According to the
international organization Oxfam (2018), a global citizen is someone who is aware of the world
and has a sense of his or her own role as a world citizen. Studying and living abroad increases
one’s respect and value for diversity and promotes understanding of how the world works
economically, politically, socially, culturally, technologically and environmentally (Oxfam,
2018; IIE, 2018).
The idea of global citizenship has gained popularity in recent years with the goal to
educate students to be morally responsible, culturally competent, aware and perceptive citizens
(Banks, 2015). According to Kubow, Grossman, and Ninomiya et al. (2000),” Citizenship
understood as membership in an interconnected, global world challenges us to define ourselves
in a much broader context, to expand our concept of citizen identity to include global identity, as
well as our local, state and national ones” (p. 132).
Global citizenship might seem to many still new or even experimental, however when
studied closely, one can see the roots going back to a cosmopolitan tradition dating back to
ancient Greece, or about 2500 years ago (Davies, Evans, & Reid, 2005; Schattle, 2008). Ever
since Socrates and Diogenes proclaimed themselves as citizens of the universe, many researchers
illustrated the variety of global citizenships across humanity (Beck, 2018; Thaler-Carter, 2001).
Rather than being a simple noun, global citizenship is a membership or a permanent assignment
from nation to state. The concept signifies the way of thinking, living, and acting throughout
multiple global communities (Schattle, 2008).
Citizenship might not be an equal kind of experience for all people within the same
border or living in a particular country (Falk, 1994). There are varying degrees of citizenship,
taking into consideration class, race, religion, gender and socio-economic status. As Falk (1994)
argued, there are two types of globalization effects on citizenship. The “from-above” reflecting
politics and economics of a state leading to large-scale capital formation epitomized by
McDonalds, Hilton, Disney, Coca-Cola, etc. (p. 39). And the “from-below” globalization seeking
the world without borders, fighting social injustice and creating global civil society built upon
“moral, legal, and environmental accountability to those now acting on behalf of state, market,
and media” (p. 40). For many people, today’s global citizen term means more than “Think
globally, act locally.” It has evolved into “Think and act locally and globally” (Schattle, 2008).
For college students, this idea suggests that they do not have to travel across the globe to become
global citizens; rather they can get involved by thinking and living with the global concept in
mind.
Schattle (2008) argued that a global citizen is someone who understands the role as world
citizen, who participates in both local and global community, and takes responsibility for own
actions. The concept of global awareness, as described by Schattle, links with “one’s
consciousness of oneself and the outside world” (p. 27). Global citizenship in the connection to
awareness stresses how an individual explores self-awareness and respect to the outside world (p.
28). Many researchers use global responsibility interchangeably with global citizenship.
However, according to Schattle’s 2008 study, global responsibility equals moral obligations,
increased awareness and a sense of “with rights we also need to face responsibilities” (p. 33). In
practice, the concept of participation closely relates to active involvement and intentional
influence on people when being exposed to them (Schattle, 2008). As students explore their own
global awareness and responsibility to the world, they will also find different ways and activities
to collaborate and participate (USF Global Citizens Project, 2013).
Global Citizens Project. While we experience the increased global interdependence, one
of the educational priorities is to produce globally competent citizens who can make ethical
decisions in the diverse work setting (Gurin, 2014). Numerous colleges and universities in the
U.S. have launched strategic programs to educate their students on global matters and develop
them into global citizens (AACU, 2018). A few examples of global innovative programs include
building community partnerships for ethical global engagement at Wabash College,
interdisciplinary studies of global engagement at Stockton University in Galloway, integrative
approaches to global learning at Nebraska Wesleyan University, or global learning for global
citizenship at Florida International University (AACU, 2018).
In an effort to understand and assess global impact, study abroad experiences, and
classroom activities on students’ success, the University of South Florida in Tampa has adapted
the three qualities of Global Awareness, Global Responsibility and Global Participation studied
by Schattle (2008). Following USF’s vision to become a top global research university, the
Global Citizens Project (GCP) was established in 2013 as a part of USF’s Quality Enhancement
Plan to assist with implementing global strategies to achieve the institution’s vision. The GCP is
a university-wide student success initiative that concentrates on increasing global competence of
USF’s undergraduate students. Following the institution’s Strategic Plan for the 2013-2018
academic year to prepare “well-educated and highly skilled global citizens through our
continuing commitment to student success,” the GCP set specific pathways to achieve this goal
(GCP, 2013).
According to the GCP (2013), these are the key competencies to assess students
regarding global objectives (see Figure 4):
Global Awareness—students will explore their role in the world and be ready for changes
Global Responsibility—students will connect with diverse environments, interact with
people and solve global issues
Global Participation—students are encouraged to make a difference in the world, both
locally and globally
Figure 3. Global Components of the USF Global Citizens Project
(GCP, 2013)
For any undergraduate student interested in developing global citizen skills, the GCP has
several ways to achieve this goal and if successful, students can receive the Global Citizen
Award. Study abroad experience is one of the award requirements in addition to attending global
events, community service or foreign language coursework. For the institution, besides
improving their students’ global skills and increasing their chances to obtain a meaningful career,
there is also as assessment feature. Students are invited to participate in the Global Perspective
Inventory (GPI) that analyzes global perceptions and attitudes based on what they think
(cognitive), how they perceive themselves (intrapersonal), and based on the relationship with
people from other cultures (interpersonal) (GPI, 2014). In addition to globally focused programs,
activities, and global studies courses, many institutions still primarily focus on student exchange
(Snyder et al., 2008). The idea behind this specific programming is to gain global experiences
and enhance learning about other cultures. However, as Snyder et al. (2008) argued, student
exchanges are not sufficient to develop students as global citizens. The key question is what
institutions can do in addition to already existing programs. As the research further suggested,
global citizenship is more complex and it requires personal growth based on an extended number
of experiences, rather than solely on one. As students gain new skills and build global
competence, with each additional experience they build a stronger knowledge of their role in the
world.
Study Abroad
The college curriculum and its developmental changes play a crucial role in students’
processes to gain needed information about the global world, business systems, technologies,
cultures, and social responsibility. Many institutions have invested financial resources into
designing offices of study abroad, global engagement, and international studies. The common
goal of these programs is to assist students to become global citizens equipped with skills to
respond to the challenges of a global environment (Florida International University, 2018).
One of the highly immersed experiences to gain global competence is the study abroad
experience, educationally enriching and potentially life changing (Kuh, 2001). Students often
gain better perspective on world issues, comprehend and adapt to diverse cultures and languages,
and grow academically and personally (Anderson et al., 2011; Archambault, 2015; Nguyen,
2012). A powerful educational tool, study abroad experiences help students acquire significant
skills to become global leaders possessing knowledge about foreign cultures, events, and roles
(NAFSA, 2018). In addition, study abroad programs enable students to gain a new worldview,
cultural perspectives, improve their adaptability to different environments, broaden their social
network, and increase global business competitiveness (Passarelli & Kolb, 2012).
Academically, study abroad has also been a leading mechanism for students to learn
additional languages and gain global competence (Paige et al., 2002). Many academic programs
have targeted specific groups of students based on academic disciplines and level, leading to
defining of major-related learning goals, satisfying degree requirements, and overall improving
students’ cultural awareness (Passarelli & Kolb, 2012).
Over the past few decades, higher education internationally has shifted its attention to an
increase of students’ global competence by employing a variety of strategically planned
initiatives and study abroad programs (American Council on Education (ACE), 2018).
According to the ACE report, the majority of students and higher education leaders strongly
support international efforts, and many parents consider international education opportunities
when making college or university selection (ACE, 2000). Global learning can provide a variety
of experiences and connections valuable throughout students’ careers and lives. Carlson, Burn,
Useem, and Yachimowicz (1990) discovered a direct link between students who studied abroad
and an increased interest in international career opportunities as students discovered the potential
of the newly developed global competence. In a study conducted by the Institute of International
Education (IIE), students reported significant gains in the areas of intercultural skills, self-
awareness and confidence, as they also realized new career opportunities as emerging global
leaders (AACU, 2018).
The Lincoln Commission’s report and the future of study abroad. As an answer to a
call for an increase of U.S. international involvement and global education, the U.S. Congress in
2005 established the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Commission (Durbin, 2006). The goal of
the Lincoln Commission was to send one million college students to study abroad each year for
10 years to increase engagement with other cultures, languages, and economies. In addition, the
program outlined specific goals to create platforms for more globally informed American
citizens, to increase participation in quality study abroad programs, to encourage diversity in
student participation in study abroad, diversity in locations (particularly in developing countries),
create innovate partnerships, and establish study abroad as a cornerstone of undergraduate
education (NAFSA, 2018).
Given this nation-wide initiative and a needed governmental support, it came as no
surprise that many of the U.S. leaders supported students’ experiences of studying abroad given
the countries’ national security issues, international economic competitiveness, and a need for
global leaders in the current political climate (Durbin, 2006).
What nations do not know can hurt them. The stakes involved in study abroad are that
simple, that straightforward, and that important. For their own future and that of the na-
tion, college graduates today must be internationally competent. (Durbin, 2006, p. 4)
Despite many national and state level efforts to successfully asses the outcomes, there is still
little research regarding the effectiveness of the global competence goal. Universities regularly
report increased numbers of international students and study abroad programs participation.
However, not enough evidence exists regarding increased student global competence resulting
from the undergraduate experience at a major research university (Shcheglova et al., 2017).
Study abroad outcomes. Overseas experiences are marketed to students as preparation
for a global business career, a way to increase cross-cultural perspectives, and broaden
knowledge of business practices in other countries (Orahood et al., 2004). Students gain many
skills, abilities, and knowledge from study abroad programs. Ranging from enhancing cross-
cultural competencies, communication, cultural tolerance to empathy, newly gained skills
through studying abroad can increase students’ marketability and improve their chance for
business careers (Orahood et al., 2004; Trooboff & Berg, 2008). Cross-cultural competencies are
becoming an extremely important commodity in the fast changing world seeking competitive and
globally aware graduates (OECD, 2017). As both opportunities and challenges, the global
environment presents for future graduates not only chances to learn but also to benefit from
global participation (Pashby, 2018).
The literature further suggests study abroad has a valuable effect on students’ learning
outcomes. However, it is not clear if these effects are long term or if they are correlated with
multi-cultural student engagement on campus (Sutton & Rubin, 2004). In 2008, the AACU
published High Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and
Why They Matter (Kuh, 2001). This publication examined the value of study abroad activities in
relation to producing student success as one of the education outcomes. Backed by National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) annual survey data, the publication recognized study
abroad activities as part of “fostering broad knowledge of human cultures and the natural world”
(Kuh, 2001, p.17). According to the education research conducted by Dr. Kuh and the AACU,
there are several beneficial teaching and learning practices – High Impact Educational Practices
contributing to students’ engagement and retention (AACU, 2010). In 2017, NSSE survey data
regarding High Impact Educational Practices indicated that study abroad experiences accounted
for 13% of all U.S students who participated in High Impact Educational Practices with Arts &
Humanities, Communications, and Business, as the top three participating major categories. The
results are consistent with the demand for business students possessing global competence that
can be gained by study abroad programs, and with education outcomes set by universities.
Study abroad participation. Many colleges and universities across the United States
have committed to increase their students’ participation in studying abroad. For example, the
University of Minnesota set a goal to send abroad 50% of its undergraduate student body within
the next decade; Harvard University requires its students to study abroad, and San Francisco
State University’s goal was set to double its study abroad numbers within five years. Michigan
State University with its already strategic international curriculum increased the focus on
studying abroad in nontraditional countries. Other universities are finding ways to increase
participation by offering scholarships, fellowships, and academic credits to their students
(NAFSA, 2018).
Given some of the benefits, including gaining global competence, both the past and
present research conducted on study abroad addresses only a small portion of the overall student
body. While many students may be able to take part in the study abroad process, study abroad
programs have relatively low student participation rates (Institute of International Education,
2018). Based on the 2017 Open Doors Report, 325,339 U. S. college students participated in
study abroad programs in the academic year of 2015-16, representing an increase of 3.8% from
2014-15 academic year (see Figure 3). A growth of 76% can be seen when comparing the
academic year 2001-02 to 2015-16, with business (21%) and STEM (25%) majors being the
most common majors to study abroad (Institute of International Education, 2018). Further, 63%
of students studied abroad for summer or less than eight weeks versus 35% who studied for a
semester, or one or two quarters (Institute of International Education, 2018).
Figure 4. U.S. College Students’ Participation in Study Abroad by Major Fields of Study
(Image replicated based on Open Doors “Fast Facts”, The Institute of International Education, 2018)
To increase the number of participants, several major research universities placed study
abroad programs in their curricula in order to encourage their students to meet degree
requirements and in some instances, even graduate earlier than students who do not study abroad
(University of Florida (UF), 2018). The UF Heavener School of Business encourages its students
to participate in study abroad programs as a part of their business skills development. An
international trip or an internship is in fact a requirement for all business majors before they
graduate (University of Florida, 2018). At the University of South Florida (USF), there are
several programs and degrees with a study abroad requirement (University of South Florida,
2018). The Muma College of Business honors program at USF offers students a scholarship to
help offset the cost of a required study abroad program. Similarly, the Zimmerman Advertising
Program (ZAP) at USF supports its students with scholarships to ensure all students participate
and satisfy the global requirement. At the Muma College of Business, students enrolled in a
global business major must study abroad in order to graduate with that degree. Since one of the
Muma College of Business’ strategic priorities is global literacy and impact, both students and
college leaders value global engagement and include global components in parts of the
curriculum (USF, 2018).
As the importance of study abroad grows and becomes more sophisticated, so does the
need to assess and evaluate the effects on business students’ academic progress, career choices,
and individual perspectives (Orahood et al., 2004). However, the body of research supporting
claims about study abroad benefits is limited. Based on a report regarding the Outcomes
Assessment and Study Abroad Programs, less than 10% of institutions surveyed had outcome
assessments in place. Such a lack of data is concerning as institutions might not be able to
provide sufficient justification of resources spent on study abroad programs. More research on
student learning outcomes and perceptions is needed to provide reliable and valid evidence for
institutional leaders to assist with program expansions and innovative student learning (Orahood
et al., 2004). This study intends to bridge the gap in the literature regarding study abroad
outcomes and students’ perceived level of knowledge, skills, and abilities gained.
Assessment of study abroad programs. Study abroad includes a variety of programs
differing in length, goals, learning outcomes, and missions. Study abroad programs are mainly
voluntary and self-financed. In order to measure success of these programs, institutions need to
examine their effectiveness from various angles. Study abroad administrative staff usually collect
opinion surveys (Cash, 1993) directly from the students who participate in study abroad
programs. In some surveys, researchers ask students to express their satisfaction with classes,
credits, and housing. In other surveys, students evaluate the overall experience including
personal goals and traits (Care & Kim, 2018; De Poli, Vergolini, & Zanini, 2018). The feedback
given in these surveys is helpful for building and improving study abroad programs and getting
institutional support. Other surveys look into individual autonomy, cognitive flexibility,
interethnic tolerance, and world-mindedness (Carlson & Widaman, 1988; Paige et al., 2002;
Ryan & Twibell, 2000).
Black and Duhon (2006) in cooperation with the British Studies Program Consortium
conducted research on study abroad programs involving 25 North American business college
students. In their study, the authors assessed cultural awareness of business students participating
in a summer study abroad program in London, England using a pre- and post-survey instrument.
Students were surveyed at the beginning of a study abroad program, and then again at the
program’s conclusion. They assessed the program’s objective on specific dimensions: cross-
cultural tolerance, cultural empathy, self-confidence, and personal autonomy (Black & Duhon,
2006). Based on the survey results, students consistently increased the levels of all measured
dimensions. The percentile increases occurred in a range from 7.7 points to 17.3 points. The data
indicated the program enhanced cultural awareness and personal development. These changes
were also in accordance with the intended educational outcomes of the study abroad program for
each of the participating universities (Black & Duhon, 2006). In this case, no comparison group
was used to see if students could also enhance their awareness and personal development by
staying over the summer in their home country or by traveling on their own.
Watson and Wolfel (2015) explored a semester study abroad program and its relation to
language proficiency and intercultural competence. They argued that language and intercultural
competence were the most common outcomes of study abroad programs. While using Hammer’s
(2009) definition of intercultural competence as “the capacity to generate perceptions and adapt
behavior to cultural context” (p.5), the researchers also addressed three dimensions students
experienced while abroad. First was a body of knowledge such as basic facts about cultural
norms and taboos; second as a set of skills, such as language, communication and negotiation
skills, among others; and finally a set of attitudinal attributes to allow interaction with people
from other cultures, such as empathy, tolerating ambiguity or self-efficacy (Watson & Wolfel,
2015).
Watson & Wolfel (2015) analyzed data based on pre- and post-surveys from participants
in the academic semester abroad program between spring 2011 and spring 2013. A total number
of 225 participants traveled in 11 countries around the world. The researchers used the
Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Hammer 2009; Hammer et al., 2003) to assess
the students’ pre- and post-study abroad intercultural and language competence level. Results of
this study showed statistically significant positive change scores in all pre- and post-language
immersion tests. Only around 5% of participants experienced a negative gain, which researchers
attributed to likely test/performance variability. However, in case of the intercultural
competence, 27% of participants from the 2012 cohort scored lower on the post-test than on the
pre-test (N = 47 of 175). Researchers attributed this to a “reverse culture shock” upon return to
their home country since the students responded to surveys shortly after they finished their
experiences abroad. The Watson and Wolfel’s (2015) study suggested a more evidence-based
research to be conducted on study abroad planning and programming.
Other studies assessing the level of students’ global competence showed a positive
cognitive impact because of study abroad programs (Braskamp et al., 2009). Both quantitative
and mixed methods studies (Doyle, 2009) analyzed the understanding of cultural differences and
learning information about the host country. In the Ingraham and Peterson (2004) study, student
participants answered questions regarding their intellectual and personal development using 19
scales. Students reported increases in both measured areas and reported a deeper learning
experience.
To continue the valuable and ongoing process of study abroad assessment, the University
System of Georgia set forth a GLOSSARI project in response to its Board of Regents call for a
sustained initiative that placed a high priority on study abroad (Sutton & Rubin, 2004). Having
achieved the Board’s goal of doubling the numbers of Georgia students who studied abroad in
2001, the Board’s strategic plan called for a 25% increase in study abroad participation by 2007
(approximately 6,200 students). The System Office of International Education collected detailed
demographic student information and information on students’ study abroad experiences (coun-
try of study, duration, etc.). The GLOSSARI results from the self-reported learning outcomes of
study abroad participants and non-participants showed that students who studied abroad had bet-
ter learning outcomes than those who did not. Students who studied abroad were 10% more
likely to graduate in four years and 25% more likely to graduate in five years, relative to students
who did not. The knowledge gained through study abroad experience helped students become
more globally aware and culturally sensitive. More specifically, students who studied abroad ex-
ceeded the control group in cultural relativism knowledge, world geography, and knowledge of
global interdependence. The groups did not show any significant difference in verbal acumen
and interpersonal accommodation. (Sutton & Rubin, 2004).
While many of the studies concluded study abroad has a positive impact on students,
several researchers pointed out other factors that might have additionally contributed. In 2013,
Salisbury et al. conducted a study to account for several other variables, such as institutional
characteristics, college courses related to global business studies, students’ ethnical background,
and the perceived level of global competence prior to studying abroad. The study found that
students with diverse experience and background had significant advantages in developing
intercultural competence and equal, or in some instances, superior competence, to study abroad
experiences.
The length of study abroad programs has a significant impact on learning outcomes
(Dwyer, 2004; Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004). The longer students spend
abroad; the greater effect on learning outcomes. Despite this outcome, the recent trends in study
abroad showed a rising popularity among short-term programs (8 weeks or less). Approximately
58% of U.S. college students participating in study abroad programs chose a short-term option
(Redden, 2011). Further, in 2012-13, only 3% of the study abroad population spent an entire
academic year abroad. Research suggested that short-term programs have been more popular due
to time constraint, on time graduation requirements, and financial resources. For first-time
abroad students, short-term programs become an easier way to adapt to the global environment
and make for an easier transition into a longer period of time spent abroad (Nam, 2011).
Business Students
Many university leaders acknowledge that graduates of business schools may lack key
skills needed to acquire successful careers in business (Orahood et al., 2004). The demand for
cross-cultural communication, managing cultural differences, awareness of peoples’ varying
backgrounds, and understanding of global impact has been the priority for many employers
(Anderson & Lawton, 2015). According to the QS Global Employer Survey Report (Giolando,
2016), more than 80% of employers reported a preference for hiring students with study abroad
experience. Furthermore, more than 60% of employers sought graduates with global experience
in the field of finance and management. Global economies seek professionals with the ability to
take on international assignments that require a certain level of global competence (Orahood et
al., 2004). Strategies to incorporate global competence in business curricula include increasing
the number of business students studying abroad, expanding programs with foreign language
components, and embedding global issues into major business classes (Lokkesmoe, Kuchinke, &
Ardichvili, 2016). Based on several research studies, both students and their parents believe that
studying abroad and acquiring global competence enhance career opportunities (Anderson &
Lawton, 2015). As a result, many colleges and universities now design study abroad programs
strictly for undergraduate business students (Orahood et al., 2004).
Findings from a variety of studies suggest that considerable attention be given to
effective program assessments, learning outcomes, and students’ feedbacks to enable university
leaders and program coordinators to improvement their programs. Colleges and universities
should design programs based on students’ needs and learning objectives. Evaluating and
assessing study abroad experiences considering the cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal
aspects can provide beneficial feedback to decision makers. Knowing how many students studied
abroad is not equivalent to understanding whether students acquired useful knowledge.
This current research study intends to add to the existing literature a perspective that has
been missing from the literature. By adding the cognitive evaluation of students’ perceived
global competence in relation to study abroad experiences, this study will add valuable
information on competence assessment. Further, this study is introducing the Global Perspective
Inventory survey instrument, which measures the perceived levels of global competence and
study abroad participation.
Summary
According to US News and AIM Overseas, an increasing number of employers seek
graduates with both academic (“hard”) and non-academic (“soft") skills (IIE, 2018). The ability
to communicate with a diverse population, manage cross-cultural teams, adapt to changing
circumstances, and the willingness to learn through experience are all examples of the type of
skills students need to possess in the 21st century (OECD, 2017).
The need to assess global competence has been of interest to many higher education
institutions (AACU, 2018; Sutton & Rubin, 2004). Colleges and universities across the nation
have developed a variety of strategies to prepare their students to become globally ready, aware,
and engaged as global citizens. In order to support the understanding of the concepts of
globalization and global citizenship, higher education institutions are likely to promote an
increased level of active participation in study abroad programs. The study abroad component of
global competence plays a significant role in institutional vision and strategic goals. Prior
research such as GLOSSARI or British Studies Program Consortium have shown the usefulness
of study abroad in relation to academic and personal goals (Black & Duhon, 2006; Sutton &
Rubin, 2004).
Only a few studies have examined the relationship between study abroad program
participation and the perceived levels of global competence of business students using the GPI.
Since institutions do not offer global competence courses as a part of a major, it proves difficult
to measure learning outcomes of programs geared toward student global competence
development. If, however, specific measures are implemented as a part of academic programs
and initiatives with global components, university leaders can have a better way to assess their
accomplishments and resources spent toward educating students to become globally competent.
The next chapter addresses the process of selecting the research design of the study,
research questions, population and sampling, and data analysis. It also describes the
instrumentation and its linkage to the research questions; more specifically identify survey
questions and their relationships to the instrument.
Chapter 3
Methods
The purpose of this study was to explore the perceived global competence of business students at
a large public research university in Florida. Additionally, this study specifically examined
whether participation in study abroad related to the levels of cognitive, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal components of business students’ global competence. This chapter presents the
research design, research questions, population, sampling, survey instrument, data collection,
variables, data analysis, and summary.
Research Design
This quasi-experimental quantitative study aims to explore the mean differences in global
competence levels in pre- and posttest assessments of undergraduate business students at a large
public research university in Florida. Quantitative research methods focus on testing objective
theories by examining relationships among variables (Creswell & Crewel, 2017). The variables
and constructs are measured by using an instrument, and data are analyzed through statistical
procedures. Quantitative method researchers test and explore specific theory; build protection
against bias, and control for alternative explanations (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). In particular,
this study utilized data collected through a validated survey instrument in order to explore three
research questions. The goal of this survey design was to collect quantitative data and explore the
relationship between the treatment and the particular outcome (Creswell, 2003). Survey design
was selected to understand the participants’ perceptions of a specific situation and compare it to
a control group. The survey method is one of the most frequently used types of self-research
reporting (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). Researcher used survey instruments in order to obtain
standard information from the participants, analyze numerical data and generalize findings
(Mertens, 2014).
The global initiatives office at the Florida institution surveys registered students each
semester using a validated instrument, the Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) (Braskamp et al.,
2014), in order to measure the level of their global competence. The current study used
secondary data of a portion of this already collected quantitative data. This research design
involved three steps: (a) administering a pretest measuring students’ level of perceived global
competence; (b) using study abroad participation as a treatment group and those who did not
study abroad as a control group; (c) administering a posttest, again measuring students’ degree of
global perspective in both groups. Differences attributed to study abroad participation were then
evaluated by comparing the pretest and posttest score of both the treatment and the control
groups.
Research Questions
This study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent, if any, are there differences in perceived global competence (cognitive,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal) between business students who studied abroad and those
who did not study abroad?
2. To what extent, if any, does participation in study abroad experiences relate to students’
perceived global competence (cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal)?
3. To what extent, if any, for those business students who do study abroad, do the perceived
changes in their level of global competence domains (cognitive, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal) relate to their demographic information?
Population
The target population for this study was the undergraduate business student body at a
large research university. In particular, only business students registered for spring 2018 courses
were considered for participation in the study. Students’ academic level ranged from freshman to
seniors. The largest proportion of students who participated in the survey were seniors (37%),
followed by juniors (29%), sophomores (12%), freshman (16%), and other (6%). The
demographics of students who received the survey were as follows: 58% male and 42% white
undergraduate business level. Out of the 4,437 undergraduate business student population
registered for the spring 2018 term (See Appendix A), the percentage of students studying
abroad was 5% as there were 204 undergraduate business students who studied abroad during the
summer 2018 term (USF Education Abroad, 2018). The major with the most participating
students (25%) in the study abroad program was global business with 50 students, which is not
surprising given students declaring this major have a requirement to engage in a study abroad
trip. The major with the second largest participation was advertising with 37 students (18%),
who also are required to study abroad (USF Education Abroad, 2018).
While the global institute office surveys only about 2% of all registered students per
semester at the institution, to accommodate this study additional students were added to the
regular sampling plan for the survey. Business students, who registered for spring classes at a
large research public institution in central Florida, were selected by census. The census, which is
a sampling frame, aimed to represent the whole population of interest and included the
undergraduate business students registered for spring 2018. Since the population of this specific
college was not large, it was reasonable to include all students. The definition census means
there is an attempt to gather data on every member of the population (National Statistical
Service, 2018). The advantages of a census include increased level of accurate information for
the subdivision of the population and if a satisfactory response rate is achieved, the researcher
can collect detailed data for a small segment of the population (National Statistical Service,
2018).
Sampling
The Global project office administered the pretest survey in the spring 2018 semester. A
total number of 267 undergraduate business students responded and there were 243 usable data
in this data set. The posttest survey in the fall/winter semester of 2018 accounted for 156
respondents. The control group consisted of 82 students who did not study abroad during
summer 2018, while the treatment group consisted of 74 students who studied abroad during the
same period. These two groups were used in the data analysis to assess study abroad and
perceived global competence levels as per the purpose of this study.
Given the university undergraduate business student population for the spring 2018
semester was reported as 41% seniors, 34% juniors, 17% sophomores, and 8% freshman (see
Appendix A for student profile data), this study sample was representative of the population.
Chapter 4 discusses the sample in detail.
Survey Instrument
The central component of the study was an already existing and validated instrument.
Braskamp, Braskamp, and Engberg designed the Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) in 2014.
They constructed the GPI tool based on a theory of holistic human development and intercultural
communication. The GPI concentrates on three dimensions: cognitive, intrapersonal, and
interpersonal dimensions in regards to a multicultural environment. Nearly 200 higher education
institutions in the U. S. and abroad used the GPI to assess intercultural competencies, study
abroad experiences, and global learning (Global Perspective Inventory, 2014). Development of
this tool utilized the following frameworks.
Development. The first framework used to develop the Global Perspective Inventory
measure focused on Kegan’s (1994) intercultural maturity development theory. It stresses the
concept of human growth based on meaningful engagements as a process of gaining experiences.
In this process, people think, become aware of feelings and establish relationships with others.
Kegan’s model further reinforces the theory of constructive-developmental stages and builds on
the work of several developmental theorists (Tinberg & Weisberger, 1998). Kegan (1994) argued
that people, as they go through different stages of their lives, engage in meaning making (i.e.,
reasoning about their sense of belonging in the world). In addition to the reasoning and thinking,
people also realize the importance of their feelings and building relationships with others as they
explore different stages of their lives (Braskamp et al., 2009).
King and Baxter Magolda (2005) refined Kegan’s (1994) theory reflecting college
students’ social-cultural development and connected it within the context of global community as
a concept of intercultural maturity. This framework provided a base to build questions about
interpersonal social interaction and relativity to the students’ own ethnical backgrounds.
The second framework, which led to the development of the Global Perspective
Inventory, was the intercultural communication theory (Chen & Starosta, 1996). This theory
recognized three main domains: cognitive (thinking), affective (feeling), and behavioral (relating
to others). According to Chen and Starosta (1996), people are developing all three domains
simultaneously as they progress in their emotional maturity, find their own sense of identity, and
are able to relate their experiences to others. As students learn throughout their college journey,
they also engage in various perspectives, become more internally derived, and increase their
human interactions based on cultural understanding (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005). The
intercultural communication feature was implemented in the survey questions with a focus on
knowledge of global issues, respect for cultural differences, and engagement with differences
and cultural sensitivity (GPI, 2004).
The goal of the GPI was to assess cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal components
of students’ global competence effectively. There were two separate sections in the GPI
instrument with 37 and 35 questions, respectively. The 37 items concerned students’
demographic information: class status, field of study, parents’ highest level of education, average
grade earned in college, number of courses completed in the field of global learning, college
experience and participation, previous study abroad experience, in addition to ethnicity/race and
age. See Appendix B, GPI survey instrument, for detailed questions. The 35 core items utilized a
Likert-type scale to assess the degrees of agreement (1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree)
within each of the cognitive, intra- and interpersonal components (domains). Each of the
domains also addressed two scales. One scale reflected the cultural development theory, while
the other informed the intercultural communication theory. See Table 1 for scales description.
Table 1
Description of Scales and Dimensions of GPI
Note. Adapted from Research Institute for Studies in Education (2017). Reprinted with permission from
GPI (RISE), Iowa State University.
The GPI instrument aimed to address each of the three scales from both the
developmental and the communication perspectives relative to multicultural issues. The
cognitive scales include knowing and knowledge perspectives and focus on intercultural
development and the way students gain knowledge about global issues. The intrapersonal scales
address identity as one of the key concepts in students’ development, and further focused on
affect related to intercultural communication. The interpersonal scales include social interaction
based on communication theory, and social responsibility in terms of interdependence and
concerns for others. See Appendix B for survey questions addressing each scale.
Cognitive scales. Scales centered on a students’ knowledge and the level of
understanding were defined as cognitive. These items included a perception of knowledge and
knowing taking into account complexity and different cultural viewpoints. The two scales were
Knowing (Appendix B, questions 1, 6, 7, 16, 19, 20, and 30) and Knowledge (Appendix B,
questions 8, 13, 17, 21, and 27):
• The Knowing scale is a seven-item component reflecting cultural development
theory and elevates the importance of cultural context in regard to what students
should know and value.
(Example: When I notice cultural differences, my culture tends to have the better
approach, see Appendix B, question 1)
• The Knowledge scale, which is a five-item component based on the intercultural
communication theory, assesses students’ understanding and awareness of other
cultures and the impact on the society.
(Example: I am informed of current issues that affect international relations, see
Appendix B, question 8)
Intrapersonal scales. The intrapersonal scales address the awareness and integration of
students’ values and self-identities. The scale focus on purpose in life, personal characteristics
and sense of self and include the ideas of living in a multicultural environment. The two scales
are Identity (Appendix B, questions 5, 14, 26, 32, and 34) and Affect (Appendix B, questions 22,
23, 25, 31, and 33)
• The Identity scale is a six-item component about cultural development theory and
reflects the awareness and acceptance of one’s identity and sense of purpose.
(Example: I have a definite purpose in my life, see Appendix B question 2)
• The Affect scale is a five-item component about intercultural communication
theory addressing respect, acceptance of cultural differences and emotional
awareness.
(Example: I am open to people who strive to live lives very different from my
own life style, see Appendix B question 33)
Interpersonal scales. Interpersonal scales focus on students’ willingness to engage in
interaction with people from different cultural and social backgrounds, address the issue of
acceptance of others, and the level of comfort in relating to others. The scales center on the way
students view others and how they related to others in terms of moving from dependency,
independence, and interdependence. The two scales are Social Responsibility (Appendix B,
questions 5, 14, 26, 32, 34,) and Social Interactions (Appendix B, questions 4, 24, 29, 35)
• The Social responsibility scale is a five-item component addressing cultural
development theory and assessing interdependency and concern for others.
(Example: I think of my life in terms of giving back to society, see Appendix B
question 5)
• The Social interaction scale is a four-item component reflecting intercultural
communication theory in regard to engagement with people who are different and
it assesses cultural sensitivity.
(Example: Most of my friends are from my own ethnic background, see Appendix
B question 4)
Validity. The validity of the GPI instrument has been addressed by researchers
(Braskamp et al., 2014) following the guidelines of the American Educational Research
Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council for Measurement in
Education (1999). The validity demonstrated a satisfactory degree to which evidence and theory
supported the interpretations of test scores (Braskamp et al., 2014). The researchers addressed
three types of validity: face, concurrent, and construct (Global Perspective Inventory, 2014).
Face validity addressed the extent to which the GPI is perceived as reasonable and fair to
students who took the survey. After researchers developed the original survey design containing
100 items, students and experts provided their feedback, which resulted in 69 items for a pilot.
The researchers then evaluated, revised, and sorted these items based on conceptual usefulness
for addressing holistic student development from a global perspective (Braskamp et al., 2014).
With concurrent validity, the researchers observed the degree of correlation with other
instruments designed to measure similar characteristics. Anderson (2011) conducted pre-post
assessment of business students, primarily junior-level, and used two different instruments.
Among the available and validated instruments, Anderson chose the GPI and the IDI
(Intercultural Development Inventory), developed by Hammer and Bennett (2002). Anderson
(2011) concluded that several correlations were statistically significant, but none high enough for
a substantive relationship between the scales of the two instruments. Anderson further concluded
both the GPI and the IDI were appropriate in order to assess intercultural competencies of
students.
Finally, with construct validity, Braskamp et al. (2014) observed the degree to which the
GPI results empirically supported the related constructs and concepts. There were several
studies conducted, which addressed the construct validity of the GPI regarding questions such as
the factor analysis of certain items, change in students over time, study abroad impact on one’s
development, and relationships among the six developmental scales (Global Perspective
Inventory, 2014).
Reliability. Reliability refers to the consistency and coherent patterns in responses to the
similar items over time (Mertens, 2014). Braskamp et al. (2014) examined the test-retest
reliability of the GPI instrument in order to reflect consistency of students’ responses to the
survey questions before and after study abroad experience. Statistical analysis using coefficient
alpha was conducted to determine internal consistency of each of the six global competence
scales. Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency and scale reliability. It measures
how closely related a set of items are as a group. A coefficient alpha value of over .70 is
acceptable in most social sciences studies (Gliem & Gliem, 2003). The closer alpha is to 1.0 the
greater the internal consistency of the items in the scale. Five out of six GIP scales scored over
.70, the Cognitive-Knowing scale result was slightly below .70. (See Table 2 below regarding
coefficient alpha reliabilities among the scales)
Table 2
Coefficient Alpha Reliabilities of the GPI Scales
Scale
Coefficient
alpha
Cognitive-Knowing
.657
Cognitive-Knowledge
.773
Intrapersonal-Identity
.740
Intrapersonal-Affect
.734
Interpersonal-Social Responsibility
.732
Interpersonal-Social Interaction
.700
Note. Adapted from Braskamp et al. (2014). Reprinted with permission from GPI (RISE) Iowa State
University.
Data Collection
Data were gathered from students by the global institute office at two points: at the end of
the spring 2018 semester, and during the fall/winter 2018 semester. In the spring 2018 semester,
students, who registered for business classes, received an online survey with a link to a consent
page. See Appendix C for the information found in the general student form. After agreeing to
the conditions, students proceeded to take the Global Perspective Inventory (2014) instrument
constructed as an online survey tool (Qualtrics, 2018) and provided to students as an individual
link (Appendix C). The Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) is a web-based assessment
instrument, which focuses on individual experiences and the development of a global perspective
(Research Institute for Studies in Education, 2018). For this study, I conducted a secondary data
analysis of the original data collected by the global institute office based on IRB approval
(Appendix D) and survey instrument proof of purchase (Appendix E). The student sample
consisted of two groups: (a) control group—students who did not study abroad, and (b) treatment
group—students who studied abroad. Each student answered 35 questions related to six global
competence scales and 37 questions about demographic information and student’s educational
background.
Variables
According to Gall et al. (2007), variables are conditions or factors researchers observe
and analyze with regard to their relationship. In a study, a researcher is interested in a cause and
effect relationship between variables. The dependent variable for this study was the GPI scale
and change scores in the scores, and the independent variables were the students’ demographic
information and study abroad experience. The control variables were previous global
experiences, global courses, and cultural/ethnical background.
Dependent variables. The GPI survey consisted of six scales with a core of 35 items.
The questions were based on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree) and were meant to measure students’ degree of global perspective. Eight of the core items
were coded in reverse order ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The results
for research question one were based on calculating a mean of the items within each of the
scales. A high mean for all items signified a more positive level related to a specific dimension
of students’ global perspectives. For research questions two and three, a change score was
calculated as the difference between the two scores and the result was used as the dependent
variable.
The dependent variables were the outcome measures of each of the six scales of the GPI
survey instrument. These measures were:
a) Knowing (Cognitive scale), complexity of thinking.
b) Knowledge (Cognitive scale), knowledge of multicultural issues.
c) Identity (Intrapersonal scale), self-acceptance and purpose.
d) Affect (Intrapersonal scale), respect and acceptance of cultural differences.
e) Social responsibility (Interpersonal scale), interdependence and social concern.
f) Social interaction (Interpersonal scale), engaging with difference and cultural
sensitivity.
Independent and control variables. The independent variables were based on the
answers collected in the demographic questionnaire as a part of the GPI survey instrument (see
Appendix B). The demographic information regarding the student group included gender, school
status, level of parents’ highest education achieved, completion of a global issue lecture, and if
the student is an American student at an American university or not. Gender options for were
female, male, and other. For citizenship status American student, non-American student, and
other. If a student answered “non-American”, the “skip logic” option in the survey led to a
question about a country of origin where a blank text box appeared. The demographic
information was included in the statistical models to determine if the group was a representative
sample of the overall population. As gender, ethnicity/race, class level, and education achieved
by students’ parents are often used to explain specific patterns such as graduation, student
success, retention, involvement, etc., the researcher included this data to seek and explore the
possible existence of such patterns in study abroad and global competence levels. Since gender,
school status, ethnicity/race, and parental education were all continuous variables, they had to be
recoded as dummy variables. The reference variable for gender was Female, for school status
Senior, for ethnicity/race European/White, and for parental education Graduate school.
Independent variable of interest. The independent variable of interest (specifically for
research question 2) was students’ study abroad experiences. Survey question number 66 (see
Appendix B), asked about the lengths of study abroad experiences prior to the semester students
would be taking the survey. Quarters/semesters; short/summer, two terms, and more were the
length parameters. The study controlled for any previous study abroad experiences to avoid bias
in the data. There is a large body of research in regard to demand for global competence and
study abroad programs as important part of students’ college experience. However, there is a
lack of assessment in respect to direct relationship between study abroad programs and global
competence, which is what this study sought to investigate.
Extraneous variables. There are several extraneous variables the study controls for in
order to increase the internal validity and minimize within-group variance. Among these
variables were class status (controlling the maturation effect), fluency in other languages
(students from other countries might have scored higher in global perspective), and time spent
abroad (students who lived abroad might have scored higher in global awareness and
perspective).
Data Analysis
This study employed a multiple regression model method to examine the relationship
between study abroad experiences and perceived global competence while accounting for a
variety of variables (Gall et al., 2007). Quantitative analysis was conducted using SPSS 25 (IBM
Corp., 2015). There were 197 undergraduate business student responses to the survey conducted
in the spring 2018 semester. Out of the 197 pretest participants, 156 responded to the posttest
survey. The control group consisted of 82 students who did not study abroad in the summer of
2018 (nor were part of the December 2018 program), while the treatment group consisted of 74
students who studied abroad in the same period. The study used these two groups in the final
analysis to assess study abroad and perceived global competence levels.
After obtaining the post-study abroad survey secondary data, duplicates were removed
and responses were matched based on students’ unique ID concerning pre- and posttest scores.
Cohen’s d was used to measure the effect size between two means. Descriptive statistics (mean,
standard deviation, and standard error mean) were used to summarize the distribution within
each of the six global competence scales. Descriptive statistics describes sets of data and serve as
a tool to summarize and reduce the properties of mass of data (Glass & Hopkins, 1996). Prior
studies of global competence estimated effect sizes, η2 (eta squared) both medium at 0.25
(Awaida-Nachabe, 2017) and large at 0.57 (Wallenberg-Lerner, 2013). Cohen’s d was measured
by calculating the mean difference between the control and the treatment group, and dividing the
result by the pooled standard deviation (Gall et al., 2007). Cohen (1988) suggested that η2 = 0.2
be considered as small effect size, 0.5 as medium effect size, and 0.8 a large effect size. These
values were found to be 1.25 (Cognitive Knowing) and 1.08 (Cognitive Knowledge), revealing
very large effect sizes (Cohen et al., 2003), which indicates that the difference between the two
groups was substantial.
This study utilized multiple linear regression models (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken,
2003) to explore the relationship between changes in means for each group within each scale in
research questions 2 and 3. The following research questions were paired with the appropriate
statistical tests.
Research Question 1. To what extent, if any, are there differences in perceived global
competence domains (cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) between business students who
studied abroad and those who did not study abroad?
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data as distribution; mean and standard
deviation distribution were calculated for each of the six scales. Each of the posttest scores of the
six scales were averaged for each group of students (those who participated in study abroad and
those who did not). In addition, the study used t tests to determine if there was a statistically
significant difference between the means of the control (did not study abroad) and treatment
groups (studied abroad).
Research Question 2. To what extent, if any, does participation in study abroad
experiences relate to students’ global competence domains (cognitive, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal)?
I used multiple regression to test for significant differences in mean ratings of importance
among the identified global competence scales. Data were analyzed based on two time points:
pre- and posttests for each matched group of students in both the control (did not study abroad)
and the treatment (study abroad) groups. I calculated the change scores for each student per the
six scales by taking the difference between point A (before study abroad) and point B (after
study abroad). For those who did not study abroad, I calculated the change scores by taking the
difference between point A (spring 2018) and point B (fall/winter 2018). The multiple regression
models enabled the assessment of the relationship between the predicted variables (global
competence scales) and several predictor variables (demographic information) as well as the
independent variable of interest—study abroad.
Research Question 3. To what extent, if any, for those business students who do study
abroad, do the perceived changes in their level of global competence domains (cognitive,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal) relate to their demographic information?
I also used multiple regression analysis to explore the relationship between the students’
change on each of the six global competence components and the participant’s demographic
information. Demographic information as collected in the survey included: gender, class status,
ethnicity/race, global issue course completion, more than one foreign language knowledge, level
of parents’ highest education achieved, and if the student was American or not. Multiple
regression models were used since the independent variable (demographic information) has more
than two categories. The researcher also coded in dummy variables for any categorical
independent variables and identified reference variables. For gender, Female was the reference
variable; for ethnicity/race European/White; for class year, senior status, and for parental
education, some graduate school. The primary strength of this model was the ability to assess the
magnitude of the overall relationship between the predictor and the predicted variable. Further,
the model was able to predict how much each predictor uniquely contributed to the relationship
(Gall et al., 2007). For each research question, the study tested assumptions such as linear
relationship, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity to determine any possible violations that
could prevent the utilization of this model.
Summary
This exploratory quasi-experimental research design studied perceived global
competence levels and participation in study abroad experiences of business undergraduate
students. The study sought to understand if participation in study abroad had a relationship with
business students’ global competence concerning cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal
dimensions. The study utilized a validated instrument to measure six scales of specific skills,
attitudes, and behavior needed in today’s global society. I analyzed data based on survey
responses from business undergraduate students in two semesters: spring 2018 (before study
abroad) and fall/winter 2018 (after study abroad). The control group (did not study abroad)
comprised students who did not study abroad over the summer 2018, and the treatment group
(studied abroad) comprised students who studied abroad over the summer 2018. To analyze the
three research questions of this study, the study utilized descriptive statistics and multiple linear
regression models.
The next chapter, Chapter 4 addresses the analysis of the data, which were collected in
the pre- and posttest survey to understand the differences in the global competence scales
concerning study abroad experiences and other independent variables. Chapter 4 also relates the
findings for the three research questions discussed.
Chapter 4
Results
The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between perceived levels of
undergraduate business students’ global competence and study abroad participation. Pre- and
posttest data were collected and analyzed in order to answer the following three research
questions:
1. To what extent, if any, are there differences in perceived global competence (cognitive,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal) between business students who studied abroad and those
who did not study abroad?
2. To what extent, if any, does participation in study abroad experiences relate to students’
perceived global competence (cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal)?
3. To what extent, if any, for those business students who do study abroad, do the perceived
changes in their level of global competence domains (cognitive, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal) relate to their demographic information?
This chapter summarizes the data analysis and explains sampling and study participants. It
further provides statistical test results for each of the research questions, and includes a summary
of findings.
Sampling
A total number of 267 undergraduate business students participated in the GPI pretest
survey in the spring semester of 2018. There were 243 usable cases in this data set.
The posttest survey was administered in the fall semester of 2018 (until January 2019), to
account for specific study abroad experiences obtained by the participating students in the
summer semester of 2018, with an additional group of students studying abroad in December
2018.
Pretest. Out of the 243 participants, 197 students did not have any previous study abroad
experience, while 46 students reported having previous study abroad experience. An independent
samples t test was conducted to compare the mean scores of the six competence levels for each
group. The results of the t test revealed the students who had previous study abroad experience
scored higher on all of the competence scales than the students who did not have any prior study
abroad experience. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, to remove bias of any previous study
abroad experience, only the students with no previous study abroad experience (197 participants)
were included in the sample.
Posttest. Out of the 197 pretest participants, 156 responded to the posttest survey. The
control group consisted of 82 students who did not study abroad in the summer of 2018 (nor
were part of the December 2018 program), while the treatment group consisted of 74 students
who studied abroad in the same period. The study used these two groups in the final analysis to
assess study abroad and perceived global competence levels.
Participants
Based on the demographic information collected in the GPI survey, the following tables
were constructed to present the demographic characteristics of the participants. Students were
identified based on study abroad participation and cross tabulated with gender, class status,
ethnicity/race, age, global issues course completion, fluency in more than one language, and
parents’ highest level of education.
Gender. Table 3 contains descriptive statistics regarding student gender for both the
control and treatment groups. On the GPI survey, available options for gender were female, male
and other. Female participants comprised 49% of the sample and out of this number, 61%
reported to have studied abroad. Male participants also constituted 49% of the overall
participants and compared to the female participants only half as many males (32%) reported
studying abroad. As observed in the literature and a multitude of study abroad programs among
different universities, women made up approximately two-thirds of the students studying abroad
(NAFSA, 2018; Redden, 2018; Statista, 2018). Out of the 74 students who studied abroad, 32%
were males and 64% females. Provided the majority of business students (58%) are males, the
results suggest this group to be underrepresented in the study abroad participation. These results
are consistent with the general nationwide trend of females as the predominant gender who
participate in study abroad programs.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Gender and Study Abroad
Gender
Study Abroad
Study Abroad
Total
Total
Yes
No
Yes
College of
(n)
(n)
(%)
(n)
Business (%)
Female
47
30
64
77
42
Male
24
52
32
76
58
Other
3
0
4
3
0
Total
74
82
100
156
100
Class year. As indicated on Table 4, the largest proportion of students who took the
survey were seniors (37%), followed by juniors (29%), sophomores (12%), freshman (16%), and
other (6%). Of the seniors, who participated in the study, 54% studied abroad, almost half of the
juniors (46%) studied abroad, of the sophomores who participated, 37% studied abroad, and 28%
of freshman who participated, studied abroad. This study suggested seniors were the leading
group within the class year who studied abroad, followed by juniors, with sophomores and
freshman showing similar participation figures. This finding indicated that as students mature,
they are more likely to study abroad. However, based on previous studies and literature, juniors
make up the majority, about 34%, followed by seniors with 20%, sophomores 13%, and
freshman 4% (NAFSA, 2018; IIE, 2018).
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for Class Year and Study Abroad
Class Year
Study Abroad
Study Abroad
Total
Yes
No
Yes
(n)
(n)
(%)
(%)
Freshman
7
18
28
16
Sophomore
7
12
37
12
Junior
21
25
46
29
Senior
31
26
54
37
Other (5th year)
8
1
89
6
Total
74
82
47
100
Ethnicity/Race. Participants of the survey also reported their ethnic identity. Data in
Table 5 depict the majority of students as European/White with 51% reported to have studied
abroad. Out of the study abroad group, the second largest ethnic group reported was African-
American (19%), followed by Asian (12%), and Hispanic (9%). Based on the annual Open
Doors report (IIE, 2018; Redden, 2018), 71% of students who study abroad are White, 10%
Hispanic, 8% Asian, 6% Black, and 4% Multiracial (IIE, 2018). This study’s results confirmed
the general nationwide trend of European/White students as the predominant ethnicity/race who
participated in study abroad programs. The sample was similar to the nationwide participation
rates. The sample was also representative of the college’s population.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for Ethnicity/Race and Study Abroad
Ethnicity/Race
Study Abroad
Study Abroad
Total
Total
Yes
No
Yes
College of
(n)
(n)
(%)
(n)
Business (%)
African American
14
18
19
32
8
Asian/Pacific Islander
8
11
12
19
7
European/White
38
40
51
78
48
Hispanic/Latino
7
5
9
12
19
I prefer not to respond
7
8
9
15
18
Total
74
82
100
156
100
Global issue course completion. As shown in Table 6, each of the participants also
responded to a question regarding the completion of a global issue course while in college. The
majority of students in both study abroad and non-study abroad groups (47 students) were found
to had never taken a global issue course. Out of the study abroad group, 23% of the students had
taken one course, while 24% of students had taken two global issue courses. Only 9% of the
students who studied abroad reported to have taken at least three global issues courses.
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics for Global Issue Course and Study Abroad
Global Issue Course
Study Abroad
Study Abroad
Total
Yes
No
Yes
(n)
(n)
(%)
(n)
None
26
21
35
47
1 course
17
18
23
35
2 courses
18
27
24
45
3 courses
6
13
9
19
4 courses
7
3
9
10
Total
74
82
100
156
Fluency in foreign language. Table 7 indicates the fluency in foreign language of the
participants. The results revealed the majority (58% of all students) are not fluent in another
foreign language, which was indicated by none. The study abroad group reported 18% of
participants spoke another foreign language, whereas the non-study abroad group indicated only
11% spoke another foreign language. However, 14 students (17%) in the non-study abroad group
reported speaking two foreign languages, almost double than in the study abroad group (11%).
This finding may be related to the IIE (2018) report suggesting there is a positive trend of
increasing numbers of international students studying at American universities.
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics for Fluency in Foreign Language and Study Abroad
Foreign language
Study Abroad
Study Abroad
Study Abroad
Total
Yes
No
Yes
No
(n)
(n)
(%)
(%)
(%)
None
38
53
51
65
58
1
13
9
18
11
14
2
8
14
11
17
14
3
7
4
9
5
11
4
6
1
8
1
4
5
2
1
3
1
2
Total
74
82
100
100
100
Highest achieved education level by parents. According to the data in Table 8, the
majority of the students who studied abroad responded having parents with some graduate
school education (42%). The majority of the students, who did not study abroad, were found to
be split evenly between parents’ highest achieved education of some graduate school (31%) and
graduate degree (31%).
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics for Parents Highest Achieved Education and Study Abroad
Education Level
Study Abroad
Study Abroad
Study Abroad
Total
Yes
No
Yes
No
(n)
(n)
(%)
(%)
(n)
Less than HS
6
5
8
6
11
HS
14
14
19
16
28
Some college
6
7
8
9
13
College
2
6
3
7
8
Some grad school
31
25
42
31
56
Graduate degree
15
25
20
31
40
Total
74
82
100
100
156
Note. HS = High School
GPI Scales
Table 9 contains comparison data between the six global competence scale levels in the
pre- and posttests for both the control and the treatment groups. The average scores for each of
the scales as well as the corresponding standard deviations are reported. In addition, I calculated
a change score as the difference between the two scores and used the result as the dependent
variable in the multiple regression analysis as described in the analysis and results of research
questions 2 and 3. Any changes in the means of the pre- and posttest scores represented change
scores, which I calculated by posttest minus pretest score and this value can be a positive or
negative value. The study utilized independent t tests for each of the six scales to evaluate the
changes in the means of the dependent variable (scales).
All of the six scales for the treatment groups reported statistically significant differences
in the mean changes for students’ global competence (see Table 9 for change scores in each of
the scales). An example of a large difference in change scores between students who studied
abroad and those who did not was found in the Cognitive Knowledge scale with a gain of .8000
for the treatment group, and a loss of -.0353 for the control group. The rest of the change scores
ranged from the highest .6955 in the study abroad group to the lowest (loss) -.0353 in the group
that did not study abroad.
Table 9
Mean and Standard Deviation of GPI Scale Relative to Pre- and Posttest scores and Study
Abroad Participation
GPI Scale
Study
Abroad
(SA)
Mean
Score
Change
scores of
Means
(Post-Pre)
Standard
Deviation
Cognitive Knowing Pretest
Yes
2.99
Yes SA
.05
No
3.07
.69
.05
Cognitive Knowing Posttest
Yes
3.68
No SA:
.50
No
3.47
.39
.51
Cognitive Knowledge Pretest
Yes
3.24
Yes SA
.51
No
3.47
.80
.75
Cognitive Knowledge Posttest
Yes
4.04
No SA:
.61
No
3.43
-.03
.51
Intrapersonal Identity Pretest
Yes
3.48
Yes SA
.46
No
4.09
.62
.76
Intrapersonal Identity Posttest
Yes
4.10
No SA:
.48
No
4.10
.01
.49
Intrapersonal Affect Pretest
Yes
3.69
Yes SA
.41
No
3.80
.68
.44
Intrapersonal Affect Posttest
Yes
4.38
No SA:
.44
No
3.79
-.01
.43
Interpersonal Social Responsibility Pretest
Yes
3.17
Yes SA
.50
No
3.27
.58
.65
Interpersonal Social Responsibility Posttest
Yes
3.75
No SA:
.55
No
3.39
.11
.56
Interpersonal Social Interaction Pretest
Yes
3.27
Yes SA
.54
No
3.90
.80
.60
Interpersonal Social Interaction Posttest
Yes
4.07
No SA:
.58
No
3.89
-.01
.59
Note. Change scores = Posttest – Pretest values, SA = Study Abroad, Yes = Study Abroad, No = Did not
study abroad.
Analysis and Results of Research Question 1
RQ 1. To what extent, if any, are there differences in perceived global competence
domains (cognitive, interpersonal and intrapersonal) between business students who studied
abroad and those who did not study abroad?
To explore this research question, I conducted independent samples t test. Table 10
represents descriptive statistics with the summary of means and standard deviations for the
control and treatment group for each of the scales. I also averaged posttest scores and compared
them among the six scales to determine the differences between the two groups.
Assessment of the Cognitive domain. The two scales which comprise the Cognitive
domain are Cognitive Knowing and Cognitive Knowledge. As shown in Table 11, the means of
both scales in the posttest assessment were higher in the treatment (study abroad) than in the
control group (did not study abroad). According to the independent t test data in Table 11, the
differences in means were significant at the p < .001 level. The effect size of the observed means
of the Cognitive domain were also measured using Cohen’s d. Cohen’s d was measured by
calculating the mean difference between the control and the treatment group, and dividing the
result by the pooled standard deviation (Gall et al., 2007). Cohen (1988) suggested that η2 = 0.2
be considered as a small effect size, 0.5 as a medium effect size, and 0.8 as a large effect size.
These values were found to be 1.25 (Cognitive Knowing) and 1.08 (Cognitive Knowledge),
revealing very large effect sizes (Cohen et al., 2003), which hints that the difference between the
two groups is substantial.
Assessment of the Intrapersonal domain. The two scales which comprise the
Intrapersonal domain are Identity and Affect. Based on the data in Table 10, the means for the
Intrapersonal Affect scale were higher in the treatment group in comparison to the control group.
For the Intrapersonal Identity scale, there was no difference in the means of the posttest
assessment. The independent sample t test data cited in Table 11 revealed the Intrapersonal
Affect means to be statistically significant at the p < .001 level. The Intrapersonal Identity scale
indicated a p value of .958; therefore, there was no statistical significance in the mean
differences The effect sizes of the observed differences in the mean change scores of the
Intrapersonal domain were also measured using Cohen’s d. These values were found to be 1.34
(Affect) and 0.01 (Identity), which revealed that the Affect scale had a large effect size between
the two groups and, therefore, was significant, while the Identity scale was not statistically
significant.
Assessment of the Interpersonal domain. The two scales that comprise the
Interpersonal domain are Social Responsibility and Social Interaction. An inspection of the data
in Table 10 revealed there was a difference in the control and the treatment group means for both
scales. However, closer assessment of the independent sample data in Table 11 revealed only
statistical significance in the Social Responsibility scale (p < .001). The differences in the means
of the Social Interaction scale were not found to be statistically significant at the p < .05 level (p
= .065). In conclusion, students showed statistically significant differences in having social
concern for others and the ability to be interdependent in relation to study abroad participation.
There was no statistically significant difference found in engaging with people from other
cultures nor change in cultural sensitivity as a result of study abroad. The effect sizes of the
observed differences in the mean change scores of the Interpersonal domain were also measured
using Cohen’s d. These values were found to be 0.29 (Social Identity) and 0.65 (Social
Responsibility), which reveals that Social Identity scale had a small effect size between the two
groups, while the Social Responsibility scale had a medium effect size.
87
Table 10
Independent Samples Test for GPI Scales
GPI Scales
F-statistics
η2
T
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower
Upper
Cognitive Knowing
.06
1.25
-7.82
154
.000
-.63
.08
-.795
-.475
-7.85
152.
.000
-.63
.08
-.795
-.475
Cognitive Knowledge
1.19
1.08
-6.75
154
.000
-.61
.09
-.791
-.433
-6.69
143.
.000
-.61
.09
-.793
-.431
Intrapersonal Affect
.24
1.34
-8.38
154
.000
-.59
.07
-.733
-.453
-8.37
151
.000
-.59
.07
-.733
-.453
Intrapersonal Identity
.01
.01
.053
154
.958
.01
.07
-.150
.158
.053
152
.958
.01
.07
-.150
.158
Social Interaction
.03
.29
-1.85
154
.065
-.17
.09
-.360
.011
-1.85
152
.065
-.17
.09
-.360
.011
Social Responsibility
.41
.65
-4.11
154
.000
-.36
.08
-.546
-.191
-4.11
152
.000
-.36
.08
-.546
-.191
Note. Based on a 5-point scale. Significance level p < 001. η2 = effect size, t = statistics, df = degree of freedom,
Sig. (2-tailed) statistical significance, Std. = standard
Table 11
Posttest Scores of GPI Scales for Control and Treatment Groups
GPI Scales
Study
Abroad
Std.
Error Mean
N
Mean
SD
Cognitive Knowing
No
82
3.05
.51
.056
Yes
74
3.68
.50
.058
Cognitive Knowledge
No
82
3.43
.52
.057
Yes
74
4.04
.61
.071
Intrapersonal Affect
No
82
3.79
.43
.048
Yes
74
4.38
.44
.052
Intrapersonal Identity
No
82
4.11
.49
.054
Yes
74
4.10
.48
.056
Social Interaction
No
82
3.89
.59
.065
Yes
74
4.07
.58
.067
Social Responsibility
No
82
3.39
.56
.062
Yes
74
3.76
.55
.064
Note. Study Abroad = No (did not study abroad). Study Abroad = Yes (studied abroad). Study
Abroad = SA. n = amount of students. SD = standard deviation
Summary of results for Research Question 1. The analysis of the posttest results for
both the control and the treatment groups revealed statistical significance in the mean differences
for four of the six global competence scales. Cognitive domain assessment revealed statistical
significance relative to study abroad participation in both Cognitive Knowing and Cognitive
Knowledge scales. This finding implied there was a difference in students’ perceived recognition
of the importance of cultural context and awareness of various cultures between those who
studied abroad and their counterparts who did not. Intrapersonal domain was found statistically
significant only in the Intrapersonal Affect scale and not in the Intrapersonal Identity scale. This
finding hinted at a difference between students’ perceived respect and acceptance of cultural
differences between the control and the treatment groups. There was no significant difference
found in the perceived level of acceptance of one’s identity and sense of purpose. Interpersonal
domain resulted in statistical significance only in the Social Responsibility scale, not in the
Social Interaction scale. A review of this finding suggested a difference between perceived sense
of interdependence and social concern for others in regards to study abroad experience. There
was no significant difference found regarding the way students engaged with people from other
cultures with respect to the study abroad experience.
Analysis and Results of Research Question 2
RQ 2. To what extent, if any, does participation in study abroad experiences relate to
students’ global competence domains (cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal)?
To explore this research question, I conducted multiple linear regression analyses to
assess the relationship between perceived global competence scales and study abroad
participation. I utilized the multiple linear regression models to test if study abroad participation
(independent variable) accounted for a significant amount of variance in predicting the change
scores in global competence scales (dependent variable). In addition, I calculated a change score
as the difference between the pretest and posttest scores and used the result as the dependent
variable (see Table 9 for change scores for the six scales). Independent variable (predictor) of
interest in the model was study abroad participation. Other variables included in the model were
age, gender, ethnicity/race, class year, foreign language knowledge, global issue lecture, parents’
education, and service learning.
Assessment of the Cognitive domain. Table 12 represents the regression model
summary for the control and the treatment groups of the Cognitive Knowing scale. The Adjusted
R2 value represents the coefficient of determination. In this model, 17.8% of the variance in the
dependent variable can be explained by the independent variables (p <.001).
Table 12
Regression Model Summary for the Cognitive Knowing Scale
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Sig.
1
.535
.286
.178
.719
.000
Note. Predictors: (Constant), Age, Less than HS, Male, Asian Pacific, College degree, No Response,
Some college, Junior, GloIssue, Service, Other, Hispanic Latino, Study Abroad, African Black, HS,
Sophomore, FLang, Other_5thYear, Freshman, Graduate Degree
Significance level p < .001 Cognitive Knowing as dependent variable
A review of the results listed in Table 13 indicated the regression model is a good fit for
the data collected. Independent variables (study abroad and demographic information) predicted
the dependent variable (Cognitive Knowing scale) with a statistical significance, F (20, 132) =
2.646 at p < .001.
Table 13
ANOVA for the Cognitive Knowing Scale
Model
Sum of
Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Regression
27.33
20
1.36
2.64
.000a
Residual
68.19
132
.51
Total
95.53
152
Note. Predictors: (Constant), Age, Less than HS, Male, Asian Pacific, College degree,
No Response, Some college, Junior, Glo Issue, Service, Other, Hispanic Latino, Study
Abroad, African Black, HS, Sophomore, Foreign Language, Other_5thYear, Freshman,
Graduate degree
Significance level p < .001
Based on the unstandardized coefficient in the regression model (see Table 14), the study
abroad participants, on average, gained .815 in the Cognitive Knowing scale in comparison to
their counterparts even after controlling for the other factors. Study abroad was found to be the
only variable with a statistical significance at p < 0.001. A more in depth analysis of the data in
Table 14 further revealed that the assumption of multicollinearity was not violated based on the
VIF (variance inflation factor) value being less than 2.5 across the model.
Another assumption analyzed was homoscedasticity—the assumption the variance
around the regression line is the same for all values of the independent variable (Glass &
Hopkins, (1996). Figure 5 depicts the scatter plot for the assumption of homoscedasticity. The
figure is illustrative for all of the remaining global competence scales as they had similar
dispersions, and did not violate the assumption since the variance around the regression line is
similar for all of the predictor variables.
Figure 5. Scatterplot of homoscedasticity of dependent variable and standardized residual
Table 14
Estimated Model Coefficients for the Cognitive Knowing Scale
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
-.142
.403
-.353
.724
Graduate degree
.316
.170
.176
1.855
.066
.604
1.655
College degree
.306
.291
.086
1.051
.295
.804
1.244
Some college
-.092
.237
-.033
-.390
.697
.772
1.295
HS
.064
.181
.031
.355
.723
.690
1.449
Less than HS
-.059
.252
-.019
-.232
.817
.797
1.255
Other 5thYear
-.178
.286
-.053
-.622
.535
.743
1.346
Junior
-.055
.155
-.032
-.355
.723
.666
1.502
Sophomore
-.002
.217
-.001
-.011
.991
.659
1.517
Freshman
-.159
.203
-.072
-.783
.435
.639
1.564
No Response
.006
.224
.002
.027
.979
.810
1.235
Hispanic Latino
.480
.243
.163
1.980
.050
.794
1.260
Asian Pacific
.053
.201
.021
.261
.795
.803
1.245
African Black
-.067
.164
-.034
-.408
.684
.774
1.291
Other
.512
.571
.074
.898
.371
.804
1.244
Male
.173
.134
.110
1.290
.199
.748
1.337
Study Abroad
.815
.132
.515
6.159
.000
.773
1.293
Service
-.009
.047
-.014
-.183
.855
.864
1.158
GloIssue
-.054
.055
-.083
-.970
.334
.739
1.354
FLang
-.056
.052
-.092
-1.093
.277
.759
1.317
Age
.002
.016
.010
.111
.912
.614
1.629
Note: Dependent Variable: Posttest-Pretest Cognitive Knowing scale
Significance level p < .001 B = unstandardized coefficient Beta = standardized coefficient
VIF < 2.5 (variance inflation factor)
Data in Table 15 revealed the regression model is a good fit for the data collected
regarding Cognitive Knowledge scale. In this model, 17.8% of the variance in the change scores
of the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variables. As suggested in Table
16, the study abroad variable predicted the dependent variable (Cognitive Knowledge scale) with
a statistical significance, F (20, 132) = 2.64 at p < .001.
Table 15
Model Summary for Cognitive Knowledge scale
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Sig.
.535a
.286
.178
.838
.000
Note. Predictors: (Constant), Age, Less than HS, Male, Asian Pacific, College degree,
No Response, Some college, Junior, Glo Issue, Service, Other, Hispanic Latino, Study
Abroad, African Black, HS, Sophomore, FLang, Other 5thYear, Freshman, Graduate
Degree
Significance level p < .001 Cognitive Knowledge as dependent variable
Table 16
ANOVA for Cognitive Knowledge Scale
Model
Sum of
Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Regression
37.19
20
1.86
2.64
.000a
Residual
92.89
132
.70
Total
130.09
152
Note. Predictors: (Constant), Age, Less than HS, Male, Asian Pacific, College de-
gree, No Response, Some College, Junior, Glo Issue, Service, Other, Hispanic La-
tino, Study Abroad, African Black, HS, Sophomore, FLang, Other 5thYear, Fresh-
man, Graduate Degree
Significance level p < .001
Based on the unstandardized coefficient in the regression model (see Table 17), the study
abroad group, on average, reflected a gain of .823 in the Cognitive Knowledge scale in
comparison to their counterparts even after controlling for the other factors. Study abroad was
the only variable with a statistical significance at p < .001. In summary, the finding indicated a
positive relationship between Cognitive Domain and study abroad participation in both scales.
Table 17
Estimated Model Coefficients for the Cognitive Knowledge scale
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
-.009
.470
-.019
.985
Male
-.141
.157
-.077
-.900
.370
.748
1.337
Other
-.294
.666
-.036
-.441
.660
.804
1.244
African Black
.139
.192
.061
.725
.470
.774
1.291
Asian Pacific
-.188
.235
-.066
-.800
.425
.803
1.245
Hispanic Latino
-.048
.283
-.014
-.171
.865
.794
1.260
No Response
-.211
.261
-.066
-.808
.420
.810
1.235
Freshman
-.033
.237
-.013
-.139
.889
.639
1.564
Sophomore
-.087
.253
-.031
-.344
.732
.659
1.517
Junior
.102
.181
.051
.565
.573
.666
1.502
Other 5thYear
.122
.334
.031
.366
.715
.743
1.346
Less than HS
-.069
.294
-.019
-.236
.814
.797
1.255
HS
-.130
.211
-.055
-.616
.539
.690
1.449
Some college
.099
.277
.030
.358
.721
.772
1.295
College degree
-.007
.340
-.002
-.019
.985
.804
1.244
Graduate degree
.204
.199
.097
1.027
.306
.604
1.655
Study Abroad
.823
.154
.446
5.328
.000
.773
1.293
GloIssue
-.037
.065
-.049
-.569
.570
.739
1.354
FLang
.100
.060
.140
1.663
.099
.759
1.317
Service
.087
.055
.125
1.578
.117
.864
1.158
Age
-.009
.018
-.047
-.503
.616
.614
1.629
Note. Dependent Variable: Posttest – Pretest for Cognitive Knowledge scale
Significance level p < .001
Assessment of the Intrapersonal domain. Table 18 represents the regression model
results for the Identity scale. Analysis of the data showed statistical significance for the
independent variable study abroad at significance level p < .001. The Adjusted R2 value of .107
indicated that 10.7% of the variance in the change scores of the dependent variable could be
explained by the independent variables of in the model.
Table 18
Model Summary for the Identity Scale
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Sig.
.474a
.225
.107
.784
.000
Note. Predictors: (Constant), Age, Less than HS, Male, Asian Pacific, College degree,
No Response, Some college, Junior, GloIssue, Service, Other, Hispanic Latino, Study
Abroad, African Black, HS, Sophomore, FLang, Other 5thYear, Freshman, Graduate degree
Significance level p < .001 Identity scale as dependent variable
Based on the unstandardized coefficients in the regression model (see Table 19), the
study abroad group on average reflected an additional gain of .559 in the Identity scale compared
to students who did not study abroad. Study abroad was the only variable with a statistical
significance at p < .001.
A study of Table 20 revealed the linear regression model for the Affect scale to have a
statistical significance at p < .001. Based on the model, 28.1% of the variance in the change
scores of Affect scale scores can be explained by the independent variables.
Data analysis of the unstandardized coefficient in the regression model for the Affect
scale (see Table 21) revealed the study abroad group reflected an additional positive gain of .731
in the Affect scale. Study abroad was the only variable with a statistical significance at a p <
.001; however, class year was another independent variable with statistical significance in the
model, p < .01. Sophomore students, on average, realized a loss of .484 points in comparison to
seniors on the Affect scale. According to the findings for the Intrapersonal Domain, study abroad
participants reported gains in both scales in comparison to their counterparts.
Table 19
Estimated Model Coefficients for the Identity Scale
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
-.470
.440
-1.069
.287
Male
-.098
.147
-.059
-.671
.504
.748
1.337
Other
-.347
.623
-.048
-.557
.579
.804
1.244
African Black
.199
.179
.097
1.110
.269
.774
1.291
Asian Pacific
-.036
.220
-.014
-.162
.871
.803
1.245
Hispanic Latino
-.281
.265
-.091
-1.060
.291
.794
1.260
No Response
.104
.244
.036
.424
.672
.810
1.235
Freshman
.181
.222
.078
.815
.417
.639
1.564
Sophomore
-.419
.237
-.167
-1.767
.079
.659
1.517
Junior
.038
.170
.021
.222
.825
.666
1.502
Other 5thYear
.109
.313
.031
.348
.728
.743
1.346
Less than HS
-.117
.275
-.037
-.426
.670
.797
1.255
HS
-.098
.197
-.046
-.497
.620
.690
1.449
Some college
.409
.259
.138
1.579
.117
.772
1.295
College degree
.219
.318
.059
.689
.492
.804
1.244
Graduate degree
.029
.186
.015
.156
.877
.604
1.655
Study Abroad
.559
.144
.337
3.869
.000
.773
1.293
GloIssue
-.001
.060
-.002
-.024
.981
.739
1.354
FLang
.008
.056
.012
.139
.889
.759
1.317
Service
.082
.051
.132
1.598
.112
.864
1.158
Age
.016
.017
.092
.940
.349
.614
1.629
Note. Dependent Variable: Posttest – Pretest for Identity scale
Significance level p < .001
Table 20
Model Summary for the Affect Scale
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Sig.
.613a
.375
.281
.602
.000
Note. Predictors: (Constant), Age, Less than HS, Male, Asian Pacific, College degree,
No Response, Some college, Junior, Glo Issue, Service, Other, Hispanic Latino, Study
Abroad, African Black, HS, Sophomore, FLang, Other 5thYear, Freshman, Graduate degree
Significance level p < .001 for Study abroad (independent) variable
Significance level p < .01 for Class level. Affect scale as dependent variable
Table 21
Estimated Model Coefficients for the Affect Scale
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
-.126
.338
-.372
.711
Male
.131
.113
.092
1.162
.247
.748
1.337
Other
.322
.478
.052
.673
.502
.804
1.244
African Black
.210
.138
.119
1.524
.130
.774
1.291
Asian Pacific
.005
.169
.002
.029
.977
.803
1.245
Hispanic Latino
-.143
.203
-.054
-.701
.485
.794
1.260
No Response
-.269
.188
-.110
-1.436
.153
.810
1.235
Freshman
-.136
.170
-.069
-.798
.426
.639
1.564
Sophomore
-.484
.182
-.225
-2.659
.009
.659
1.517
Junior
-.053
.130
-.034
-.405
.686
.666
1.502
Other 5thYear
-.194
.240
-.064
-.807
.421
.743
1.346
Less than HS
-.223
.211
-.081
-1.056
.293
.797
1.255
HS
-.192
.152
-.105
-1.265
.208
.690
1.449
Some college
.379
.199
.149
1.907
.059
.772
1.295
College degree
-.270
.244
-.085
-1.108
.270
.804
1.244
Graduate degree
.156
.143
.097
1.098
.274
.604
1.655
Study Abroad
.731
.111
.516
6.591
.000
.773
1.293
GloIssue
-.029
.046
-.050
-.626
.532
.739
1.354
FLang
-.025
.043
-.045
-.572
.569
.759
1.317
Service
.017
.039
.033
.440
.661
.864
1.158
Age
.006
.013
.043
.486
.628
.614
1.629
Note. Dependent Variable: Posttest – Pretest scores for Affect scale
Significance level p < .001 for Study abroad variable
Significance level p < .05 for Service learning
Assessment of the Interpersonal domain. Table 22 represents the regression model
summary results for the Social Responsibility scale. The findings in Table 22 suggest the study
abroad group reflected an additional gain of .526 in comparison to its counterparts, at p < .001.
There was another independent variable, service learning, which was statistically significant at p
< .05. Students who participated in service learning indicated an additional gain of .119
compared to students who did not participate in service learning.
Table 22
Estimated Coefficients for Social Responsibility Scale
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
.261
.460
.567
.572
Male
.117
.153
.069
.764
.446
.748
1.337
Other
.125
.651
.017
.192
.848
.804
1.244
African Black
.194
.187
.092
1.034
.303
.774
1.291
Asian Pacific
.087
.230
.033
.380
.705
.803
1.245
Hispanic Latino
-.264
.277
-.084
-.956
.341
.794
1.260
No Response
.166
.255
.056
.650
.517
.810
1.235
Freshman
.071
.232
.030
.306
.760
.639
1.564
Sophomore
-.459
.248
-.178
-1.854
.066
.659
1.517
Junior
-.150
.177
-.081
-.849
.397
.666
1.502
Other 5thYear
-.033
.327
-.009
-.100
.920
.743
1.346
Less than HS
.020
.288
.006
.068
.946
.797
1.255
HS
-.006
.206
-.003
-.028
.978
.690
1.449
Some college
.268
.271
.088
.990
.324
.772
1.295
College degree
-.018
.332
-.005
-.055
.956
.804
1.244
Graduate degree
.222
.194
.115
1.143
.255
.604
1.655
Study Abroad
.526
.151
.310
3.488
.000
.773
1.293
GloIssue
-.086
.063
-.124
-1.363
.175
.739
1.354
FLang
.046
.059
.070
.781
.436
.759
1.317
Service
.119
.054
.187
2.230
.027
.864
1.158
Age
-.020
.018
-.112
-1.119
.265
.614
1.629
Note. Dependent Variable: Pretest – Posttest scores for Social Responsibility scale
Significance level p < .001
A study of Table 23 revealed the model summary for the data regarding the Social
Interaction Scale. The model showed a statistical significance at p < .001. On average, the
students who studied abroad reported a gain of .854 in the Social Interaction scale in comparison
to students who did not study abroad. No other independent variable was statistically significant
to contribute to variances in the scale.
In summary, both scales in the Interpersonal domain were statistically significant. Study
abroad participants realized significant changes in the Social Responsibility scale in comparison
to those who did not study abroad. Further, students who participated in service learning reported
statistically significant change scores in Social Responsibility. Students who studied abroad also
realized significant changes in the Social Interaction scale compared to their counterparts.
Table 23
Estimated coefficients for Social Interaction Scale
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
.045
.473
.095
.925
Male
.097
.158
.052
.614
.540
.748
1.337
Other
.639
.670
.078
.954
.342
.804
1.244
African Black
.208
.193
.090
1.079
.282
.774
1.291
Asian Pacific
.020
.236
.007
.084
.933
.803
1.245
Hispanic Latino
.243
.285
.070
.854
.395
.794
1.260
No Response
-.036
.263
-.011
-.139
.890
.810
1.235
Freshman
.320
.239
.123
1.340
.182
.639
1.564
Sophomore
-.053
.255
-.019
-.210
.834
.659
1.517
Junior
.115
.182
.056
.629
.530
.666
1.502
Other 5thYear
-.488
.336
-.123
-1.450
.150
.743
1.346
Less than HS
-.251
.296
-.070
-.850
.397
.797
1.255
HS
-.108
.212
-.045
-.508
.613
.690
1.449
Some college
.113
.278
.034
.405
.686
.772
1.295
College degree
-.599
.342
-.143
-1.754
.082
.804
1.244
Graduate degree
-.112
.200
-.053
-.561
.576
.604
1.655
Study Abroad
.854
.155
.458
5.498
.000
.773
1.293
GloIssue
-.055
.065
-.073
-.850
.397
.739
1.354
FLang
.078
.061
.108
1.286
.201
.759
1.317
Service
.074
.055
.106
1.349
.180
.864
1.158
Age
-.013
.018
-.069
-.740
.461
.614
1.629
Note. Dependent Variable: Postests-Pretest scores of Social Interaction scale
Significance level p < .001
Summary of results for Research Question 2. Data analysis of the Cognitive domain
indicated a positive relationship between study abroad participation and change scores in
students’ recognition of the importance of cultural context, complexity in thinking, and their
awareness of other cultures. The analysis of the change scores in the pre- and posttest mean
scores for both the control and the treatment group indicated statistical significance in the change
scores for all six global competence scales. I found the intrapersonal domain statistically
significant and positive in both the Intrapersonal Affect scale and Identity scale for study abroad
participants. In addition, sophomore students scored significantly lower than senior level
students in regard to respecting and accepting cultural differences (Affect scale). Lastly, the
Interpersonal domain had statistically significant higher change scores, in both the Social
Interaction scale and the Social Responsibility scale. This finding suggests students who studied
abroad increased their level of engaging with others from other cultures and having social
concerns for others in comparison to those who did not study abroad. In addition, students who
participated in service learning realized statistically significant gains in being interdependent and
having social concern for others (Social Responsibility scale).
The analyses also considered several statistical assumptions when conducting multiple
regression analysis. First, linear regression was checked based on scatter plots (see Figure 5 for
an illustrative scatter plot) to ensure there is a linear relationship between the independent and
dependent variables. These scatter plots confirmed linearity. Second, one of the assumptions of
the linear regression is that the data has little or no multicollinearity. The model was set to
conduct the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) in each of the six scales and found all VIF values
below 2.5. As a result, the study did not violate the assumption of multicollinearity. Finally, the
assumption of homoscedasticity was tested. Based on the scatter plots, residuals were equal
across the regression line and hence the study did not violate this assumption.
Analysis and Results of Research Question 3
RQ 3. To what extent, if any, for those business students who do study abroad, do the
perceived changes in their level of global competence domains (cognitive, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal) relate to their demographic information?
To explore the third research question, the study utilized multiple linear regression
models to assess the relationship between the perceived global competence scales and the
demographic information of the study abroad participants (treatment group). Regression models
tested if predictor (independent) variables such as age, gender, ethnicity/race, class year, foreign
language knowledge, global lecture, parents’ highest achieved education, and service learning
accounted for a significant amount of variance in predicting the score change in the global
competence scales (dependent variable). A change score was calculated as the difference
between the pre- and posttest mean scores and the result was used as the dependent variable. The
regression model allowed for the determination of the relative contribution of each of the
independent variables (predictors) to the total variance.
Assessment of the Cognitive domain. The two scales that comprise the Cognitive
Domain are Cognitive Knowing and Cognitive Knowledge. This domain focuses on knowledge
and understanding of what is true and important for one’s set of values. Table 24 depicts the
results of a multiple regression model for Cognitive Knowing change scores of study abroad
participants. The model was statistically significant F (19, 72) = 2.167, p < 0.05. One
independent variable—parents’ education level—indicated statistical significance at p < 0.05
after controlling for other variables. Students with parents’ highest level of education achieved as
college degree reported a loss of 1.035 in the Cognitive Knowing scale in comparison to students
whose parents achieved some graduate degree. The rest of the variables were not statistically
significant at a p < .05.
Table 24
Estimated Coefficients for the Cognitive Knowing Scale
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
.242
.447
.542
.590
Male
.033
.190
.023
.172
.864
.619
1.615
Other
.172
.524
.041
.328
.744
.676
1.478
African Black
-.363
.202
-.209
-1.796
.078
.782
1.279
Asian Pacific Islander
.373
.263
.161
1.417
.162
.825
1.212
Hispanic Latino
.566
.293
.244
1.934
.059
.666
1.502
Not disclosed
-.084
.274
-.036
-.308
.759
.760
1.315
Freshman
-.143
.298
-.062
-.478
.635
.641
1.560
Sophomore
-.071
.285
-.031
-.250
.804
.702
1.424
Junior
-.073
.182
-.048
-.398
.692
.727
1.376
Other_5year
-.228
.279
-.104
-.815
.419
.650
1.539
Graduate degree
.414
.217
.245
1.909
.062
.644
1.553
Less than HS
-.476
.291
-.192
-1.639
.107
.778
1.286
High School
-.151
.216
-.087
-.701
.486
.688
1.454
Some College
.068
.288
.027
.236
.815
.793
1.261
College Degree
-1.035
.514
-.247
-2.011
.049
.702
1.424
GloIssue
.010
.065
.020
.154
.878
.645
1.551
FLang
-.094
.063
-.197
-1.503
.139
.615
1.625
Age
.027
.018
.212
1.463
.149
.507
1.974
Service
-.016
.056
-.033
-.281
.780
.774
1.291
Note. Dependent Variable: Posttest – Pretest scores for Cognitive Knowing scale
Significance level p < .50
Data in Table 25 explored the Cognitive Knowledge change scores of study abroad
participants. The model was not statistically significant F (19, 72) = .987 at p < .50. None of the
variables contributed to changes in scores in the Cognitive Knowledge scale.
Table 25
Estimated Coefficient Model for the Cognitive Knowledge Scale
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
.959
.502
1.911
.061
Male
.126
.214
.088
.590
.558
.619
1.615
Other
-.060
.589
-.015
-.102
.920
.676
1.478
African Black
.000
.227
.000
-.002
.999
.782
1.279
Asian Pacific Islander
.333
.296
.146
1.127
.265
.825
1.212
Hispanic Latino
-.177
.329
-.078
-.537
.594
.666
1.502
Not disclosed
-.506
.308
-.223
-1.645
.106
.760
1.315
Freshman
.389
.335
.171
1.161
.251
.641
1.560
Sophomore
.000
.320
.000
.000
.999
.702
1.424
Junior
-.115
.205
-.078
-.561
.577
.727
1.376
Other 5year
.137
.314
.064
.437
.664
.650
1.539
Graduate degree
.139
.244
.084
.570
.571
.644
1.553
Less than HS
-.098
.326
-.040
-.301
.765
.778
1.286
High School
-.298
.242
-.175
-1.231
.224
.688
1.454
Some College
-.066
.323
-.027
-.205
.838
.793
1.261
College Degree
-.080
.578
-.020
-.139
.890
.702
1.424
GloIssue
.027
.073
.053
.361
.719
.645
1.551
FLang
.110
.070
.236
1.566
.123
.615
1.625
Age
-.023
.021
-.184
-1.112
.271
.507
1.974
Service
.123
.063
.261
1.945
.057
.774
1.291
Note. Dependent Variable: Posttest – Pretest scores for Cognitive Knowledge scale
Significance level p < .05
Table 26 represents the regression model summary for the control and the treatment
groups of the Cognitive Knowledge scale. The Adjusted R2 value represents the coefficient of
determination. In the regression summary, negative Adjusted R2 value shows the model was not
statistically significant at p < .05.
Table 26
Regression Model Summary for the Cognitive Knowledge Scale
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Sig.
.511
.261
-.003
.675
.490
Note. Predictors: (Constant), Age, Less than HS, Male, Asian Pacific, College degree, No Response,
Some college, Junior, GloIssue, Service, Other, Hispanic Latino, Study Abroad, African Black, HS,
Sophomore, FLang, Other_5thYear, Freshman, Graduate degree
Significance level p < .001. Dependent variable: Post-Pretest scores Cognitive Knowledge
Students whose parents achieved a college degree reported lower scores than students
whose parents achieved some graduate school. There was no statistical significance of student
demographics and Cognitive Knowing scale change scores.
Assessment of the Intrapersonal domain. The two scales that comprise the
Intrapersonal Domain were Identity and Affect. Both scales focus on self-awareness and
integration of one’s values into the personal environment. Table 27 depicts the regression model
for the Identity scale. One independent variable—parents’ education level—revealed statistical
significance at p < 0.05 after controlling for other variables. Students with parents’ highest level
of education achieved college degree reported an additional gain of 1.068 points on the
Intrapersonal Identity scale in comparison to students whose parents achieved some graduate
degree. This finding suggested a relationship between student study abroad participation and
parents’ education. There is a lack of research linking parents’ education and possible change
scores on global competence scales. Several studies (Bodycott, 2009; Pimpa, 2004) indicated a
strong relationship between parental education on students ‘decision to study abroad. The results
concluded that students with parents with less education might not have been aware of the
benefits of studying abroad (Zhang & Sun, 2014).
Table 27
Estimated Coefficient Model for the Identity Scale
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
.791
.456
1.734
.089
Male
.274
.194
.196
1.412
.164
.619
1.615
Other
.539
.535
.134
1.008
.318
.676
1.478
African Black
.093
.206
.056
.450
.654
.782
1.279
Asian Pacific Islander
.491
.269
.220
1.830
.073
.825
1.212
Hispanic Latino
-.439
.299
-.196
-1.467
.148
.666
1.502
Not disclosed
-.337
.280
-.151
-1.204
.234
.760
1.315
Freshman
.579
.305
.259
1.900
.063
.641
1.560
Sophomore
-.515
.291
-.231
-1.768
.083
.702
1.424
Junior
-.117
.186
-.081
-.628
.533
.727
1.376
Other_5year
.210
.285
.100
.735
.465
.650
1.539
Graduate degree
-.076
.222
-.046
-.341
.735
.644
1.553
Less than HS
.351
.297
.147
1.183
.242
.778
1.286
High School
.253
.220
.151
1.149
.256
.688
1.454
Some College
.435
.294
.182
1.482
.144
.793
1.261
College Degree
1.068
.525
.265
2.035
.047
.702
1.424
GloIssue
.006
.067
.012
.086
.931
.645
1.551
FLang
-.016
.064
-.036
-.256
.799
.615
1.625
Age
-.019
.019
-.154
-1.001
.321
.507
1.974
Service
.023
.057
.049
.394
.695
.774
1.291
Note. Dependent Variable: Posttest – Pretest scores for Identity scale
Significance level p < .05
Table 28 represents the regression model summary for the control and the treatment
groups of the Identity scale. The model was not statistically significant at p < .05.
Table 28
Regression Model Summary for the Identity Scale
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Sig.
.606
.367
.140
.613
.086
Note. Predictors: (Constant), Age, Less than HS, Male, Asian Pacific, College degree, No Response,
Some college, Junior, GloIssue, Service, Other, Hispanic Latino, Study Abroad, African Black, HS,
Sophomore, FLang, Other_5thYear, Freshman, Graduate degree
Significance level p < .05 Dependent variable: Post-Pretest scores Identity
A review of the data in Table 29 indicated there were no significant variables
contributing to the change scores in the Affect scale. Data analysis of the Intrapersonal Domain
resulted in statistically significant effects on change scores in the Identity scale scores, however,
no effects on change scores in the Affect scale scores.
Table 29
Estimated Coefficient Model for the Affect Scale
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
.540
.462
1.170
.247
Male
.283
.197
.216
1.439
.156
.619
1.615
Other
.473
.542
.125
.874
.386
.676
1.478
African Black
.171
.209
.109
.818
.417
.782
1.279
Asian Pacific Islander
.117
.272
.056
.429
.670
.825
1.212
Hispanic Latino
.117
.303
.056
.387
.700
.666
1.502
Not disclosed
-.428
.283
-.205
-1.512
.136
.760
1.315
Freshman
.027
.308
.013
.088
.930
.641
1.560
Sophomore
-.505
.295
-.241
-1.713
.093
.702
1.424
Junior
-.019
.188
-.014
-.103
.918
.727
1.376
Other 5year
-.164
.289
-.083
-.567
.573
.650
1.539
Graduate degree
.222
.224
.145
.988
.328
.644
1.553
Less than HS
-.039
.300
-.017
-.130
.897
.778
1.286
High School
-.005
.223
-.003
-.025
.981
.688
1.454
Some College
.381
.297
.170
1.283
.205
.793
1.261
College Degree
-.252
.532
-.067
-.473
.638
.702
1.424
GloIssue
-.090
.068
-.195
-1.324
.191
.645
1.551
FLang
-.012
.065
-.028
-.189
.851
.615
1.625
Age
.005
.019
.042
.254
.801
.507
1.974
Service
.023
.058
.053
.392
.697
.774
1.291
Note. Dependent Variable: Posttest – Pretest scores for Affect scale
Significance level p < .001
Assessment of the Interpersonal domain. The Interpersonal Domain consists of Social
Responsibility and Social Interaction. Both scales are centered around one’s willingness to
interact with people from different cultural regions and backgrounds. Per the findings in Table
30, none of student’s demographic information included in the model contributed to the change
scores in the Social Responsibility scale. There were no significant changes in being
interdependent nor having social concern for others due to any of the independent variables in
the model.
Table 30
Estimated Coefficients for the Social Responsibility Scale
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
.995
.581
1.713
.093
Male
.348
.247
.214
1.406
.166
.619
1.615
Other
.790
.681
.169
1.160
.251
.676
1.478
African Black
.013
.263
.007
.050
.960
.782
1.279
Asian Pacific Islander
.440
.342
.169
1.287
.204
.825
1.212
Hispanic Latino
-.273
.381
-.105
-.717
.477
.666
1.502
Not disclosed
-.255
.356
-.098
-.716
.477
.760
1.315
Freshman
.382
.388
.147
.986
.329
.641
1.560
Sophomore
-.392
.371
-.151
-1.057
.295
.702
1.424
Junior
-.109
.237
-.064
-.458
.648
.727
1.376
Other 5year
-.074
.363
-.030
-.205
.839
.650
1.539
Graduate degree
.158
.282
.084
.562
.577
.644
1.553
Less than HS
.563
.378
.202
1.492
.142
.778
1.286
High School
.219
.280
.113
.782
.438
.688
1.454
Some College
.059
.374
.021
.157
.876
.793
1.261
College Degree
.060
.669
.013
.090
.929
.702
1.424
GloIssue
-.110
.085
-.192
-1.289
.203
.645
1.551
FLang
-.001
.081
-.003
-.018
.986
.615
1.625
Age
-.027
.024
-.189
-1.124
.266
.507
1.974
Service
.059
.073
.109
.804
.425
.774
1.291
Note. Dependent Variable: Posttest – Pretest scores for Social Responsibility Scale
Significance level p < .001
Table 31 represents the regression model summary for the control and the treatment
groups of the Social Responsibility scale. In the regression summary, negative Adjusted R2 value
shows the model was not statistically significant at p < .05.
Table 31
Regression Model Summary for the Social Responsibility Scale
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Sig.
.492
.242
-.029
.781
.593
Note. Predictors: (Constant), Age, Less than HS, Male, Asian Pacific, College degree, No Response,
Some college, Junior, GloIssue, Service, Other, Hispanic Latino, Study Abroad, African Black, HS,
Sophomore, FLang, Other_5thYear, Freshman, Graduate Degree
Significance level p < .05 Dependent variable: Post-Pretest scores Social Responsibility
The analysis of the second scale of the Interpersonal Domain, Social Interaction,
suggested a very similar result—there were no statistically significant differences found in the
variance of independent variables on the change scores for students who studied abroad (see
Table 32 for coefficient summary). According to the findings of both scales’ results, for the
Interpersonal Domain mean gain, students did not realize any significant changes in engaging
with people from different cultures and background. There were also no significant differences in
the scales’ change scores regarding the level of students’ cultural sensitivity. Finally, there was
no significant difference in being independent and having social concern for others due to any of
the independent variables in the model.
Summary of results for Research Question 3. The analysis of the relationship between
student demographics and the change scores of students who studied abroad revealed statistically
significant contributions in only two of the six global competence scales. Cognitive Knowing
and Identity scales showed significant gains in scores as a result of parents’ level of education.
Holding other variables constant, students with parental educational level of some graduate
school reflected more significant gains in understanding and awareness of various cultures than
those with parents with college degree. None of the included student demographics (independent
variables) was statistically significant for contributing to changes of students’ level of the
Cognitive Knowledge scale, the Affect scale, the Social Responsibility, and the Social
Interaction scale.
Table 32
Estimated Coefficients for Social Interaction Scale
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
(Constant)
.732
.648
1.130
.264
Male
.387
.276
.211
1.404
.166
.619
1.615
Other
.488
.760
.092
.642
.523
.676
1.478
African Black
.142
.293
.065
.486
.629
.782
1.279
Asian Pacific Islander
.324
.381
.111
.850
.399
.825
1.212
Hispanic Latino
.381
.425
.130
.896
.374
.666
1.502
Not disclosed
.147
.397
.050
.369
.713
.760
1.315
Freshman
.275
.433
.094
.635
.528
.641
1.560
Sophomore
-.214
.413
-.073
-.519
.606
.702
1.424
Junior
-.141
.264
-.074
-.533
.597
.727
1.376
Other 5year
-.655
.405
-.237
-1.618
.112
.650
1.539
Graduate degree
-.105
.315
-.049
-.335
.739
.644
1.553
Less than HS
-.644
.421
-.205
-1.528
.132
.778
1.286
High School
-.139
.312
-.063
-.444
.659
.688
1.454
Some College
.145
.417
.046
.348
.729
.793
1.261
College Degree
-.923
.746
-.175
-1.238
.221
.702
1.424
GloIssue
-.046
.095
-.071
-.483
.631
.645
1.551
FLang
.128
.091
.213
1.413
.163
.615
1.625
Age
-.010
.027
-.060
-.359
.721
.507
1.974
Service
.087
.081
.144
1.068
.290
.774
1.291
Note. Dependent Variable: Posttest – Pretest scores for Social Interaction scale
Summary
This chapter presented results for the data analysis performed to answer the three
research questions in this study. The scope of the study was to determine a relationship of
perceived global competence levels and study abroad experiences of undergraduate business
majors. I examined mean differences and change scores in the pre- and posttest average scores of
35 survey questions regarding six global competence scales within three global competence
domains. Additionally, there were 37 questions regarding demographic information included in
the survey instrument and used for independent variable measures.
The first research question focused on the posttest mean score differences for both the
control and the treatment groups. The results of descriptive statistics indicated statistical
significance in the mean differences for four of the six global competence scales. Cognitive
Domain assessment revealed statistical significance relative to study abroad participation in both
the Cognitive Knowing and Cognitive Knowledge scales. Intrapersonal domain indicated
statistical significance only in the Affect scale and not in the Identity scale. Interpersonal domain
showed statistical significance only in the Social Responsibility scale and not in the Social
Interaction scale.
The second research question utilized multiple regression analysis in order to assess the
change scores in the scores of each of the global competence scales comparing the control and
the treatment group. The analysis of the change scores revealed statistical significance in all six
global competence scales. Participants in study abroad programs reported statistically significant
higher change scores in both the Cognitive Knowing and Cognitive Knowledge scales. One of
the independent variables, class year— senior level, positively correlated to the understanding of
other cultures and the impact on global society for students who studied abroad. Intrapersonal
domain was statistically significant in both the Intrapersonal Affect scale and the Identity scale
for study abroad participants. The Interpersonal domain revealed a statistically significant
relationship between participation in study abroad and both of its scales (Social Interaction and
Social Responsibility). This finding indicated that students who studied abroad increased their
level of engaging with others in comparison to the group who did not study abroad. Furthermore,
students’ level of interdependence and possessing social concern for others was found to have,
on average, significantly higher change scores.
The third research question focused on the change scores for the treatment group and
possible interaction with the independent variables. The multiple regression analysis indicated
statistically significant contributions in two of the six global competence scales. Cognitive
Knowing and Identity were the only scales with a significant relationship with the included
student demographics (the independent variables). The educational level of parents was the only
contributing independent variable in the model. Students whose parents achieved some graduate
level education reported better understanding and awareness of various cultures and increased
recognition of the importance of cultural context than those with parents who achieved college
degree. The model did not reveal any independent variables statistically significant in
contributing to changes of students’ level of interdependence, social concern for others, and
engaging with others who are different because of study abroad experiences.
The next chapter addresses the summary of the study, discussion, implications for
practice, and recommendations for further research.
Chapter 5
Summary
Today’s business graduates play an important role as global citizens in a diverse world.
In order to effectively analyze and solve problems, graduates should understand both the national
and the international cultural differences, rules, and issues (Archambault, 2015; Cascio &
Boudreau, 2016). Today’s employers seek graduates who are able to live, communicate, and
successfully compete in the global job markets. Besides essential skills such as critical thinking,
communication, and teamwork, educational institutions ought to emphasize and integrate global
perspectives in their curriculum and everyday operations. Global competence is one of the key
knowledge areas demanded by business employers. For institutions, educating for global
competence is an important goal in order to meet the business demands and ensure their
graduates gain key career skills and competitive jobs (OECD, 2017).
Study abroad programs have become not only the means to travel and learn about
different cultures, but also to gain competitive global knowledge. For educators and university
leaders, study abroad programs are linked to learning outcomes and assessments (NAFSA,
2018). The challenge presented to the higher education institutions is to assess the goals for
student growth and then purposefully use the collected data to achieve the institution’s vision. A
small amount of research exists which identifies global perspective, specifically cognitive,
intrapersonal, and interpersonal dimensions, in relationship with study abroad experience.
This chapter presents a purpose of the current study, data collection and analysis, results,
discussion, implications for practice, recommendations for further research, and conclusions.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quasi-experimental quantitative study was to explore the relationship
between perceived global competence level and study abroad experiences of undergraduate
business students at a large research university. As suggested by this study, there is a need for
more research addressing measurement of perceived global competence as a result of study
abroad. Effective assessments of students and study abroad programs are essential when guiding
student success initiatives and strategic goals set by higher education institutions.
This study addressed the following three research questions:
1. To what extent, if any, are there differences in perceived global competence (cognitive,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal) between business students who studied abroad and those
who did not study abroad?
2. To what extent, if any, does participation in study abroad experiences relate to students’
perceived global competence (cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal)?
3. To what extent, if any, for those business students who do study abroad, do the perceived
changes in their level of global competence domains (cognitive, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal) relate to their demographic information?
Data Collection and Analysis
The study utilized a pre- and posttest survey instrument to compare change scores of
undergraduate business students’ global competence. The mean differences were observed
between students who studied abroad and those who did not study abroad. A total number of 267
undergraduate business students participated in the pretest survey in spring 2018. There were 243
usable survey data in this set. The posttest survey administered in fall 2018 (and some in January
2019) accounted for specific study abroad experiences during the summer semester of 2018 (and
December 2018). The posttest survey accounted for 156 usable responses. The final analysis
assessed 82 students who did not study abroad (control group) and 74 students who studied
abroad (treatment group).
The study utilized independent samples t tests and multiple regression analysis to
determine the mean differences and change scores in the six global competence scales for both
the control and the treatment groups. For Research Question 1, I used descriptive statistics to
analyze and calculate the means and standard deviations of the posttest score data for all six
scales. I used t tests to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the
means of the control and treatment groups. Research Questions 2 and 3 utilized multiple
regression models to predict a value of a dependent variable based on specific independent
variable values. For each student, change scores for the six scales were determined by taking the
difference between point A (before study abroad) and point B (after study abroad). For those
who did not study abroad, I calculated change scores by taking the difference between point A
(Spring 2018) and point B (Fall/Winter 2018). The multiple regression models enabled the
assessment of the relationship between the predicted variables (global competence scales) and
several predictor variables (demographic information) as well as the independent variable of
interest—study abroad. The study checked for assumptions of multicollinearity and
homoscedasticity by observing scatter plots, variance inflation factors (VIF), and linear
regression lines.
Results
The first research question compared posttest mean scores of students who studied abroad
and those who did not. The results of descriptive statistics indicated statistical significance in the
mean differences in four of the six global competence scales. Cognitive Domain assessment
revealed statistical significance relative to study abroad participation in both the Cognitive
Knowing and the Cognitive Knowledge scales. Intrapersonal domain indicated statistical
significance only in the Affect scale and not in the Identity scale. Interpersonal domain showed
statistical significance only in the Social Responsibility scale and not in the Social Interaction
scale. This finding implied there was a difference in students’ perceived recognition of the
importance of cultural context and awareness of various cultures between those that studied
abroad and their counterparts that did not. There was no significant difference found in the
perceived level of acceptance of one’s identity, sense of purpose, and the way students engaged
with people from other cultures with respect to the study abroad experience.
The second research question compared the pre- and posttest change scores for both the
control and the treatment groups. A change score was calculated as the difference between the
pre- and posttest mean scores and the result was used as the dependent variable The findings
indicated all of the six scales to be statistically significant. In addition, sophomore students
scored significantly lower than senior level students in regards to respecting and accepting
cultural differences (Affect scale). This finding suggested students who studied abroad increased
their level of understanding of various cultures, accepting one’s identity, respecting cultural
differences, engaging with people from other cultures, and having social concerns for others in
comparison to those who did not study abroad. In addition, students who participated in service
learning realized statistically significant change scores in being interdependent and having social
concern for others (Social Responsibility scale). Besides the study abroad variable, the model
also found class year and service learning as predictors of the change scores in the scales.
Lastly, the third question assessed the relationship between the perceived global
competence scales and the demographic information of the study abroad participants. Regression
models tested if predictor (independent) variables such as age, gender, ethnicity/race, class year,
foreign language knowledge, global lecture, parents’ highest achieved education, and service
learning accounted for a significant amount of variance in predicting the change in the global
competence scales (dependent variable). The analysis of the relationship between student
demographics and the change scores of students who studied abroad revealed statistically
significant contributions in only two of the six global competence scales. Cognitive Knowing
and Identity scales demonstrated significant change scores as a result of parents’ level of
education. Holding other variables constant, students with parental educational level of some
graduate school realized more significant change scores in understanding and awareness of
various cultures that those with parents with college degree. None of the other included student
demographics (independent variables) was statistically significant for contributing to changes of
students’ level of the Cognitive Knowledge scale, the Affect scale, the Social Responsibility, and
the Social Interaction scale.
Discussion
In many ways, this study answered the research questions with significant results. The
study’s findings concerning cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal domains provided support
for a relationship between the domain scales and student study abroad experiences. These
findings are similar to several other studies conducted on study abroad experiences measuring
intercultural sensitivity and awareness (Black & Duhon, 2006; Braskamp et al., 2009).
Assessment of Cognitive domain. The results indicated a significant relationship
between Cognitive domain and study abroad experience. Both scales in the Cognitive domain
proved to have significant change scores in the study abroad group in comparison to the students
who did not study abroad. This finding suggested students, who studied abroad, demonstrated
higher levels of recognition for the importance of cultural context, understanding of other
cultures, and their impact on society. In addition, the findings revealed that students with the
parents’ highest level of education achieved as college degree scored lower than students who
reported parents’ highest level of education as some graduate school. This finding suggested a
relationship between student study abroad participation and parents’ education. Several studies
(Bodycott, 2009; Pimpa, 2004) indicated a strong relationship between parental education and
students’ decisions to study abroad. The results concluded that students with parents with only
some education (not a college degree) might not have been aware of the benefits of studying
abroad (Zhang & Sun, 2014).
Assessment of Intrapersonal domain. The intrapersonal domain ascertained significant
differences only when comparing the change scores in scales between the control and the
treatment groups. Students who studied abroad reported higher levels of awareness and
acceptance of one’s identity and sense of purpose. In addition, this group also revealed a
significant gain in respect and acceptance of cultural differences compared to students who did
not study abroad. Controlling for the other independent variables, sophomore students realized
significantly lower change scores compared to senior level students in regards to their
acceptance of identity and sense of purpose. According to the IIE (2018) data, the majority of
students studying abroad are in their junior and senior year (54%), with only 13% in their
sophomore and 4% in their freshman year. This finding suggested that as students advance
towards their senior year, they are more likely to study abroad and as a result, they are able to
transform their views and knowledge as well as reach higher level of intercultural maturity (King
& Baxter Magolda, 2005).
Assessment of Interpersonal domain. Similarly, the interpersonal domain reported
statistical significance in change scores for both the Affect and the Identity scales only when
comparing change scores between both groups. Students who studied abroad reported higher
scores in their interdependence levels than their counterparts who did not. Controlling for other
variables, students who participated in service learning scored higher on engaging with others
and being culturally sensitive. The majority of the independent variables in the linear model
(gender, fluency in more than one language, ethnicity/race, global course, and age) did not report
a significant variance in the global competence change scores. This finding suggested that the
study abroad experience affected many of the students without any statistically significant
relatedness to demographic information. The relationship between programs such as study
abroad and the causal development of global competence is consistent with the study’s literature
review (Anderson et al., 2015; Black & Duhon, 2010; Lokkesmoe et al., 2016: NAFSA, 2018,
OECD, 2017). The change scores in the specific domains are in line with the results suggested by
the GPI developers based on students in their pilot studies (Braskamp et al., 2009). This study
did not find any gender or ethnicity/race differences in the change scores; however, the sample
was representative of the nationwide trend and therefore, found important for the study’s
implications.
Gender and ethnicity/race. Based on national study abroad reports, the majority of
students participating in study abroad programs are female (IIE, 2018, NAFSA, 2018). More
specifically, women make up approximately two-thirds of students studying abroad (NAFSA,
2018; Redden, 2018; Statista, 2018). In this study, female participants comprised 49% of the
sample and, of this number, 61% had studied abroad. Male participants also constituted 49% of
the overall participants and compared to the female participants only half as many males (32%)
reported to have studied abroad. These results confirm the nationwide trend of females as the
predominant gender in study abroad programs. There was no relationship found between change
scores in global competence scales and gender. Although the number of students studying abroad
has been steadily increasing over the last decade (NAFSA, 2018), the gender gap remained the
same. To address this issue, this study calls attention to support study abroad programming with
a special attentiveness to gender differences.
In addition, white students are the predominant race participating in study abroad
programs (IIE, 2018 NAFSA, 2018). Based on the annual Open Doors report (IIE, 2018;
Redden, 2018), 71% of students who study abroad are White, 10% Hispanic, 8% Asian, 6 %
African-American, and 4% Multiracial. In this study, 51% of the students who studied abroad
were White, followed by 19% African-American, 10% Asian, and 9% Hispanic. These results
confirmed the general nationwide trend of European/White students as the predominate
ethnicity/race who participated in study abroad programs. The results also reflect the college’s
study body population and hence the suggestion for an increase in the underrepresented
population is realistic given the gender profile. This study further calls for an increased effort to
include larger numbers of the underrepresented students in the study abroad participation.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study generated implications for educators, faculty and staff, study
abroad professionals, career centers, and employers. The results of this study may assist
educators in the process of exploring and assessing the relationship between study abroad
programs and gained global competence. Given the amount of resources institutions spend on
study abroad programs each year, it could be helpful to see the relationship between the study
abroad participation and students’ skills, knowledge, and behavior in order to satisfy the demand
for global competence in related business fields. The results of the study, based on the GPI
instrument, can also be used for quality improvement processes at universities and colleges and
assist in accreditation of specific courses (i.e., global citizen certification, HIP certification).
Given the environment of shared governance at colleges and universities, such improvement
process may need faculty buy-in to be successful. Since not every faculty member may embrace
such changes, deans and department chairs may need to include possible benefits for certifying
courses under the global knowledge. Despite the fact the benefits of educating students for global
competence tend to link to student success, some faculty members might need to relate such
benefits to learning outcomes (Cavanagh et al., 2016).
This study also calls for specific programming to increase participation of male students
in the study abroad experience. Given the nationwide trend supported by this study’s results,
males are heavily underrepresented in the study abroad programs. Previous research regarding
the reasons behind this trend provided no definite conclusions. According to the Open Doors
report (IIE, 2018; Redden, 2018), college majors who are male dominated (STEM field)
traditionally participate in study abroad in lower numbers, unlike the female dominated majors
(social sciences). Therefore, educators may plan and support programs targeted for specifically
STEM majors in an effort to diversify the study abroad student population.
Finally, educators may also focus on supporting first generation and ethnic minorities.
Based on this study’s results, students whose parents achieved graduate school education scored
higher change scores in the global competence scales. As research suggest, first generation
students, historically from diverse ethnic and social class backgrounds, tend to be less involved
in college activities and programs (Pike & Kuh, 2005). Supporting programs for first generation
college students may contribute to an increase in diversity of the study abroad population as
historically they come from ethnically underrepresented groups. An important starting point may
be to utilize existing data on where this population already studies abroad, assess the feasibility
of expanding the programs as cohort-based, and support the group with study abroad grants and
scholarships. Educators may work with community leaders to raise scholarship funds and team
up on specific projects to serve this population. In addition, understanding first generation
students’ needs may assist student affairs staff to better plan for academic success programs.
Faculty and staff could also gain valuable insights into the importance of change scores in
global competence levels as a result of study abroad. GPI may be infused into study abroad
courses as an effective assessment of pre- and posttest competence. Faculty may further
customize course assessment based on their specific learning outcomes and GPI rubrics. Given
the increased importance of High Impact Practices (Kuh, 2001) in the general education
requirements, GPI could provide learning rubrics for courses with global components and assist
with the development of new courses having similar requirements. Lastly, instructors could use
the GPI instrument to assess the learning outcomes and get their study abroad courses certified in
alignment with the Global Citizens Project (Global Citizens Project, 2013). Students who
complete the certified courses may count the credits towards requirements to receive the Global
Citizens Award (Global Citizens Project, 2013).
Additionally, this study’s results may serve as means to assist in the curriculum design to
determine specific learning experiences, outcomes, and teaching strategies. Faculty may utilize
the global perspectives pre- and posttest scores to enhance their students’ learning expectations
and align those with goals for each student’s career placement. Outcomes content may be
improved by adding the global perspective component. Finally, teaching strategies may include
diverse team projects based on students’ level of GPI assessment. For example, the
underrepresented group members may gain specific global competence when teamed with
students from highly represented groups in the study abroad population.
This study suggests the need to use the GPI instrument in order to assess students’ global
competence for a specific period or a specific targeted cohort. In some of the already existing
assessments, study abroad professionals ask students to express their satisfaction with classes,
location, food, culture, host family, and quality of the program. Other surveys assess traits and
development of characteristics as a result of study abroad (Care & Kim, 2018; De Poli,
Vergolini, & Zanini, 2018). Only a few surveys assess the level of individual growth in specific
global competence levels, ethnic tolerance, and world-mindedness (Paige et al., 2002; Ryan &
Twibell, 2000). This study may assist study abroad staff with a specific insight into relating
global competence—as a key competence demanded by employers—to study abroad. In
addition, since the GPI measures all three developmental domains (cognitive, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal), study abroad professionals may benefit from these additional levels measured by
the instrument.
Career centers and professional development offices at colleges and universities may be
able to use the results of this study to provide students with data on how to gain the needed skills
employers seek in graduates. Career advisers, based on this study’s results, may develop career
modules including global learning and strategies for increasing competitiveness of college
students. Professional career development courses offered by career advisers may include global
components to enhance employability of students. Finally, in partnership with local and national
companies, specific career events, such as global career fairs, workshops, and boot camps may
take place to support global education and a globally equipped workforce.
Based on NAFSA (2018), employers view study abroad programs as a positive
experience for students and graduates. Employers further value study abroad programs as means
to gain decision-making skills in the global environment and develop experiences in managing
global issues. Based on the results of this study, companies could collaborate with colleges and
universities to support study abroad programs and global learning initiatives. Such strategic
partnerships could provide corporate grants, scholarships, and other financial support to enable
students to gain global competence because of study abroad. Corporate partners in collaborations
with study abroad offices can then assist in diversifying the population of study abroad
participants and increase the number of underrepresented students. Given the already existing
grants, loans and scholarships targeted for first generation, minorities, and gender specific
college programs, corporations and employers could consider investing in similar programs,
however, with a study abroad component.
A final implication for practice is the utilization of the Global Education Roadmap
designed based on this study’s results (see Figure 6). Given the variety of stakeholders utilizing
the education system, I have constructed and followed a specific roadmap. This roadmap can
assist educators and program directors to analyze, plan, advise, assess, and inform its
stakeholders—community, students, and institutions—regarding global learning opportunities.
a) Global economies. Communities and organizations face global challenges in the
interdependent and globalized environment.
b) Business demand. Organizations operating within global economies seek globally
competent graduates.
c) Study abroad. Study abroad programs provide opportunities for students to gain
global competence and become global citizens.
d) Student assessment (GPI). Study abroad participants’ assessment tools provide
valuable data needed for future programming. The GPI instrument measures three
development dimensions: cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal.
e) Student success programming. Based on effective student assessment tools,
educational institutions develop and improve student success initiatives.
f) Supply of graduates with global competence. Educational institutions plan and design
global learning programs to develop competitive and successful graduates equipped
with needed skills.
g) Need for global competence. Global competence is the capacity to analyze and solve
global issues, as well as an effective engine behind successful and sustainable
development of today’s workforce. It is the core of the Global Education Roadmap as
it strategically ties business demand, study abroad experiences, and student success
programming.
The Global Education Roadmap can be valuable when designing outreach plans for higher
education fundraising teams, corporate partnerships, and study abroad scholarships. Since
demand for business students with global competence is on the rise, study abroad initiatives can
be one of the solutions to meet such demand. As strategic business partners build relationships
and provide financial support to institutions, centers, and departments, the number of students
studying abroad could rise given the increased financial support. Employers and corporations, in
turn, can have a broader selection of qualified candidates with global competence gained through
study abroad programs. Given the effective program assessments, institutions may be able to link
the results to specific learning outcomes (such as career preparedness) and enhance current
design of study abroad programs. Based on the potential program improvements, study abroad
opportunities can gain a higher quality and as a result, students may increase needed key skills
and knowledge to become more marketable in a job search field. Consequently, the supply of
globally competent student can meet the demand set by global firms and economies.
Recommendations for Further Research
The first recommendation for further research is the addition of a qualitative component
in conjunction with the Global Perspective Inventory. This addition can complement the
quantitative data as it allows students to describe their global experiences. Purposeful selection
sampling can be utilized to analyze information from students based on their quantitative results.
For example, a study can focus on participants who had the least and most change scores in
specific scales in order to compare differences in their experience. Another sample might be
students in the underrepresented categories (gender, ethnicity/race, and parents’ education) and
students who speak another language. The qualitative component can include a survey about
specific program information such as length of the program, destination, language spoken in the
country, and a type of the program (individual and group). In addition, researchers may also
conduct individual interviews and focus groups to follow up on the data collected by the survey.
Further analysis of specific study abroad destinations selected by students may also provide
valuable information regarding geographical location and its link to specific learning outcomes.
Given the majority of American students historically study in Europe with 40 percent in only
five countries—the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, France, and Germany (NAFSA, 2018),
educators and practitioners may be able to concentrate their resources on other locations to
diversify the choices for study abroad destinations.
Figure 6. Global Education Roadmap
Longitudinal study design would also complement this study by informing specific
student group observations and compare the change scores in the global competence levels.
Faculty leading a study abroad program would administer the pretest GPI survey before the
students leave for the trip. There would also be a mid-program GPI survey administered abroad
complemented by interviews, focus groups and observations to account for the in-country
experience. After the students return home, faculty would conduct the posttest survey and
another qualitative component (interviews, peer assessment, journals, and focus groups). Faculty
would embed the survey and the qualitative component in the course learning outcomes and
objectives to ensure optimal student participation.
Another recommendation for further research is to replicate the study university-wide as
well as at other higher education institutions with similar strategic goals in global education. This
study surveyed only the undergraduate business student population so the results may differ from
other majors and other education institutions. Once the student population is expanded by other
majors and class levels (graduate students), a predictive model can be built to estimate the
change scores in the global competence scales based on the independent variables data collected
by the GPI. Depending on the predictive model, researchers may address the underrepresented
student groups in gender, ethnicity/race, and parents’ highest achieved education level. Adding a
section concerning characteristics of specific study abroad experiences (length, destination, and
previous study abroad experiences) can also provide value when building the predictive model.
Understanding the relationship between the specific variables and the change scores can then
assist in building support programs for the underrepresented groups.
Additionally, a larger scale study of students who previously studied abroad can be
beneficial to gain insight in the repeated experiences capturing information about specific
destination, length of time spent abroad, relationship with academic outcomes (GPA, graduation,
and retention), and link to career choices (students may be motivated to relocate). Students who
previously studied abroad could be open to explore non-traditional destinations and choose long-
term over short-term programs. As fewer graduate students in comparison to undergraduate
students participate in study abroad programs (NAFSA, 2018), adding this specific population
may also be beneficial when exploring change scores in levels of global competence and learning
outcomes.
Finally, university leaders could also consider studying the disparity between students
who intend to study, apply for a specific program, but never complete the process. Despite
previously conducted studies (Dwyer, 2004; Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004
Salisbury et al., 2013; Sutton & Rubin, 2004), there is a need to assess the reasons why some
students repeat study abroad programs and why some students do not consider them, holding
financial conditions equal. Given the rise of the study abroad programs popularity, it could be
helpful to identify the reasons behind the intention to study abroad. According to the Cooperative
Institutional Research Program (CIRP) survey, 32% of freshman responded they had an intent to
study abroad (Pryor et al., 2010). As freshman students have historically high level of college
experience involvement, the idea and motivation to study abroad may play an important part in
the decision making process when applying.
Conclusions
As suggested by the Institute of International Education study (IIE, 2018), there is a link
between study abroad experiences and critical skills demanded by today’s employers. The
students who studied abroad not only demonstrated increased communication skills and global
perspective, they also had a higher chance to receive job offers in the professional field (IIE,
2018). This study suggests a positive relationship between study abroad experience and global
competence, identified by employers and educational experts as one of the key aptitude to
compete in a career market (OECD, 2017. Current classroom environments play an essential role
to ensure graduates possess the needed skills to compete in global markets, but more importantly,
the environments also create many opportunities to analyze and comprehend a variety of
multicultural issues. Additionally, incorporating global competence into higher education
curricula prepares graduates for both educational and professional success in a globalized world.
This study explored the relationship between perceived levels of global competence and
study abroad experiences of undergraduate business majors. Pre- and post-study abroad data
were collected using the Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) instrument. I specifically selected
the GPI since it measures all three dimensions of personal development—cognitive,
intrapersonal, and interpersonal—in a multicultural environment for a total of six global
competence scales. Data analysis and results based on independent samples t tests and multiple
linear regression models indicated a positive relationship between study abroad experiences and
perceived global competence scales. Out of the six scales measured by GPI, five revealed
statistically significant change scores in cultural awareness and the impact of the global society,
respecting and accepting cultural difference, and engaging with people from other backgrounds
and cultures. The cognitive domain indicated significant levels of change scores in both scales
when comparing differences in the mean scores of the posttests between the study abroad and the
non-study abroad group. In addition, the cognitive domain reflected high change scores in the
scores of study abroad participants compared to their counterparts who did not study abroad.
Besides study abroad experiences, the only other independent variables with statistical
significance in the model were class year and service learning. Senior level students scored
higher in respecting and accepting other cultures in comparison to sophomore students.
Given the amount of resources institutions spend on study abroad programs each year, it
could be helpful to see the relationship between study abroad participation and students’ skills,
knowledge, and behavior in order to satisfy the demand for global competence in related
business fields. The results of the study, based on the GPI instrument, can also be used for
quality improvement processes at universities and colleges and assist in accreditation of specific
courses (i.e., global citizen certification). Specific evidence of students’ perceived global
competence can also enhance the globalized institutional environment and lead to fostering an
internationally oriented student body. The results of this study contribute to the knowledgebase
regarding global learning and the expansion of an effective study abroad assessment platform.
Higher education practitioners could find this study helpful in embedding global competence and
learning beyond the classroom into curricula.
This study calls for specific student programming to increase participation of male
students in the study abroad experience. Given the nationwide trend supported by this study,
males represent a significantly smaller portion of study abroad participants. Educators may also
focus on supporting ethnic minorities in order to increase their study abroad participation. This
can be achieved by scholarships and targeted study abroad locations of interest (based on
surveying the students). Increasingly, many colleges and universities are working towards
diversifying their study abroad body by traditional approaches, such as scholarships (Redden,
2018). In addition to increasing the male population in the study abroad participation, this study
also suggests investing resources in first generation and minority students. Based on the study’s
results, students whose parents achieved graduate school education scored more on change
scores in the global competence scales. Supporting underrepresented students may assist in
efforts to diversify the study abroad population. Working in tandem with corporate partners,
educators and university leaders can raise scholarship funds to serve this specific student body.
In addition, understanding first generation students’ needs may assist student affairs staff to
better plan for academic success programs.
Finally, students whose parents achieved graduate school education scored more on
change scores in the global competence scales. As research suggests, first generation students
tend to be less involved in college activities and programs (Pike & Kuh, 2005). Supporting
students who are first generation college students could enhance the efforts to diversify the study
abroad population. A prospective starting point could be to utilize already existing data on where
these students currently study abroad, assess the feasibility of expanding the programs as cohort-
based, and support the participants with study abroad grants and scholarships. Educators may
work with community leaders to raise scholarship funds and team up on specific projects to serve
this population.
Finally, The Global Education Roadmap designed as a result of this study can assist
educators and program directors to analyze, plan, advise, assess, and inform its stakeholders—
community, students, and institutions—regarding opportunities for global learning and
assessment of students participating in study abroad programs. Global competence is the core of
the Global Education Roadmap as it strategically ties business demand, study abroad
experiences, and student success programming.
