Who Plans (Not) to Study Abroad? An Examination of U.S. Student

Who Plans (Not) to Study
Abroad? An Examination
of U.S. Student Intent
Journal of Studies in
International Education
Volume 14 Number 5
November 2010 491-507
© 2010 Nuffic
10.1177/1028315309357942
http://jsie.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
April H. Stroud
University of Massachusetts–Amherst
With the number of American students studying abroad increasing each year and the
expected passage of a federal law that would increase and diversify study abroad
participation and locations, U.S. colleges and universities likely will have to make changes
related to curriculum, faculty involvement, institutional leadership, programming, and
resources (both financial and human) to meet the mandate. Therefore, it is imperative
that colleges and universities understand how the characteristics and backgrounds
of their students influence intent to study abroad. This study examined factors that
may affect U.S. student participation in study abroad, including parental income and
education, gender, race, intended major, attitudes about other cultures, and distance of
college from home. Data were collected from a large, public northeastern university
in the United States that participated in the 2007 Cooperative Institutional Research
Program (CIRP) survey, which provides information about incoming students’
backgrounds, academic and career expectations, personal goals, and opinions on a wide
range of political and social issues. The results indicate that being female, attending
school more than 100 miles from home, and expressing an interest in improving one’s
understanding of other cultures and countries have a positive influence on American
students’ intent to study abroad. Planning to pursue a master’s degree or higher, living
with family while attending school and majoring in engineering and professional areas
such as architecture and medicine negatively affect U.S. student intent to study abroad.
Keywords: globalization and international higher education; international exchange
programs; int­ernationalization of higher education; study abroad; strategic
institutional management of internationalization
W
ith a growing emphasis on globalization and internationalization in higher
education, U.S. students are heading abroad in record numbers. The number of
American students studying abroad has more than doubled, rising from under
100,000 in 1996/1997 to almost a quarter of a million in 2006/2007 (Institute of
International Education [IIE], 2008). At the individual-campus level, the number of
Author’s Note: Please address correspondence to April H. Stroud, International Programs Office,
University of Massachusetts-Amherst, 467 Hills South, 111 Thatcher Road, Amherst, MA 01003-9361;
e-mail: [email protected]
491
492 Journal of Studies in International Education
students participating in study abroad programs is often taken as an indicator of
overall institutional quality; a campus which has heavily invested in international
education is perceived as likely to offer a stimulating learning environment. In
fact, it is not uncommon for international opportunities and initiatives to be touted
to attract prospective students to colleges and universities. Some institutions, such as
Goucher College and St. Mary’s College of Maryland, include international education
as part of the core education mission by req­uiring international study as a degree
requirement (Lincoln Commission, 2005; Yeatman, 2008). The value of study abroad
has also caught the attention of state governments. Currently, 18 states have passed
International Education Resolutions to promote study abroad and international education at the postsecondary level with more states considering similar resolutions
(NAFSA: Association of International Educators, 2009a).
Globalization, economic competitiveness, and concerns about national security
have fueled the federal government’s support of education abroad. In 2005, President
Bush and Congress established a bipartisan federal commission that set a goal of 1
million students studying abroad annually by 2016-2017 (Lincoln Commission,
2005). One million students represent approximately half of U.S. college undergraduates graduating annually. A year later, the U.S. Senate, by unanimous vote on Senate
Resolution 308, declared 2006 as the “Year of Study Abroad” (Government Printing
Office, 2005).
In June 2009, The Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act was
approved by the U.S. House of Representatives as part of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 (NAFSA: Association of International Educators, 2009b). The act, which is aimed at dramatically increasing the
number of American students studying abroad, expanding study abroad opportunities in the developing world, and expanding study abroad participation by gender,
race, and academic major, is now under consideration by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Should the Simon Act become law, diversifying study abroad participation and
destinations will no longer be a goal but a mandate with which colleges and universities will have to comply to access federal funds. Institutions of higher education will
likely have to make changes related to curriculum, faculty involvement, institutional
leadership, programming, and resources (both financial and human) to increase
and diversify study abroad participation. Therefore, it is imperative that colleges and
universities understand the characteristics and backgrounds of their students and
how they influence intent to study abroad. Understanding intent to study abroad will
facilitate efforts to actualize intent among students—an important key to increasing
the participation rate of U.S. college students. The purpose of this exploratory study
is to examine some of the characteristics, backgrounds and attitudes of incoming
university freshmen and their intent to study abroad at the start of their undergraduate
education at a large, public university in the northeast United States. The results will
provide a better understanding of some of factors that may affect U.S. student intent
Stroud / Who Plans (Not) to Study Abroad 493
and ultimate participation in study abroad, including parental income and education,
gender, race, intended major, and previously unexplored factors such as geographic
distance from home and attitudes about other cultures.
Literature Review
The Simon Act focuses attention on the fact that the biggest obstacles to study
abroad for American students are not solely financial ones. After all, if finances were
a major barrier to study abroad, the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of
1992, which included provisions to allow the use of financial aid for study abroad if
the student is enrolled in a program approved by the home institution, would have
shown more dramatic effects in participation rates among traditionally underrepresented groups in American study abroad. Federal aid programs that students may use
include the Pell Grant, Perkins Loan, and Family Loans (Unsubsidized Stafford,
Subsidized Stafford, and PLUS). According to Bolen (2001), the opening of financial aid for use for study abroad, “like earlier aid policies for higher education (e.g.,
the GI Bill), helped diversify the populations able to participate” (p. 185).
However, 15 years later, national statistics reveal disparities in study abroad participation rates by gender, race, and academic major (Lincoln Commission, 2005).
Only 34.9% of all U.S. study abroad students in 2007 (IIE, 2008) were male despite
the fact that they comprised approximately 42% of the entire U.S. undergraduate
population (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006b). Currently, racial and
ethnic minorities account for only 17.2% of all U.S. students studying abroad (IIE,
2008) although they comprise approximately 22% of the college population (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2006b). In close accordance with national data identifying the most prevalent majors among college students, the three fields of study
most represented among study abroad participants include social sciences (21%), business management (19%), and humanities (13%). Of the 1,485,000 bachelor’s degrees
conferred in the United States in 2005-2006, the largest numbers of degrees were
conferred in the fields of business (318,000), social sciences and history (161,000),
and education (107,000) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006a).
The call to diversify study abroad participants is not new. In 1990, the IIE/
NAFSA/CIEE National Task Force on Undergraduate Study Abroad issued a “mandate” calling not only for increased numbers overall but also for a greater diversity
of program types, geographical locations, and participant backgrounds (Council on
International Education Exchange, 1990). It brought recognition to the fact that
many students are unable or unwilling to spend a quarter, semester, or full year of
their degree studies abroad for a variety of personal, academic, and economic reasons. The mandate appears to have been successful, as much of the recent growth in
study abroad has come from programs that offer study for shorter lengths of time
than semester and academic year programs (IIE, 2008). Slightly more than half
494 Journal of Studies in International Education
(52%) of U.S. students elect short-term study abroad programs (including summer,
January term, and any program of less than 8 weeks), whereas semester study now
accounts for 37% of stu­dents studying abroad (IIE, 2008).
Although brief sojourns and short-term programs expand the numbers of Americans studying abroad, it is likely that programs of longer duration provide better
opportunities for language acquisition and deeper immersion in the culture (Davidson, 2007; Neppel, 2005). However, recent research study at the University of
Minnesota–Twin Cities suggests that the duration of study abroad has no significant
impact on participants’ global engagement (Fischer, 2009).
Currently, only 5.5% of all U.S. study abroad students spend a full academic or
calendar year abroad and just over one third spend a semester abroad (IIE, 2008).
These data, combined with an ever-expanding number of study abroad providers and
programs, have made it difficult for often understaffed, overworked study abroad
advisors to vet new programs and to offer pre- and poststudy abroad sessions, which
research has shown maximizes student learning (Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi, &
­Lassegard, 2002). For these reasons, some study abroad advocates are wary of the
Simon Act for emphasizing “quantity over quality”—expanding the number of study
abroad participants with little consideration to the programs students participate in
and the quality of learning that takes place in them.
Although there are increasing options for study abroad in nontraditional destinations, the majority of American students still study abroad in traditional locations (e.g.,
Western Europe, Australia). According to data from the Institute of International Education (2008), 57.4% of U.S. students who studied abroad in 2007 did so in Europe,
whereas only 15% did so in Latin America, 4.2% in Africa, and 1.2% in the Middle
East. The number of American students studying in nontraditional locations has not
increased much despite scholarship programs established by the U.S. Department of
State focused on getting U.S. students to study in nontraditional destinations. These
include the Fulbright U.S. Student Program, the Gilman Scholarships for undergraduates, and new National Security Language Initiative programs focused on language
learning.
Just as the number of students studying abroad has grown, so too has the body
of research on study abroad. Topics vary from language learning and proficiency
abroad (e.g., Freed, 1995; Yager, 1998) to program evaluation (e.g., Gillespie,
Braskamp, & Braskamp, 1999; Sideli, 2001; Vande Berg, 2001) and learning outcomes for study abroad, such as world geography, cultural relativism, and global
interdependence (Rubin & Sutton, 2001). Another type of research related to study
abroad centers on the attitudinal and dispositional changes participants experience
as a result of their international sojourns. Social and psychological outcome variables studied by researchers include individual autonomy or self-efficacy, cognitive
flexibility, sociability, interethnic tolerance, and world-mindedness (e.g., Bates,
1997; Ingraham & Peterson, 2005; Paige, et al., 2002). For example, Bates (1997)
found that study abroad participants show higher levels of international concern
Stroud / Who Plans (Not) to Study Abroad 495
and awa­reness as well as higher levels of cross-cultural interest. Pre- and posttest
measures as well as narratives indicated that the study abroad experience enhanced
personal development and global mindedness. The changing or “growing” students
experience as a result of participation in study abroad are desirable traits echoed
throughout the Simon Act and its precursors.
In addition, research on study abroad has identified a variety of real and perceived
barriers for students to participate and even consider study abroad. These barriers
include such concerns as credit transfer (Carlson, Burn, Useem, & Yachimowicz, 1990;
Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Klahr, 1998; Shirley, 2007), lack of faculty/campus support
(Mathews, Hameister, & Hosley, 1998), lack of foreign language knowledge (Desoff,
2006; Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Hembroff & Rusz, 1993; Mathews, et al., 1998), and
cost (Booker, 2001; Clemens, 2003; Hembroff & Rusz, 1993; Lozano, 2008). Some
of the studies also highlight a lack of overall information about study abroad as one
of the biggest barriers (Mathews, et al., 1998; Mattai & Ohiwerei, 1989; Peterson,
2003).
Research on intent to study abroad and participation has focused on some of the
concerns highlighted in the Lincoln Commission and Simon Act such as the disproportionately low participation rates of minority students (Booker, 2001; Carroll,
1996; Clemens 2003; Hembroff & Rusz, 1993; Hoff, Van der Meid, & Doan, 2002;
Mattai & Ohiwerei, 1989), male students (Dessoff, 2006; Shirley, 2007; Thomas &
McMahon,1998), students with certain majors (Booker, 2001), nontraditional aged
students (Surridge, 2000), community college students (Oberstein-Delvalle, 1999),
and students with disabilities (Mathews, et al., 1998). These studies have attempted
to identify the reasons some students participate in study abroad, whereas others do
not. However, because unpublished doctoral dissertations comprise the majority of
the research on the topic, the findings are not readily available to study abroad professionals nor to those who work with students at colleges and universities. In
addition, the extant research consists almost entirely of single institution studies with
small, convenience samples that may not accurately represent the target population,
and some studies have employed questionable research methodologies.
Recently, however, a study by Salisbury, Umbach, Paulsen, and Pascarella (2009),
explored student intent to study abroad using data from 19 colleges and universities
that varied in size, selectivity, institutional type, and geographic location. Conceptualizing the study abroad choice process as similar to the college choice process, these
researchers found that various forms of capital (financial, human, social, and cultural) gained before college influence students’ predisposition to study abroad. The
study did confirm some of the findings of previous work on study abroad intent—
namely, that females and Whites are more likely to plan to study abroad. The study
also found differences in intent to study abroad based on institutional type, with students at research universities, regional institutions and community colleges less likely
than students at liberal arts colleges to consider study abroad (Salisbury, et al., 2009).
Institutions differ in their mission, focus, and structure and this is important to
496 Journal of Studies in International Education
consider when examining intent to study abroad as the types of opportunities,
resources, and support available to students can vary by institution type. Because
public 4-year institutions enroll over twice as many undergraduates as private, nonprofit, 4-year institutions (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2008), it
makes sense to concentrate the efforts to expand study abroad participation at public
4-year institutions. This research article helps to fill in some of the gaps in the study
abroad intent literature by using data from a public research university and including
variables that have not been previously examined.
Method
Sample
This study utilized the annual survey of entering freshmen conducted by the University of California Los Angeles’ Higher Education Research Institute and partially
sponsored by the American Council on Education (ACE). The survey is part of the
Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), the nation’s largest and longest
national, longitudinal empirical study of the American higher education system. The
CIRP survey provides institutions with information about their incoming 1st-year
students’ demographic backgrounds, academic and career expectations, personal
goals, and opinions on a wide range of political and social issues.
The sample used in this study initially included 3318 full-time freshmen entering
the University of Massachusetts–Amherst (UMass–Amherst)—a large, predominantly White, public university in the northeastern United States. The students who
completed the 30-min CIRP questionnaire participated in the 2007 New Students Program summer orientation program. However, only 2,258 of the cases were ultimately
included in the analysis due to missing data amongst variables, meaning 68% of the
2007/2008 academic year entering freshmen who completed the CIRP survey were
included in the study. The most missing data were associated with the variables’ highest degree planned (N = 445) and parents’ income (N = 436). As the sample is large,
the cases were excluded by list-wise deletion. To ensure that I understood the potential impact of the missing data on the analysis, I combined the missing data into a
new variable and included it in the analysis to test if the missing data would significantly affect the model; they did not.
In spring 2007, there was a total of 19,573 degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled
at UMass–Amherst and during the 2006/2007 academic year 1,041 UMass–Amherst
students studied abroad. See Table 1 for a breakdown of students on campus and
abroad by major during the 2006/2007 academic year. Of the students abroad, 6.7%
studied abroad for an academic year, 52.6% for a semester and 40.7% participated in
short-term and summer study abroad programs. Male students accounted for 36% of
study abroad participants. The majority of UMass–Amherst students elected to study
Stroud / Who Plans (Not) to Study Abroad 497
Table 1
UMass–Amherst Student Majors Total and Abroad
School or college
Total
majors
Abroad
Proportion
%
abroad
College of social & behavioral
5,078
291
5.7
28
sciences
School of management
3,040
260
8.6
25
College of humanities & fine arts
2,652
253
9.5
24.3
Undecided/unknown
2,415
72
3.0
6.9
College of natural resources & 1,488
49
3.3
4.7
environment
College of natural sciences & 2,085
35
1.7
3.4
mathematics
Bachelor’s degree with individual
590
34
5.8
3.3
concentration
Public health & health sciences
677
19
2.8
1.7
School of nursing
513
16
3.1
1.5
College of engineering
1,035
12
1.2
1.2
Education
Other
Total
19,573
1,041
5.3
100
% Abroad
nationally
21.4
19.1
28.1
3.1
8.8
1.5
—
4.1
—
3.1
4.2
6.6
100
Note: The UMass–Amherst schools and colleges do not match up with the fields of study categories used
in Open Doors. Categories were combined where appropriate. Data reported represent a duplicated count
of student majors/students abroad for students with multiple majors/more than one study abroad program.
Data adapted from “Admissions and Enrollment Report: Spring 2007,” by University of Massachusetts–
Amherst Office of Institutional Research, 2007, Office of Institutional Research Web site: http://www
.umass.edu/oapa/publications/admission_enrollment_reports/spr07/enr2.pdf, p. 11 and Bhandari & Chow
(2008, p. 67).
abroad in Europe (59.8%) with Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy being the most
popular destinations. Nearly 12% of UMass–Amherst students studied abroad in
Oceana in 2006/2007, followed by 8.3% in Latin America, 7% in Asia, and 6.5% in
Africa.
Analysis
To analyze the data, I used binary logistic regression as it can predict a dichotomous dependent variable on the basis of continuous and/or ordinal independents and
to rank the relative importance of independents (Pampel, 2000). Table 2 details the
specific survey items that comprise both the dependent variable and independent
variables. For the dependent variable, I dummy coded the ordinal-level response
categories (Very good chance, Some chance, Very little chance, No chance) to the
item “What is your best guess as to the chances you will participate in a study abroad
program?” with “1” including students who indicated a strong intent to study abroad
498 Journal of Studies in International Education
Table 2
Description of Variables Included in the Model (N = 2,258)
Variable name
Dependent
Study abroad
Independent
Gender
Race
Parental income
Financial concern
Parents’ education
Distance
Understand cultures
Major
Living with family
Degree planned
Description
Dummy variable based on student response to item: “What is your best
guess as to chances you will participate in a study abroad program?”
1 = very good chance (38.9%)
0 = all other responses (61.1%)
Self-reported sex used as a proxy for gender (1 = female, 0 = male)
Dummy variable based on self-reported racial/ethnic background (1 =
White, 0 = person of color)
Ordinal variable treated as a continuous variable based on self-reported
best estimate of parents’ total income last year (1 = less than
US$10,000, 2 = US$10,000-US$14,999, 3 = US$15,00-US$19,999, 4 =
US$20,000-US$24,999, 5 = US$25,000-US$29,999, 6 =
US$30,000-US$39,999, 7 = US$49,000-US$49,999, 8 =
US$50,000-US$59,999, 9 = US$60,000 = US$74,999, 10 =
US$75,000-US$99,999, 11 = US$100,000-US$149,999, 12 =
US$150,000-US$199,999, 13 = US$200,000- US$249,999, 14 =
US$250,000 or more)
Dummy variable based on self-reported concern about ability to finance
education (1 = no concern, 2 = some concern, 0 = major concern)
Dummy variable based on self-reported highest level of formal education
obtained by at least one parent (1 = first generation/neither father or
mother has a college degree, 0 = either father or mother has a college
degree or higher)
Dummy variable based on self-reported distance of university from
permanent home (1 = over 100 miles, 0 = 100 miles or less)
Ordinal-level variable treated as continuous based on student response to
an item about the personal importance of “improving my understanding
of other countries and cultures (1 = not important, 2 = somewhat
important, 3 = very important, 4 = essential)
Dummy variable based on self-reported probable field of study: arts &
humanities, biological science, business, education, engineering,
physical science, professional, technical, and other fields/undecided.
social sciences = reference group/omitted category
Dummy variable based on self-reported response to the item “Where do
you plan to live during the fall term?” (1 = with my family or other
relatives, 0 = all other responses)
Dummy variable based on self-reported highest academic degree student
intends to obtain (1 = master’s degree or higher, 0 = bachelor’s degree or
lower)
and “0” for all others. The reference group includes students who do not show a
strong intent to study abroad because, according to national data, far more students
express intent to study abroad than actually do study abroad (IIE, 2008).
Stroud / Who Plans (Not) to Study Abroad 499
Table 3
Correlation Matrix for Independent Variables
Variables
Gender
Race
Parental
income
Financial
concern
Parents’
education
Distance
Understanding
cultures
Major
Living with
family
Degree
planned
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
—
–.005
—
–.070
.283**
—
.024
–.052**
.008
.275**
–.058**
—
.341**
–.005
.046*
–.087**
–.020
.035
–.001
.024
–.022
–.008
–.018
–.047*
.024
.014
–.042*
–.016
.029
–.096**
.036
–.017
.001
–.016
.009
.064*
.012
.124** –.119
–.005
.005
–.027
—
—
.020
—
–.154**
—
–.013
–.019
–.132**
.038*
—
.016
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level, two-tailed. **Correlation is significant at the .01 level, two-tailed.
The independent or predictor variables included in the model were selected based
on findings in previous research and availability in the data. These variables included
indicators of financial capital (parental income, financial concern) and cultural capital (parental education, importance of improving understanding of other cultures and
countries, degree planned) as identified in Salisbury, et al. (2009). Also included in
this study are variables explored in other studies about student intent to study abroad,
such as basic demographic characteristics (race, gender) and academic major. For the
major variable, I chose social sciences as the reference group and omitted category
because students who major in the social sciences comprise the largest group of
study abroad participants at both UMass–Amherst and nationally. Finally, variables
that often influence student college choice, such as closeness to family/family obligations (geographic distance of university from home, living at home/with family) were
included because they may also affect student intent to study abroad. These factors
have not been included in previous research on intent to study abroad.
Results
First, I ran bivariate correlations for all independent variables to carefully examine interrelationships (see Table 3 for the correlation matrix). Weak-to-moderate
correlations exist between race and income, race and parents’ education and income,
and parents’ education (as expected). I tested for multicollinearity by running the
multicollinearity diagnostic statistics in the linear regression analysis in SPSS and then
500 Journal of Studies in International Education
Table 4
Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis Predicting Intent to Study Abroad
Predictor
B
SE
Gender
0.899**
.102
Race
0.283
.142
Parental income
0.002
.018
Financial concern
None
-0.022
.202
Some
0.108
.184
Parents’ education
0.172
.122
Distance
0.287*
.097
Understand cultures
0.680**
.058
Major
Arts & humanities
0.195
.175
Biological science
-0.114
.190
Business
0.261
.165
Education
-0.239
.337
Engineering
-1.049**
.251
Physical science
-0.664
.318
Professional
-0.546*
.198
Technical
0.592
.501
Other fields
-0.275
.177
Living with family
-1.411*
.517
Degree planned
-0.494**
.131
Constant
-3.147
c2
433.196
df
19
–2 log likelihood
2581.78
% correctly predicted
Strong intent
51.1
Others
82.0
Total
70.0
Odds ratio
2.458
1.328
1.002
0.978
1.115
1.187
1.332
1.974
1.216
0.892
1.298
0.787
0.350
0.515
0.579
1.808
0.760
0.244
0.610
*p < .01. **p < .001.
examining Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for each variable. High Tolerance values (ranging from .815 to .997) and low VIF values (ranging from 1.003
to 1.229) reveal no multicollinearity among variables. Results from the logistic
regression analysis are shown in Table 4. The model correctly classified 70% of the
cases, accounting for 8.8% of the explained variance. The analysis was significant,
c2(19) = 433.196, p < .0001, and 7 of the 19 variables were found to be statistically
significant at the .01 level or less. The gender variable was the most influential of the
variables. The results reveal that females have odds of intending to study abroad that
are 2.4 times higher than males’ odds of intending to study abroad. This mirrors
national data on study abroad participation and research on gender inequity in study
Stroud / Who Plans (Not) to Study Abroad 501
abroad found in previous research (Dessoff, 2006; Salisbury et al., 2009; Thomas &
McMahon, 1998). Not surprisingly, students who expressed that it was important to
improve their understanding of other countries and cultures have odds of intending
to study abroad that are 2 times higher than students who did not indicate that it was
important for them to improve their understanding of other countries and cultures.
The geographic distance of the university from the student’s permanent home also
had significant positive effects on student intent to study abroad. Students who indicated that UMass–Amherst is over 100 miles from their permanent homes were more
likely to intend to study abroad than students who indicated that UMass–Amherst is
less than 100 miles from their permanent homes.
Four of the variables had significant negative effects on the dependent variable.
Stu­dents who planned to pursue a master’s degree or higher were less likely to plan to
study abroad than students who planned to pursue a bachelor’s degree or less. Students’ intended fields of study appear to influence their desire to study abroad and the
only statistically significant variables related to student major showed negative
effects. An intended major in engineering or professional areas such as architecture,
medicine, nursing, or physical or occupational therapy is negatively related with
planning to study abroad. The last variable of interest that had a significant negative
effect on the dependent variable was the living with family variable, so students who
indicate that they are living with family members rather than on campus or in offcampus housing along or with other students were less likely to express a strong
intent to study abroad than students who are living on campus.
Limitations
This study has four notable limitations. First, although the CIRP survey data set
emp­loyed for this study provides a new vehicle by which to learn about student intent
to study abroad, it was not designed for this purpose, which consequently limits the
depth and type of analysis possible. Second, because the research was conducted at one
large, public northeastern university in the United States, it is important to note that the
findings may not be generalizable to other American institutions or international institutions. Nevertheless, the study does help us learn more about large research universities
in the United States. Third, the regression model included two noncontinuous variables
(parental income and understand cultures), which I treated in the analysis as continuous
variables. Although incorporating noncontinuous variables in regression models is a
common practice within higher education research, it is considered by some statisticians to violate “the mathematical logical system” on which parametric statistics are
based (Newton & Rudestam, 1999, p. 183). Finally, for practical reasons (e.g., too few
cases in any individual racial or non-White ethnic group), students of color were
grouped together for data analysis. I acknowledge that there may be important differences among racial or ethnic groups worthy of examination in future studies.
502 Journal of Studies in International Education
Discussion and Implications
The findings of this study affirm both national data and existing literature on
intent to study abroad (Desoff, 2006; IIE, 2008; Salisbury, et al., 2009; Thomas &
McMahon, 1998). It is not surprising that female students are more likely to intend
to study abroad controlling for other factors. Nor is it surprising that students who
have expressed that it is important to them to improve their understanding of other
countries and cultures are more likely to express intent to study abroad; one would
assume an interest in other countries and cultures to be motivating factor.
The results of this study show that students who attend UMass–Amherst more
than 100 miles from their permanent homes are more likely to express intent to study
abroad. Although no previous research on study abroad intent has addressed the distance of home to university, it is reasonable to presume that a number of factors that
facilitate a student to attend college further from home would also facilitate study
abroad. These factors might include independence, fewer familial obligations, the
absence of a serious boyfriend/girlfriend at home, and the means to afford travel
between home and school. Similarly, students who indicated that they planned to live
with their families rather than live on campus or off campus either with friends or
alone are less likely to consider studying abroad.
To better understand study abroad participation, it might be useful to consider research
on persistence, which has identified some factors that influence students’ academic progress and success, including prior experiences, student characteristics, and students’
experiences and level of involvement during their postsecondary education (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Factors that may adversely affect persistence often are interrelated and the challenges faced by students are compounded. Work intensity and family
responsibilities, which have been identified as two chief persistence risk factors (Horn &
Premo, 1995), might also be factors that affect consideration of study abroad. Although
many students are working to pay for their education, they may also be providing support
and care to family. Future studies should examine more closely the influence of student
independence and familial obligations on study abroad participation.
The findings on intended major and intent to study abroad yielded interesting results
that contradicted previous studies. I found no statistically significant differences on intent
to study abroad between students who major in the social sciences and those who major
in arts and humanities, biological sciences, business, education, technical, and other
fields. I did, however, find a significant negative effect of majors in engineering and professional areas of study on intent to participate in study abroad compared to social science
majors. Academic requirements for engineering and for many of the professional areas
(e.g., architecture, premed, and nursing) require a strict sequence of classes and many
labs—structural conditions that may affect students’ perceived and/or actual ability to
study abroad and graduate on time (Carlson, et al., 1990). For these reasons, engineering
and professional majors may not consider the possibility of study abroad. The findings
Stroud / Who Plans (Not) to Study Abroad 503
suggest that unsupportive faculty member or inflexible requirements within the major
impede certain majors from even considering study abroad. It will be interesting to
observe if the Simon Act, should it pass, forces changes that dramatically change the
imbalance among majors in study abroad consideration and participation.
Unlike previous research on factors influencing study abroad participation (Cole,
1991; Dessoff, 2006; Lincoln Commission, 2005; Salisbury, et al., 2009), neither
students’ reported parental income nor their concern about being able to finance their
education were statistically significant in this study. It is possible that these findings
are attributable to missing data. Because many students responding to the survey
used for this study did not answer the item asking them to estimate their parents’
annual income, and were therefore excluded from the analysis, it is possible that the
students who did answer the question did not actually know their parents’ income
and guessed. It is also plausible that students indicated little or no concern about
being able to finance study abroad if they are not directly involved in paying for their
education or feel confident knowing they can access student loans to fund their education including study abroad. These findings clearly require further study.
Unlike previous research (Salisbury, et al., 2009), level of parents’ education was
not statistically significant in this study, so students with at least one parent having
competed a college degree were no more likely than first-generation students to plan
to study abroad. These results were unexpected, as were the results related to students’ highest planned degree. This study revealed that students who planned to
pursue a master’s degree or higher were less likely to consider study abroad than
students who intended to pursue a bachelor’s degree or less. It is possible that students who attend 4-year public institutions differ from students who attend other
types of institutions. It is also possible that those who do not plan to pursue an
advanced degree are motivated to study abroad to set themselves apart to future
employers. According to the 2008 Open Doors report, the increasing numbers of
students participating in study abroad programs demonstrate a “growing recognition
by students and educators that an international experience is important to students’
future careers.” Previous research has found more (students are motivated to study
abroad by the belief that the experience would allow them to be more competitive in
an increasingly diverse and globally oriented job market (Carlson, et al., 1990).
In addition, positive press about participation in study abroad and its ability to
make employers look more favorably on a student as a job candidate have appeared
more and more frequently in the past decade (e.g., Cultural Experiences Abroad, 2008;
StudyAbroad.com, 2008). The career advantages of study abroad are echoed in top
10 lists of reasons for studying abroad, which include enhancing one’s resume and
preparing for the increasingly globalized business world (StudyAbroad.com, 2008).
In addition, students are encouraged to market or sell their study abroad experiences
to employers. From books that claim to be able to help students “get the best punch”
from their study abroad experience (Hachey, 2007) to Web sites that instruct students
504 Journal of Studies in International Education
how to maximize their study abroad experience on their résumé (Cultural Experiences Abroad, 2008; Hayward, 2008), students are studying abroad because potential
learning outcomes, such as development of intercultural communication and global
understanding, have become an economic commodity with high value in the global
marketplace. Future studies should examine study abroad as a résumé builder or
commodity and its potential impact on participation in study abroad.
Conclusion
Building on findings from previous research, this study indicates that there is still
much to learn about what influences U.S. student intent to study abroad, particularly at
large research universities, which are among the most important because more students
attend these institutions than other types of institutions. Demographic characteristics
such as gender seem to be consistent across studies; however, other variables such as
academic major and financial means vary greatly from study to study. The differences
from study to study may be attributed to the quality of the data used and may reveal
differences by institution type. Some significant predictors explored in this study, such
as distance of university from permanent home, living with family, and highest academic degree int­ended, have not been explored in previous studies and warrant further
research.
The importance of study abroad in today’s global society has been highlighted by
the recent Simon Act and the rhetoric of the Obama administration. However, the
logic touted is not that new. For example, President Clinton’s memorandum and
accompanying international education policy statement of April 19, 2000 opened,
“To continue to compete successfully in a global economy and to maintain our role as
a world leader, the United States needs to ensure that its citizens develop a broad
understanding of the world, proficiency in other languages, and knowledge of other
cultures” (Clinton, 2000).
Whether one views study abroad as an opportunity for personal growth, a responsibility as a global citizen or a résumé builder, the increasing number of students
participating in study abroad programs means that it is essential that we understand
who studies abroad and who does not. If, as educators, we are truly committed to
democracy and diversity, then the opportunity to study abroad needs to be opened up
to more students. Given the global economic downturn, diversifying study abroad
participation will not be easy; American and international universities alike are
facing budget shortfalls and retrenchment of programs, services, and personnel is
inevitable. Study abroad advocates, then, will benefit from developing a more nuanced
understanding of intent to study abroad, so that they may focus more of their time and
energy on reaching out to underrepresented populations.
Stroud / Who Plans (Not) to Study Abroad 505
References
Bates, J. T. (1997). The effects of study abroad on undergraduates in an honors international program. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(11), 4162.
Bhandari, R., & Chow, P. (2008). Open Doors 2008: Report on International Educational Exchange. New
York: Institute of International Education.
Bolen, M. (2001). Consumerism and U.S. study abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education,
5, 182-200.
Booker, R. W. (2001). Differences between applicants and non-applicants relevant to the decision to
apply to study abroad (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, 2001). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 62(04), 1337.
Carlson, J. S., Burn, B. B., Useem, J., & Yachimowicz, D. (1990). Study abroad: The experience of American
undergraduates in Western Europe and the United States. New York: Greenwood Press.
Carroll, A. V. (1996). The participation of historically underrepresented students in study abroad programs: An assessment of interest and perception of barriers. Unpublished master’s thesis, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Carsello, C., & Creaser, J. (1976). How college students change during study abroad. College Student
Journal, 10, 276-278.
Cultural Experiences Abroad. (2008, November 5). Learn how to make the most of studying abroad on
your resume! Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.ceastudyabroadblog.com/2007/11/
learn-how-to-make-most-of-studying.html
Clemens, C. R. (2003). A descriptive study of demographic characteristics and perceptions of cross cultural
effectiveness of diverse students at Ohio University in relation to study abroad (Doctoral dissertation,
Ohio University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 2806.
Clinton, W. J. (2000, April 19). Memorandum on international education policy. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from the William J. Clinton Presidential Center Web site: http://archives
.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/?u=041900-presidential-memo-on-international-education-policy.htm
Cole, J. B. (1991). Opening address of the 43rd international conference on educational exchange. In
Black students and overseas programs: Broadening the base of participation. pp. 1-8. Papers and
speeches presented at the 43rd CIEE International Conference on Education Exchange. New York:
Council on International Education Exchange.
Council on International Education Exchange. (1990). A national mandate for education abroad: Getting
on with the task. New York: Report of the National Task Force on Undergraduate Education Abroad.
Davidson, D. E. (2007). Study abroad and outcomes measurements: The case of Russian. Modern Language Journal, 91, 276.
Desoff, A. (2006). Who’s not going abroad? International Educator, 15(2), 20-27.
Fischer, K. (2009, February 20). Short study-abroad trips can have lasting effect, research suggests.
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 26, 2009, from http://chronicle .com/article/ShortStudy-Abroad-Trips-Can/1541
Freed, B. F. (1995). Second language acquisition in a study abroad context. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gillespie, J., Braskamp, L., & Braskamp, D. (1999). Evaluation and study abroad: Developing assessment
criteria and practices to promote excellence. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad,
5, 101-127.
Goldstein, S. B., & Kim, R. I. (2006). Predictors of US college students’ participation in study abroad programs:
A longitudinal study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 507-521.
Government Printing Office. (2005). S. Res. 308: Designating 2006 as the “Year of Study Abroad.” Retrieved
January 2, 2009, from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_
bills&docid=f:sr308ats.txt.pdf
506 Journal of Studies in International Education
Hachey, J.-M. (2007). The big guide to living and working overseas: 3,045 career building resources
(Rev. ed.). Hoboken, NJ: ISSI.
Hayward, M. E. (2008, September 26). How to maximize your study abroad experience on
your résumé. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://ourworld.worldlearning.org/site/
News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9789
Hembroff, L. A., & Rusz, D. L. (1993). Minorities and overseas studies programs: Correlates of differential participation (Occasional papers on International Educational Exchange, 30). New York: Council
on International Educational Exchange.
Hoff, J., Van Der Meid, J. S., & Doan, T. (2002, November). Asian American participation in study
abroad. Presentation at the Annual CIEE: Council on International Educational Exchange Conference,
Atlanta, GA.
Horn, L. J., & Premo, M. D. (1995). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions:
1992-1993, with an essay on undergraduates at risk (NCES 96-237). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Ingraham, E. C., & Peterson, D. L. (2005). Assessing the impact of study abroad on student learning at
Michigan State University. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10(5), 83-100.
Institute of International Education. (2008). Open doors report 2008. Available from http://www.opendoors.iienetwork.org
Klahr, S. C. (1998). A descriptive study of the barriers to study abroad in engineering undergraduate
education and recommendations for program design (Doctoral dissertation, Montana State University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(08), 2882.
Lincoln Commission. (2005). Global competence and national needs: One million Americans studying
abroad. Final Report from the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Fellowship Program, Washington, DC.
Lozano, J. E. (2008). Exploring students’ decisions regarding studying abroad: A study of private university students in south Texas. Abstract retrieved December 20, 2009 from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(03). (UMI No. 3305622)
Mathews, P. R., Hameister, B. G., & Hosley, N. S. (1998). Attitudes of college students toward study
abroad: Implications for disability service providers. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 13(2), 67-77.
Mattai, R. P., & Ohiwerei, G. (1989, November). Some mitigating factors against African-Americans
in the rural American South opting to study abroad. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on
International Educational Exchange. Washington, DC. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED315474)
NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2009a). International education at the state level.
Retrieved January 2, 2009, from http://www.nafsa.org/public_policy.sec/international _education_23
NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2009b). Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad
Foundation Act. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://www.nafsa.org/public_policy
.sec/commission_on_the_abraham/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006a). Digest of education statistics, 2005 Fast facts—Most
popular majors. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 7, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/
fastfacts/display.asp?id=37
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006b). Digest of education statistics, 2006 Fast facts—Degrees
conferred by sex and race. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 7, 2009, from http://nces.
ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Digest of education statistics 2007. Table 177.
Retrieved February 22, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_177
.asp?referrer=list
Neppel, J. M. (2005). Study abroad as a passport to student learning: Does the duration of the study abroad
program matter? Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 1891. (UMI No. 1426842)
Newton, R. R., & Rudestam, K. E. (1999). Your statistical consultant. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stroud / Who Plans (Not) to Study Abroad 507
Oberstein-Delvalle, E. (1999). Study abroad programs in three California community colleges (Doctoral
dissertation, Pepperdine University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 631.
Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J. C., & Lassegard, J. P. (2002). Maximizing study abroad: A
program professionals’ guide to strategies for language and culture learning use. Minneapolis, MN:
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.
Pampel, F. C. (2000). Logistic regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J. C., & Lassegard, J. P. (2002). Maximizing study abroad:
A students’ guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insightsfrom twenty
years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Peterson, D. L. (2003). The decision to study abroad: Contributing factors and implications for communication strategies (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 64, 1450.
Rubin, D. L., & Sutton, R. C. (2001). Assessing student learning outcomes from study abroad. International Educator, 10(2), 30-31.
Salisbury, M. H., Umbach, P. D., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2009). Going global: Understanding the choice process of the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 119-143.
Shirley, S. W. (2007). The gender gap in post-secondary study abroad: Understanding and marketing
to male students (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Dakota, 2006). Abstract retrieved
December 20, 2009 from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57.
Sideli, K. (2001). Outcomes assessment and study abroad programs: Commentary on the results of a
SECUSSA/IIE electronic sampling. International Educator, 10(2), 30.
Studyabroad.com. (2008). The top ten reasons for study abroad. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from
http://www.studyabroad.com/guides/parentsguide/reasonstostudy.html
Surridge, R. W. (2000). Factors deterring adult undergraduate students at Penn State Capital College from
participation in study abroad (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 1257.
Thomas, S. L., & McMahon, M. E. (1998). Americans abroad: Student characteristics, pre-departure qualifications and performance abroad. International Journal of Educational Management, 12(2), 57-64.
Vande Berg, M. (2001) The assessment of learning outcomes in study abroad. International Educator,
10(2), 31.
Yager, K. (1998). Learning Spanish in Mexico: The effect of informal contact and student attitudes on
language gain. Hispania, 81, 898-913.
Yeatman, J. (2008, September 3). As classes start, St. Mary’s College battles charge of elitism. Enterprise.
Available from http://www.somdnews.com
April H. Stroud is a doctoral student in Educational Policy and Leadership at the University of
Massachusetts Amherst. She has been an International Program Advisor at the UMass Amherst
International Programs Office since 2005.