ERIC EJ936401: An Analysis of the Contact Types of Study Abroad Students: The Peer Cohort, the Host Culture and the Electronic Presence of the Home Culture in Relation to Readiness and Outcomes

2010·0.23 MB·English

by  ERIC

An Analyss of the Contact Types
of Study Abroad Students:
The Peer Cohort, the Host Culture and
the Electronc Presence of the Home Culture n
Relaton to Readness and Outcomes
Victor Savicki
Western Oregon University
In nternatonal educaton the conventonal wsdom, supported by research,
s that more contact wth a host culture yelds better results for study abroad
students (Dwyer, 2004) . Such exposure to a foregn culture s seen as the raison
d’etre for study abroad: the mechansm provokng students to challenge ther
ethnocentrc notons and move toward a more nclusve worldvew (Engle &
Engle, 2002; Savck, 2008) . However, the relatonshp between contact and
outcomes s a bt more complcated . Some shorter-term programs seem be able
to attan outcomes smlar to or dentcal wth longer-term programs (Dwyer,
2004) . There may be dfferent outcomes dependng on both quantty and qual-
ty of contact (Voc & Hewstone, 200) . Many factors may account for ths
more nuanced connecton between foregn culture exposure and postve out-
comes, not the least of whch are parallel, concurrent contacts wth other home
culture study abroad students, and contnued contact wth sgnficant people n
the student’s home culture . Although contact has been defined as “actual face-
to-face nteracton between members of clearly defined groups” (Pettgrew &
Tropp, 2006, p . 754), n the age of technology, t may be that electronc contact
can have effects as well . The current research attempts to explore the relaton-
shps between varous types of cultural contact (host culture, Amercan student
peers, and home culture) and mportant aspects of the students’ study abroad
experence . It wll relate these varous aspects of contact to precursors of, and
readness for, study abroad, to several outcomes of study abroad, and to psycho-
logcal processes employed by students durng ther sojourn . The am s to shed
lght on the mpact of varous forms of contact, and to suggest possble processes
underlyng dfferental contact . These underlyng processes have mplcatons
for educaton abroad program desgn .
61
Victor Savicki
The Contact Hypothesis
Much of the theoretcal bass for the dea that contact between people of df-
ferent cultures can lead to a decrease n ethnocentrsm stems from work by Gordon
Allport (1954) . A major meta-analyss of 50 years of research on Allport’s theory
does ndcate “small to medum” sgnficant reducton of prejudce over a broad
varety of ntergroup contact stuatons (r’s = – .205 to – .214) (Pettgrew & Tropp,
2006, p . 757) . Sad n a dfferent way, ths type of contact accounts for between 4%
to 5% of prejudce reducton . More mportantly, when key theoretcal condtons
are met (equal group status, common goals, ntergroup cooperaton, and support
from authortes), prejudce reducton can be more substantal (a bt more than 8%
of varance accounted for) . Ths s a modest, yet consstent relatonshp . On the
other hand, when condtons of anxety or threat exst, prejudce and avodance can
actually ncrease sgnficantly n relaton to contact wth out-groups (Plant, 2004;
Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Voc & Hewstone, 2006) . The results of contact wth a
dfferent culture may possbly be benefical, but may not always be bengn .
As Janet Bennett ndcates n one of her five foundaton prncples of develop-
ng ntercultural competence, “cultural contact does not always lead to a sgnficant
reducton of stereotypes” (Bennett, 2008, p . 17) . Just placng students n another
culture to fend for themselves does not guarantee postve outcomes . Proxmty s a
necessary but not sufficent condton for socal contact (Pettgrew & Tropp, 2006) .
Cultural exposure s not “magc;” there s no “alchemy somehow actvated by the
sheer fact of beng abroad” (Engle & Engle, 2002, p . 26) . Partcularly mportant s
the recognton that t s dfficult to arrange the condtons that Allport (1954) says
lead to reducton of prejudce; whle at the same tme study abroad students are lkely
to experence stress and anxety as a result of ther clashes wth ther host culture’s
“foregnness” (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001) . Programs must be desgned to
take nto account both exposure to a study abroad culture, and the reflecton and
processng of cultural clashes n values, assumptons, and expectatons . They must
provde both challenge and support (Deardorff, Page, & Vande Berg, 2008) .
Study abroad programs and the advsors who send students to them tout the
dea of “cultural mmerson .” Immerson, as an expresson of exposure to a foregn
culture, s dfficult to quantfy . Engle and Engle (200) have developed a scheme
whch rates the degree of mmerson of study abroad programs based on varous
characterstcs such as duraton, language requrements, student housng arrange-
ments, guded reflecton on cultural experence, to name a few crtera . Ths scheme
accounts for the study abroad program’s features whch may both challenge and
support students . It also dentfies varous aspects that may lead to qualty of con-
tact, whch Stephan, Daz-Lovng, and Duran (2000) say can be more mportant
62
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad
than quantty of contact . Agan, the presumpton s that programs that fall on the
hgher end of these contnua represent a greater degree of exposure, and therefore
have a greater probablty of producng postve study abroad outcomes .
Interestngly, the contact hypothess wth regard to the nterface between
home and host cultures overlooks two mportant factors that may further com-
plcate ths nterplay . Frst, there s some evdence that a “thrd culture” emerges
whle students study abroad based on student assocaton wth other students
from ther home culture (Ctron, 2002) . For smplcty’s sake n ths paper the
students who comprse ths thrd culture, those other students from the home
culture, wll be referred to as the “peer cohort .” Addtonally, representatves of
the students’ home culture may have stronger nfluence than n the past because
of the electronc connectons of e-mal and other dstance-erasng technologes
(Holzmüller, Stöttnger, & Wttkop, 2002) . We take up these ssues next .
Peer Cohort Contact
Commonly, groups of study abroad students assemble n ther host culture
to partake of the study abroad program, be t as drect enrollment students n a
foregn unversty, or part of a group of students movng together through an
academc or servce learnng experence (Engle & Engle, 2002; Pusch & Merrll,
2008) . When faced wth a foregn culture, t s natural for students from a smlar
culture, or at least dssmlar from the host culture, to find common cause n ther
dfferentness from the host culture (Frey & Tropp, 2006) . Ths may be especally
true when the host culture s somewhat opaque, dstant, and dfficult to enter .
Bandng together, students can support each other emotonally and wth pract-
cal advce and shared experences . To some extent, such bandng together can
ncrease ther well-beng whle exposed to the trals and trbulatons of accultura-
tve stress (Savck, Cooley, & Donnelly, 2008) .
Conversely, such an allance may pose an mpedment to rcher and fuller
contact wth members of the host culture, producng a “ghetto” effect sealng the
students off from the host culture (Holzmüller, Stöttnger, & Wttkop, 2002, p .
140) . Ctron (2002) suggests that another outcome of such mutual engagement
s the emergence of a thrd culture that s not qute the home culture and not
qute the host culture, but some mxture . Evanoff (2006) promotes the dea that
cultures can form connectons wth each other va the constructon of a thrd
culture . Such thrd cultures have the characterstcs of “dynamc nbetweenness”
(Yoshkawa, 1987) or “hybrdty” (Werbner & Modood, 1997) . Engle and Engle
(2002), however, see such a development n Amercan study abroad students as
a phenomenon of the “hermetc Amercan self” (p . 1) whch serves to close off
6
Victor Savicki
students from a more complete mmerson n the host culture . Evdence from
contact theory research and conceptualzatons also supports the dea that stron-
ger out-group stereotypng can be assocated wth overly lmted n-group focus
(Frey & Tropp, 2006; Plant, 2004; Voc & Hewstone, 200) . Ctron’s (2002)
long-term follow up wth study abroad students rases concerns that conformty
to the norms of the thrd culture forecloses optons and opportuntes for deeper
partcpaton n and understandng of the host culture .
Although student relance on one another n a study abroad settng may be
predctable and natural, t can carry both potentally postve and negatve effects
wth regard to desred study abroad outcomes .
Electronic Presence of the Home Culture
Electronc communcaton today s pervasve . Current study abroad students
from the U .S . have come to rely on a number of means of contact va the Internet
(e-mal, voce over Internet protocol (VOIP), nstant messagng) as well as voce
phone and text messagng . Many study abroad stes have nsttuted optons for
Internet and moble phone access for ther students . On the one hand, such access
allows students to keep n contact wth each other, and to mantan psychologcal
support from mportant people back home . On the other hand, t may mpose
problems for study abroad goals . Holzmüller, Stöttnger, and Wttkop (2002)
state that “As Internet and emal facltate quck and nexpensve communcaton
wth home, students may have less nclnaton to make the necessary nvestments
to cope wth the host culture” (p . 19) .
Beyond the concerns about nterference wth face to face host culture con-
tact, electronc communcaton may also mpose an undue nfluence of home
culture representatves on the acculturaton process of study abroad students .
Rather than ganng some dstance from Amercan values, students may have
those values ndscrmnately renforced by sgnficant others back home who are
not aware of the mmedate cultural context of the students, nor are flexble or
creatve n ther vews of what tasks the students may be facng . Research studes
have not yet evaluated the mpact of electronc communcaton of study abroad
students (Holzmüller, Stöttnger, & Wttkop, 2002) . The current study hopes to
shed some lght on ths ssue .
In summary, cultural contact may be expressed n many ways . Certanly,
the expected nterface between a student’s home culture and ther study abroad
culture wll be nfluenced by the amount of tme and effort they exert n deal-
ng wth the affectve, behavoral, and cogntve aspects of acculturaton (Ward,
2001) . Concerns about the proporton of home and host culture nfluence and
64
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad
engagement loom large n nternatonal educaton . However, much of what the
field beleves about ths cross-cultural contact lacks adequate research support .
Add to ths mx the thrd culture of Amercan student peer cohort, as well as the
home culture nfluence of electronc communcaton, and there remans much to
dscover about how these varous types of cultural contacts and nfluences mesh
or grnd n the study abroad process .
The current study s exploratory . The data wll help to clarfy some of the
expectatons and assumptons expressed n the precedng sectons .
Methods
Participants
Students . Study abroad student partcpants were 59 U .S . unversty students
studyng abroad n four dfferent countres (Austra = 16, Greece = 9, Italy = 11,
Span = 2) . Average age was 21 .5 years; 65% were women; 42% were senors,
52% were junors, 6% were sophomores . They sojourned n ther respectve coun-
tres for approxmately three months durng the Fall .
Study abroad sites . Wth regard to characterstcs of mmerson n the host
culture, the study abroad stes vared along a somewhat uneven contnuum . At
the lower mmerson end, Program 1 offered academc courses n Englsh on the
program ste . Students shared apartments wth other Amercan students n the
same program . Language courses were requred, but vrtually no student had any
pror spoken fluency, nor had they taken formal classes n the language . The local
language courses were offered on ste to program partcpants only . Offerng a bt
more mmerson, Program 2 conducted academc courses n Englsh on the pro-
gram ste . Students lved wth home stay famles n the local communty . Roughly
40% of students had some fluency n the local language pror to arrval and had
taken formal coursework n the local language . Language courses were offered on
ste to program partcpants only and were dfferentated on the bass of ablty .
Program ’s academc courses were offered n Englsh on the program ste, wth
some class actvtes offered n the local language . Students lved n apartments
wth other Amercan students and students from other cultures . Some students
arrved wth language fluency and formal coursework, and all students took df-
ferentated language classes at the local unversty n classes wth students from
many dfferent cultures . At the hgher end of the mmerson contnuum, Program
4 offered academc courses n the local language at the program ste wth Amer-
can program partcpants . Language fluency was requred for entry nto the pro-
gram, and all students had taken formal courses n the language . Students lved
wth home stay famles n the local communty . Language courses were offered
65
Victor Savicki
at dfferentated levels at the local unversty wth students from several cultures .
Beyond these dfferences, all stes had several characterstcs n common . They all
had one U .S . faculty, as well as several host culture faculty who taught a varety of
academc courses . All stes taught a requred ntercultural communcaton class
throughout the student sojourn . All stes provded opportuntes for cultural
nteracton, experental learnng, and guded reflecton on student cultural expe-
rence (cf . Arrúe, 2008; Bnder, 2008; Mnucc, 2008) . Usng Engle and Engle’s
categores of cross-cultural contact, the programs spanned Level Three: Cross-
cultural Contact Program, and Level Four: Cross-cultural Encounter Program
wth some features from Level Fve: Cross-cultural Immerson Program (Engle
& Engle, 200) . Later mmerson analyss wll be based on these groupngs .
Measures
General Contact levels. Percent of contact wth ndvduals from dfferent
cultures was measured by student responses to the followng queston:
When thnkng about the last month, please estmate the percent of tme you
spent n face to face contact wth the followng knds of people (the percentages
should add to 100%) . In stuatons n whch you may encounter more than one
type of person at once (e .g . host culture teacher n a class wth fellow Amercan
students), please count that as contact wth the host culture .
The response alternatves were 1 . Amercan students, 2 . People n the host
culture (teachers, shop keepers, other students, etc), and  . People of a dfferent
culture (nether home nor host culture) .
Specific contact levels . Several specfic contact optons for both host culture
and home culture were assessed usng a sx-pont Lkert scale from 0 = Never to
5 = Daly . Cross-culture contact optons nclude tems such as “Interact wth
other culture people n your accommodatons (home stay or apartment),” “Inter-
act wth other culture people n daly stuatons (shop keepers, bartenders, tax
drvers, etc .) .” Home culture contact optons focused on the range of optons for
contactng people n the U .S . such as “Letter/postcards va the postal system,”
“e-mal,” “Instant messagng .” Wth regard to home culture contact, students
were also asked to report the total number of mnutes per week spent n contact
actvtes wth home culture people .
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). The SWLS s a five tem queston-
nare usng a seven pont Lkert scale to rate overall satsfacton wth lfe usng
questons such as “In most ways my lfe s close to my deal” (Dener, Emmons,
66
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad
Larsen, & Grffin, 1985) . The SWLS can be vewed as a measure of psycholog-
cal adjustment snce the scale demonstrated moderately strong crteron valdty
wth several measures of psychologcal well-beng (Dener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Grffin, 1985 pp . 72–7) . Alpha for the current sample was .85 .
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) . Psychologcal stran was measured based on
four sub-scales from the BSI (Derogats & Melsaratos, 198) . The five–sx tem
symptom cluster scales ncluded were Somatzaton: dstress arsng from percep-
tons of bodly dysfuncton; Depresson: dysphora and lack of motvaton and
energy; Anxety: nervousness, panc attacks, apprehenson, dread; and Hostlty:
thoughts, feelngs or actons of anger . Coefficent alphas for the sub-scales were
Somatzaton .780, Depresson .827, Anxety .746, Hostlty .744 .
Positive and Negative Affectivity Schedule (PANAS). Postve and negatve
mood were assessed wth the PANAS; (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) . The
Postve Actvaton subscale lsts 10 adjectves related to postve mood (e .g . actve,
alert, attentve) . The Negatve Actvaton subscale lsts 10 adjectves related to
negatve mood (e .g . afrad, ashamed, dstressed) . Partcpants were asked to rate
the extent to whch they had felt each of these emotons over the prevous three
months . Ratngs were made on a five-pont Lkert scale, rangng from 1 = Very
slghtly or not at all to 5 = Extremely . Alphas for the current sample were Postve
Actvaton, .82; Negatve Actvaton, .858 .
Acculturation Index (AI) . Ward and Rana-Deuba (1999), usng Berry’s
(1997) acculturaton concept, developed the 21-tem AI that compares how
much respondents dentfy wth ther culture of orgn n comparson wth the
culture they are vstng or lvng n . Each tem s rated on a 7-pont Lkert scale
rangng from 1 = Not at all smlar to 7 = Extremely smlar for both the home
and host cultures . Subsequent analyss develops scores for Home Culture Ident-
ficaton and Host Culture Identficaton, whch can then be compared to deter-
mne the category of acculturaton expressed by each respondent: Margnalzed,
Integrated, Assmlated, Separated . Alpha for Home Culture Identficaton was
.912 and for Host Culture Identficaton was .854 .
Socio-cultural Adaptation Scale (SCAS). In the SCAS Ward and Kennedy
(1999) have dentfied a lst of encounters, and ssues that may be relevant to
sococultural adjustment . Respondents rate ther adjustng to cultural stuatons
usng a five-pont Lkert scale wth 1 = No dfficulty to 5 = Extreme dfficulty . A
bref sample of ther 29-tem scale ncludes “Makng frends,” “Usng the trans-
port system,” “Gong shoppng,” “Understandng the locals’ world vew” (Ward
& Kennedy, 1999 p . 66) . Relablty based on Cronbach’s alpha for the current
sample was .858 . In addton, Ward and Kennedy (1999) factor analyzed ther
67
Victor Savicki
scale and found two factors: Cultural Empathy and Relatedness (1 tems, 2%
of varance), and Impersonal Endeavors and Perls (7 tems, 9% of varance) .
Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS) . The ICAPS conssts of
55 tems wth responses gven on a scale rangng from 1 = Strongly Dsagree to
7 = Strongly Agree . A total score (ICAPS Total) was computed by summng all
tems (24 reverse coded) wth hgher scores ndcatng greater adjustment poten-
tal (Matsumoto, et al ., 2001) . Ths scale has demonstrated predctve valdty
for adjustment to a new culture based on peer and expert ntervewer ratngs, as
well as self and subjectve ratngs (Matsumoto, et al ., 2001 p 492) . Four factor
scores were also derved: 1) Emoton Regulaton (ER): the ablty to modulate
one’s emotonal reactons to avod employng psychologcal defenses, 2) Open-
ness (OP): the ablty to engage n learnng about the new culture, ) Flexblty
(FL): beng free of over-attachment to prevous ways of thnkng and wllngness
to tolerate ambguty, and 4) Crtcal Thnkng (CT): the ablty to generate cre-
atve, new hypotheses about ncdents n the new culture that go beyond one’s
home cultural framework . All five ICAPS scores were transformed to T-scores
wth a mean of 50 and standard devaton of 10 based on a normatve sample .
The authors of the scale reported alphas of .78 for the ICAPS Total, .68 for
Emotonal Regulaton .601 for Openness, .568 for Flexblty, .4 for Crtcal
Thnkng (Matsumoto, et al ., 2001) .
Big Five Personality Inventory (Big 5) . Personalty was measured usng a
short verson of the Bg 5 personalty factor approach (Fossum, Weyant & Etter,
Feldman-Barrett, 1996) . For ths 5-tem scale, each sub-scale had 7 tems . The
scales and key definng trats for each nclude: 1) Neurotcsm: anxous, hostle,
self-conscous; 2) Extraverson: outgong, socable, upbeat, assertve; ) Open-
ness to experence: curosty, flexblty, unconventonal atttudes; 4) Agreeable-
ness: sympathetc, trustng, cooperatve, straghtforward; 5) Conscentousness:
dlgent, dscplned, well-organzed, dependable . Alphas for the sub-scales n
ths sample are Neurotcsm .768, Extraverson .77, Openness . 71, Agreeable-
ness .611, Conscentousness . 707 .
Ego-Resiliency Scale (ERS). The ERS assesses the trat of psychologcal
reslence, whch s the capacty to respond effectvely to changng stuatonal
demands, especally frustratng or stressful encounters (Block & Kremen, 1996) .
Ths scale conssts of 14 tems, each responded to on a 4-pont Lkert scale, rang-
ng from 1 = does not apply at all to 4 = apples very strongly . Sample tems
nclude “I quckly get over and recover from beng startled,” and “I enjoy dealng
wth new and unusual stuatons .” For the current sample, the alpha relablty
was .744 .
68
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad
Coping Inventory (COPE) . The COPE (Carver, Scheer, & Wentraub, 1989)
s a 60-tem, theory-based scale wth fifteen 4-tem subscales . Alphas reported are
for the current sample .
1. Active coping s the process of takng actve steps to try to remove or
crcumvent the stressor or to amelorate ts effects . Examples nclude
ntatng drect acton, ncreasng ones efforts, and tryng to execute a
copng attempt n a stepwse fashon (α = .557) .
2. Planning s thnkng about how to cope wth a stressor . Plannng
nvolves comng up wth acton strateges, thnkng about what steps to
take and how to best handle the problem (α = .785) .
3. Suppression of competing activities means puttng other projects asde, tryng
to avod becomng too dstracted by other events, even lettng other thngs
slde, f necessary, n order to deal wth the stressor (α = .628) .
4. Positive reinterpretation and growth s construng a stressful transacton
n postve terms wth the result of helpng the person contnue or
resume problem-focused copng (α = .68) .
5. Restraint coping s watng untl an approprate opportunty to act presents
tself, holdng oneself back, and not actng prematurely (α = .75) .
6. Instrumental social support s seekng advse, assstance, or nformaton
(α = .804) .
7. Emotional social support s gettng moral support, sympathy, or
understandng (α = .887) .
8. Religion s seekng comfort , consolaton, and/or gudance from a hgher
power . Ths mght be ether wthn the framework of an organzed
relgon or more nformally through attenton to the sprtual sde of
lfe (α = .956) .
9. Humor s seeng the absurdtes and potentally funny sde of a stressful
event . It may nclude jokes, sarcasm, rony, wt, and other ways of
reevaluatng the event through use of humor (α = .892) .
10. Focus on venting emotions s the tendency to focus on whatever dstress
or upset one s experencng and to ventlate, or express, those feelngs
(α = .817) .
11. Denial s refusng to beleve that the stressor exsts or tryng to act as f
the stressor s not real (α = .744) .
69
Victor Savicki
12. Mental disengagement s dstractng oneself from thnkng about the
stressor . Tactcs may nclude usng alternatve actvtes to take one’s
mnd off the problem (α = .526) .
13. Behavioral disengagement s reducng one’s effort to deal wth the
stressor, even gvng up the attempt to attan the goals wth whch the
stressor s nterferng (α = .701) .
14. Acceptance s acceptng that the stressor cannot be changed and gettng
on wth accommodatng to the stuaton as t s (α = .77) .
15. Alcohol and drugs means usng chemcals to blunt the feelngs assocated
wth exposure to the stressor (α = .995) .
Prior exposure to other cultures. Several questons concernng student’s
pror exposure to other cultural nfluences were asked, e .g . number of weeks of
prevous foregn travel, years of foregn language study, number of frends from
other cultures .
Procedures
Students responded to measures voluntarly wth assurance of confidental-
ty . Pror exposure nformaton, the Bg 5, the ERS, the COPE and the ICAPS
were completed pror to departure for the study abroad placement . The Contact
measures, SWLS, BSI, SCAS, AI, and PANAS measures were all taken at the end
of the student study abroad sojourn .
Results and Discussion
Results wll be presented first wth regard to general and specfic contact types,
wth reference to concepts of mmerson and cultural dstance . Followng wll be
an analyss of precursors to contact levels, relatonshps of contact to study abroad
outcomes, and the relatonshp of concomtant process varables to contact .
General contact
The means for three types of general contact were sgnficantly dfferent . On
average the study abroad students spent the largest percentage of ther tme n
contact wth ther Peer Cohort (M = 58 .95%, SD = 19 .16), followed by contact
wth Host Culture people (M = 1 .44%, SD = 16 .46), and wth people of Other
Cultures (nether home nor host culture) (M = 10 .71%, SD = 9 .70) . Fgure 1
shows how ths contact was dstrbuted over ten percentage groupngs . There s
wde varaton n the amount of contact, especally n the home and host culture
percentages . On average, the study abroad students n ths study spent almost
70