THE IMPACT OF MACRO-LEVEL FACTORS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDY
ABROAD IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES
By
Sarah M. Singer

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education
2011

ABSTRACT
THE IMPACT OF MACRO-LEVEL FACTORS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDY
ABROAD IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES
By
Sarah M. Singer
The purpose of the current study was to explore the impact of macro-level factors on the
development of study abroad in community colleges. In order to investigate the impact of
multiple factors, the following research question was explored: What are the macro-level factors
that influence the development and deployment of study abroad programs at community
colleges? This study used two electronic surveys to answer this question. The first survey was
designed to collect data from community colleges regarding background/demographic
information, international activities on campus, and their experiences with the development of
study abroad programs. In developing this survey, I modified and built upon the American
Council of Education survey which has been the basis for much of the work on community
college internationalization to date (Green, 2007; Green et al., 2008; Green & Siaya, 2005; Hult
& Motz, 2008; Siaya & Hayward, 2003). The survey was then administered electronically to
directors of institutional research at 751 community colleges accredited by the American
Association of Community Colleges (AACC).
The second survey was designed to better understand the connections community
colleges have forged with external constituencies within the community and the ways in which
these constituencies have influenced study abroad program development, or the lack thereof.
This study was administered to senior administrators, including deans, vice presidents,
presidents, and chancellors, at institutions that indicated whether or not they administered study
abroad programs in the first survey.

Results suggested that several factors impact the development of study abroad programs,
the single largest of which is financial: the wealth of institution, the student body, and the
surrounding community all have a major impact on the development of study abroad programs.
Beyond wealth, this study indicates that the makeup of the community, its employment base,
connections to other countries or regions (such as through immigration), and overall support are
all key factors that impact the development of study abroad and the locations where the programs
occur. The findings also indicate that institutions that administer study abroad programs have
higher levels of internationalization (such as international student enrollments and foreign
language offerings), stronger relationships with external stakeholders, and are larger and more
urban than their counterparts that do not administer study abroad.

Copyright by
SARAH M. SINGER
2011

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to thank and acknowledge my committee members, Reitu Mabokela,
Kris Renn, Steve Weiland, and Tomas Hult. Your encouragement and guidance have been
invaluable. I would also like to thank the Michigan State University International Business
Center for its support of this dissertation and for introducing me to the world of community
colleges and Title VI funding. I would especially like to thank Tomas Hult, Irem Kiyak, and
Tunga Kiyak for their flexibility, encouragement, advice, patience, and so much more as I have
worked toward my PhD while working in the Center. You are wonderful colleagues and I could
not have done this without your support.
This research would not have been possible without the advice and support of so many
who have dedicated their lives and careers to community colleges. I would particularly like to
thank Gretchen Carroll (who inspired this dissertation with her musings of what makes some
colleges develop study abroad while others do not). The American Association of Community
Colleges and Community Colleges for International Development were also tremendously
helpful to me.
I am grateful to my friends, but especially to two women whose friendship I have shared
since we were freshmen at the University of Michigan: Elizabeth Kassab, whose careful help and
suggestions in editing and proofreading this document is truly priceless, and Polly Robey, who
kept me laughing and never let me quit. We’ve come a long ways from Ann Arbor, ladies. I
would also like to thank Royster Harper, who originally encouraged me to consider a PhD in
higher education while I was still an undergraduate and without whose encouragement I may
well never have undertaken this journey.

v

To my parents, I offer my thanks for your love and support, for encouraging me to always
try hard, work harder, and engage with the world around me, and especially for introducing me
to the eye-opening, life-altering experience that is study abroad. Clearly this dissertation has its
roots in Back-to-Back. Thank you for reading everything I have ever written and providing the
advice, criticism, and encouragement that helped me grow in my writing and thinking, all of
which built toward this dissertation.
Finally, to my husband Benjamin: you are wonderful. Thank you for reading countless
drafts, for asking thoughtful questions, for encouraging me and supporting me and reminding me
I could this.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ……………………………………………………....….x
Chapter 1……………………………………………………………….1
Background on Community Colleges and Study Abroad……...1
Statement of the problem and research question……………….2
Evolution of the community college……………………………3
Mechanisms for internationalization……………………………7
The growth of study abroad……………………………….…....9
Significance of the study………………………………….…...13
Chapter 2………………………………………………………………18
Literature Review and Conceptual Framework………………..18
The relationship between the community and the college……..18
The missions of the community college………………………..20
Globalization and higher education……………………………22
The internationalization of higher education…………………..25
Internationalization in community colleges……………………27
The literature on study abroad…………………………………34
The benefits of study abroad…………………………………...36
Study abroad in community colleges...…………………………42
Chapter 3………………………………………………………………..45
Methods and Methodology……………………………………..45
Why use surveys?.........................................................................46
Survey design…………………………………………………...48
Instrument design……………………………………………….51
The sample………………………………………………………52
Data analysis…………………………………………………….53
Chapter 4………………………………………………………………..55
Findings…………………………………………………………55
Survey of institutional researchers………………………………56
Survey of senior administrators…………………………………57
Profile of community colleges…………………………………..58
Profile of communities…………………………………………..64
International activities and internationalization efforts…………68
Study abroad programs…………………………………………..76
Relationship with the community and stakeholders……………..86
Conclusion……………………………………………………….94

vii

Chapter 5………………………………………………………………....96
Discussion, Limitations, and Recommendations………………...96
Implications for practice and recommendations…………………97
Institutional factors impacting study abroad development……..105
Impact of the community on study abroad development……….108
Limitations and future research………………………………....112
Conclusions……………………………………………………..115
Appendices……………………………………………………………...118
Appendix A……………………………………………………..118
Appendix B……………………………………………………..126
Appendix C……………………………………………………..128
Appendix D……………………………………………………..130
References……………………………………………………………….133

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Distribution of community or district served………………….…….65
Table 2 Administrative structure of international programs……….…..……..73
Table 3 Internationalization activities at community colleges………....….….75
Table 4 Extent to which study abroad is beneficial for selected activities……84
Table 5 Survey 1: Strength of relationship with external stakeholders……….87
Table 6 Survey 2: Strength of relationship with external stakeholders……….88
Table 7 Extent to which stakeholders influenced decision not to develop
study abroad programs………………………………………………...90
Table 8 Extent to which stakeholder support would be necessary to develop
study abroad programs………………………………………………....91
Table 9 Extent to which stakeholders negatively impacted the development of
study abroad programs…………………………………….…………...92
Table 10 Forms of internationalization at community colleges………………..98

ix

Chapter 1
Background on Community Colleges and Study Abroad
Many facets of U.S. higher education, from the early use of Latin to the development of
research universities, were imported from Europe. The community college, however, is a
uniquely American idea, born of the desire to free universities from providing general education
and fueled by a burgeoning American population with the hunger for knowledge. According to
Joliet Junior College’s website, when Joliet Junior College in Joliet, Illinois, opened its doors in
1901, it was as “an experimental postgraduate high school program” (Joliet Junior College, n.d.).
Similarly, study abroad is an American invention, having been born at the University of
Delaware in 1923. According to the University of Delaware, the impetus for that first trip was
not unlike the reasons many students today continue to study abroad: having witnessed the
ravages of World War I first-hand, Professor Raymond W. Kirkbride wished to promote crosscultural understanding among his students (Kochanek, 1998). Through the decades, study abroad
has earned powerful friends. Senator William Fulbright remarked that study abroad is, “from the
standpoint of future world peace and order, probably the most important and potentially
rewarding of our foreign policy activities” and the first President Bush stated “international
exchanges are not a great tide to sweep away all differences, but they will slowly wear away
obstacles to peace as surely as water wears away a hard stone” (De Wit, 2000, p. 14). As Mark
Twain said, “travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow mindedness.”
Today we can state unequivocally that both community colleges and study abroad have
been rousing successes. Some 1,200 community colleges lie scattered across the American
landscape, ensuring access to all who desire a college education, job training, or continuing
education. Hundreds of thousands of American students study abroad annually, traveling to

1

every continent on earth. Yet, with all the growth and success that both community colleges and
study abroad have experienced, they have developed very little shared history. Community
college students continue to represent a negligible percentage of the students who study abroad
(Connell, 2010).
Statement of the problem and research question
This study is intended to shed light on factors that may inhibit the development of study
abroad at community colleges. Specifically, this is an analysis of macro-level factors that
influence the development and success of study abroad programs at community colleges. The
primary research question, then, is: What are the macro-level factors that influence the
development and deployment of study abroad programs at community colleges?
Increasingly scholars, policymakers, and practitioners are adamant about the importance
of community colleges and study abroad, as well as the need to bring community colleges further
into the study abroad fold. For example, while community colleges enroll roughly half of all
undergraduate students in the United States, community college students account for only 2.5%
of all students who study abroad (Connell, 2010). However, given that 53% of community
college students surveyed by Siaya and Hayward (2003) agreed with the statement that all
students should have a study abroad experience sometime during their college career, it seems
that study abroad could prove highly attractive in community colleges.
More compelling is that, as Bok (2006) notes, an increasing number of graduates will
find themselves interacting with individuals from and making decisions about matters in other
countries. Additionally, employers increasingly seek students who can act as cultural and social
brokers with cross-cultural and foreign language communication skills (Calhoon, Wildcat,
Annette, Pierotti, & Griswold, 2003; Douglas & Jones-Rikkers, 2001). As if to confirm as much,

2

the under secretary for education in the United States, Martha Kanter, recently stated, “I’m not
an expert at international programs, but what I have learned is that they are essential to the future
of our higher education institutions and they are also essential to the future of what young people
will need to know and do in a global economy in a global world” (Loveland, 2010, p. 20).
With the recent federal attention to community colleges and the appointment of Kanter, a
former community college chancellor, to the position of under secretary of education in the U.S.
Department of Education, the role and prominence of community colleges are on the rise. Yet,
they and their students are disproportionately underrepresented in these programs which Kanter
noted are “essential to the future of our higher education institutions and … to the future of what
young people will need to know and do in a global economy in a global world” (Loveland, 2010,
p. 20). For the benefit of the students, the colleges, and broader society, community colleges
must find ways to effectively offer international programs, especially study abroad. To better
appreciate these arguments, however, one must first understand some history and background of
these two American ideals.
Evolution of the community college
The idea of the community college emerged in the mid-nineteenth century when the
presidents of the Universities of Michigan, Georgia, and Minnesota proposed a junior college to
“relieve the university of the burden of providing general education for young people” (Cohen &
Brawer, 2003, p.6). Half a century later, William Rainey Harper, president of the University of
Chicago, promoted the same idea. Harper, often considered the father of the community college
system, grew tired of contending with overcrowded classes and unprepared students at the
University of Chicago. He envisioned the junior college as a place that could serve as a bridge
between high school and universities (Phillippe & Patton, 2000). Joliet Junior College was thus

3

born, the first of what are now nearly 1,200 community colleges, which today comprise some 44
percent of all colleges and universities and 40 percent of all undergraduate higher education
enrollments today (American Association of Community Colleges, 2009).
The early American community college, or junior college as it was then called, was a
small institution. In 1922, average enrollment was only 150 students in the public institutions and
less than half that in the private ones (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). The larger universities supported
the junior colleges as a means of diverting the growing number of students who sought a college
education, but whose numbers the larger universities could not accommodate (Cohen & Brawer,
2003). The university community seemed divided as to the purpose of the junior college,
however, with Harvard president James Bryant Conant decreeing, “By and large, the educational
road should fork at the end of the high school, though an occasional transfer of a student from a
two-year college to a university should not be barred” (Bogue, 1950, quoted in Cohen & Brawer,
2003, p.13). For many community college attendees today, the road would appear to fork: in
California, the nation’s largest community college system, 40% of students transfer to four-year
institutions; in Texas the number is half that (Chen, 2009; CityTownInfo.com, 2009; Moore,
Shulock, & Jensen, 2009). Overall, only one-quarter of community college students earns a
certificate or associate’s degree or transfer to a four-year college or university (Kanter, 2010).
Following the creation of Joliet Junior College in 1901 through World War II, the
number of community colleges in the U.S. grew steadily. By 1915, there were 74 junior colleges,
a figure which more than doubled to over 200 by 1921 and then doubled again by 1960 (Geller,
2001). Not only did the number of colleges grow, but so did the number of communities with
access to community colleges; by 1930 there were some 440 junior colleges, spread through all
but five states (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). During the decade of the 1960s, the number of colleges

4

grew at an unprecedented rate, with 847 institutions by 1970 (Geller, 2001). Their growth was
fueled by multiple factors, not the least of which was the growth of high school graduates
entering college – from five percent in 1910 to 45% 50 years later (Cohen & Brawer, 2003).
After 1970, growth slowed as enrollments leveled off; however the number of students enrolling
in community colleges is again on the rise, having doubled since 1993 (Bandler, 2002).
In the first half of the twentieth century, junior colleges were mixed between private and
public. Gradually, however, the number of private colleges dwindled, from a high of 322
colleges in 1949, or 50% of all junior colleges, (Cohen & Brawer, 2003) to 148 today, or
approximately 13% (American Association of Community Colleges, 2009). It was during the
1950s and 1960s that the term junior college came to be applied to lower-division branches of
private colleges, while the term community college referred to publicly supported institutions
(Cohen & Brawer, 2003). By the 1970s, “junior college” had fallen out of favor and the term
community college was applied to public and private two-year institutions; the same institutions
are also sometimes referred to as two-year colleges or city colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 2003).
As the name of the institution has changed, so has the definition of what it means to be a
community, or junior, college. Cohen and Brawer (2003) provide an evolution of the definition
of community college from the 1922 definition adopted by the American Association of Junior
Colleges as “an institution offering two years of instruction of strictly collegiate grade” (p. 3) to
their current definition of a community college as “any institution regionally accredited to award
the associate in arts or the associate in science as its highest degree” (p. 5). Despite the fact that
some community colleges have begun to offer bachelor’s degrees (American Association of
Community Colleges, 2009), I will use the Cohen and Brawer definition of community colleges
in the remainder of this paper.

5

Today, America’s community colleges represent a diverse collection of institutions. Of
the 1,177 community colleges recognized by the American Association of Community Colleges
[AACC] (2009), 988 are public, 158 are private, and 31 are tribal institutions. Most instructors
have master of arts degrees as their highest credential and two-thirds teach only one or two
classes per semester (Cohen, 2002). Together, community colleges enroll some 11.7 million
students; 40% of these students are enrolled full time and 6.7 million are engaged in for-credit
instruction (AACC, 2009). One-third of students seek employment qualifications, one-third seek
credits to transfer to a four-year school, and the final third attend strictly for personal interest or
to upgrade themselves in their current job (Cohen, 2002).
From their earliest beginnings, community colleges have been synonymous with access,
admitting as students the individuals that four-year colleges generally would not admit: women,
minorities, the poor, or those who had done poorly in high school (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Such
open admissions have been a hallmark of the American community college and their students
continue to represent a diverse cross-section of America. While nearly half of all students are 21
or younger, 13% are 40 or older and the average age of all community college students is 29.
Over one-third of community college students are minorities and 39% of community college
students are the first in their family to attend college (American Association of Community
Colleges, 2009).
Community colleges embrace myriad missions, from academic transfer to career
education to remedial or developmental education to continuing education (Bailey & Smith
Morest, 2004; Cohen & Brawer, 2003). These missions, and their implications for study abroad,
will be explored in greater detail in the next chapter. However, virtually all community colleges
share two important characteristics: open admission and low tuition (American Association of

6

Community Colleges, 2010b). This access has been an important factor in shaping community
colleges and their surrounding communities. In the 1950s and 1960s, the establishment of a
community college in an area which previously lacked publicly supported higher education led
to an increase in the proportion of local high school graduates who enrolled in college
immediately following high school. This increase was sometimes as great as 50% (Cohen &
Brawer, 2003). Even today, community colleges in rural communities often “represent one of the
largest investments in higher education” (McKenney, as quoted in Fernandez, 2009, p. 17).
Given the recent federal attention to community colleges – for example, in late 2010,
President Barack Obama addressed a White House Summit on Community Colleges where he
called community colleges the “ ‘unsung heroes’ of American’s education system,” (as cited in
Gonzalez, para. 1, 2010) – and the appointment of a former community college chancellor,
Martha Kanter, to the role of under secretary of education in the U.S. Department of Education
(Kanter is the first community college leader to be appointed to such a position), their role and
prominence seem poised to rise. Indeed, Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee has
stated that community colleges are the “drivers of the future” (as cited in Mendoza et al., 2009,
p. 881). Yet, for all their areas of historic strength, international education has not been among
them, perhaps because, in the words of Under Secretary Kanter, “the opportunity is not well
understood…the schools are nervous because they don’t understand that it can be built into the
curriculum” (as cited in Loveland, 2010, p. 20).
Mechanisms for internationalization
While community colleges may have struggled with how and when to build international
education, or study abroad, into the curriculum, other aspects of internationalization have
become more prevalent on community college campuses across the country. Raby and Valeau

7

(2007) state that “many educators still do not see international education as a key component of
the community college’s mission” (p. 5), but a growing body of research and findings suggest
that an increasing number of educators and administrators are embracing internationalization.
Such internationalization runs the gamut from the availability of foreign language and
area studies courses, to the hiring and enrollment of international faculty and students. Green and
Siaya (2005) break the various elements of internationalization into six dimensions. The
components of these dimensions include the mechanisms mentioned above as well as such facets
of internationalization as the organization infrastructure that is in place to support and promote
internationalization to the funding and professional development opportunities available to help
faculty increase their own international competencies. All of these activities contribute to
campus internationalization, and can help the students – as well as the larger community – to
develop an interest in or understanding of international issues or cultures.
To a large extent, community colleges – which have evolved regularly throughout their
history – have needed to adapt to the changing demands of a global marketplace and society.
Levin (2002) wrote that “in the 1990s, business, industry, and government increased and
enlarged the scope of their demands upon the community college, with emphasis upon global
competition in the form of a trained workforce and efficiency in production” (p. 121). Given that
previous research has found that, from a workforce preparedness and competitiveness
perspective, foreign language and cross-cultural competencies are viewed by businesses as most
beneficial (Olney, as cited in Romano & Dellow, 2009), it is not surprising that Green, et al.
(2008) found foreign language course offerings to be one of the most prevalent means for
internationalization in community colleges; Hult and Motz (2008) found the average number of
foreign language courses offered at a community college was 6.74.

8

Raby and Valeau (2007) believe that the popularity of such mechanisms of
internationalization as international studies and international business classes signals a
“community’s desire for students to learn about cultures so that they can assist in building a more
harmonious and economically prosperous community” (p. 10). It follows, then, that over the past
several decades, community colleges have made great strides to internationalize their curricula
and campuses, and indeed they have. Raby and Valeau (2007) assert that international education
in community colleges is now well into its fourth phase, institutionalization, having been
preceded by the phases of recognition, expansion and publication, and augmentation.
Moreover, Raby and Valeau (2007) date the beginning of internationalization in
community colleges to 1967, when “policymakers and administrators began to see community
colleges as a plausible receptacle for international education” (p. 6). During the late 1960s and
early 1970s several programs, encompassing multiple aspects of internationalization, were
initiated. For example, Rockland and Brevard community colleges adopted an internationalized
curriculum in 1974 (Hess, 1982, as cited in Raby & Valeau, 2007), while a few years earlier in
1969, Rockland Community College in New York opened a study abroad office. As the next
section will describe, study abroad in this country had nearly a half century of history behind it
when Rockland Community College took this step; nevertheless, the opening of their study
abroad office in 1969 was the first intersection of community colleges and study abroad.
The growth of study abroad
Study abroad, like the community college, has experienced tremendous growth and
success since its inception. In 1923, the University of Delaware established the first study abroad
program, sending eight students to France (Kochanek, 1998). Over the next several years,
college students transferred to the University of Delaware for the purpose of participating in the

9

nation’s only study abroad program; a practice which became unnecessary with the development
of transfer credits from the University of Delaware back to the student’s home institution. By
1931, the number of students studying abroad grew to 95 students from 35 U.S. colleges and
universities (Hoffa, 2007); a decade after World War II the number had ballooned to 9,887
(Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1958). In the latter half of the last century and the first decade of the
current century, the number has continued to rise. In 2007-2008 (the most recent year with
available data), over a quarter of a million Americans, 262,416 students, studied abroad. It
should be noted, however, that while the number of students choosing to study abroad annually
appears large, the total proportion of students who study abroad still amounts to less than two
percent of American higher education enrollment (Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study
Abroad Fellowship Program, 2005). Nevertheless, it is remarkable that in just two decades, from
1987-1988 to 2007-2008, the number of students studying abroad quadrupled (Institute of
International Education, 2009).
Although many definitions of study abroad are available, this paper will utilize that of
McKeown (2009): “studying abroad is an academic experience, whether short term (as short as
one week) or longer (up to a full academic year), during which students physically leave the
United States to engage in college study, cultural interaction, and more in the host country” (p.
11). An important addition to this definition is that the program lead to academic credit (Hoffa,
2007). This broad definition encompasses programs led by faculty, academic year abroad
programs, and internships. The program types available today are not dissimilar from the three
study abroad formats that emerged in the 1920s: the junior year abroad, which was designed for
and utilized primarily by language majors; the faculty-led study tour, often visiting multiple

10

countries and with coursework offered in English; and summer study programs offered by
foreign or U.S. institutions, often with a pre-professional training aspect (Hoffa, 2007).
While traditional academic year programs long predominated study abroad, short term
programs are now the most common, with 56% of all students and 68% of community college
students who study abroad choosing to do so for eight weeks or less (Institute of International
Education, 2009). In fact, Open Doors 2009 reported that just over four percent of all study
abroad participants now choose to study abroad for the complete academic year. This contrasts
greatly to half a century ago when all but a small handful of programs lasted for the full
academic year, and in some cases were as long as 14 months (Cleveland, as cited in Hoffa,
2007). What short term, faculty-led programs did exist were often offered for “enrichment,” and
not academic credit (Hoffa, 2007, p. 229).
The majors of students who study abroad are also diversifying. The concept of study
abroad began as a way for language majors to immerse themselves in their chosen language; not
surprisingly, foreign language majors predominated in study abroad programs for several
decades. As late as 1957-1958, virtually all study abroad programs (of which there were 41 in 11
countries managed by 17 colleges and universities) required previous language study for
admission (Cleveland, as cited in Hoffa, 2007). Over time, this requirement became less
common, opening the doors for more students to study abroad. By 1986, 56% of study abroad
participants were majoring in social science, humanities, or foreign languages, a number that
dropped to less than 45% by 2002 (McKeown, 2009). At the same time, business, engineering,
and health sciences majors have been studying abroad in greater numbers (Institute of
International Education, 2009; McKeown, 2009).

11

Study abroad remained “overwhelmingly Eurocentric” (Hoffa, 2007, p. 283) well into the
middle of the last century, with Europe receiving a full 70% of study abroad participants in
1958-1959 (Open Doors 1959, as cited in Hoffa, 2007). Although a majority of students continue
to study in Europe (57% according to Open Doors 2009), study abroad has moved beyond the
western European strongholds offering students a greater variety of locations from which to
choose. The most recent Open Doors report found 15 of 25 top destinations are outside of
Western Europe; 19 of the 25 are countries where English is not the primary language (Institute
of International Education, 2009). Africa, Asia, and Latin America have all seen double digit
increases in the percentage of students electing to study in those regions, with Africa leading the
way with an increase of 18% (Institute of International Education, 2009). (It should be noted that
Africa still trails every other region of the world in attracting study abroad students – the increase
of 18% brings the total percentage of students choosing to study there to all of five percent.)
Years of research have found that students who participate in study abroad gain the
cultural understanding that the earliest supporters of the movement anticipated, as well as selfconfidence, global awareness, improved foreign language abilities, and a host of other benefits
(Clarke, Flaherty, Wright, & McMillen, 2009; Douglas & Jones-Rikkers, 2001; Ismail, Morgan,
& Hayes, 2006; Mohajeri Norris & Gillespie, 2009; Obst, Bhandari, & Witherell, 2007). Hoffa
(2007) notes that study abroad leaders have historically found returning students to exhibit “ ‘a
broader conception,’ ‘a new outlook,’ and ‘an objective viewpoint’ ” (p. 81). These findings,
which will be revisited in more detail in the literature review, are especially important in light of
the criticism that study abroad is “academic lite,” or put more bluntly, “that it is a party-filled
journey of excess and expense that produces little from our students” (McKeown, 2009, p. 96).

12

As increasing amounts of research tell us, there are real rewards to be gained from study abroad
and all students should have the opportunity to reap them.
Significance of the study
For all the success of both community colleges and study abroad, their histories have
rarely intersected. For example, while 85% of four-year colleges offered study abroad in 20002001 (Bok, 2006), only 85 total community colleges (out of nearly 1,200, or roughly seven
percent) offered study abroad in that year (Raby, 2008). By 2005-2006 that number had
increased to 114 (Raby), or roughly 10% of all community colleges. Moreover, community
colleges enroll roughly half of all undergraduate students in the United States, yet community
college students account for only 2.5% of all students who study abroad (Connell, 2010).
Of course one could argue that this discrepancy is accounted for, at least in part, because
study abroad is a less obvious fit with the multiple missions of community colleges than many
other programs and experiences. It is true, for example, that some community colleges find it
necessary to “keep their international activities ‘under the radar’ lest their boards ask, ‘why are
you messing around with this stuff?’ ” (Connell, 2010, p. 37). Community colleges also face the
unique challenge, among higher education institutions, of serving an especially diverse student
population, which necessitates accommodating work and family responsibilities that may not be
conducive to participation in study abroad (Raby, 2008). However, the opportunities and need
for community colleges to pursue study abroad opportunities has perhaps never been greater. For
example, Bailey and Smith Morest (2004) have found that many community colleges are
offering programs such as honors and dual credit to lure students who might otherwise bypass
the community college and enroll directly in a four-year institution.

13

Study abroad programs, especially those that are crafted to meet the specific needs of
community college students, can offer another opportunity to attract students. Doing so would
seem to keep with the philosophy behind much of the growth of community colleges: “new
1

programs serve new clients” (Cohen & Brawer, 1989, p. 12 ). For example, some community
colleges have developed programs for auto mechanics and nursing students to study the teaching
of their fields in other countries (Connell, 2009). Programs such as this may be especially
important in attracting students to study abroad, as Carlson, Burn, Useem, and Yachimowicz
(1990) found that a major deterrent to study abroad was “the perception of the lack of relevance
of study abroad to their academic programs” (p. 31). Given that 53% of community college
students surveyed by Siaya and Hayward (2003) agreed with the statement that all students
should have a study abroad experience sometime during their college career, it seems that such
programs could prove highly attractive.
Perhaps the most important argument for increasing study abroad opportunities (and
virtually any other activity designed to increase students’ awareness of international cultures and
issues) for community college students is that, as Bok (2006) notes, an increasing number of
graduates will find themselves interacting with individuals from and making decisions about
matters in other countries. As Guerin (2009) so eloquently put it, “the challenge to educate
community college students…exists in the overarching cross-cultural and international aspects
and ramifications of their future employment and personal lives” (p. 611).
Indeed, employers increasingly seek students who can act as cultural and social brokers
with cross-cultural and foreign language communication skills (Calhoon et al., 2003; Douglas &
1

Cohen and Brawer (1989) is the second edition of The American Community College; Cohen
and Brawer (2003) is the fourth edition. The second edition (1989) is cited in this dissertation
when the material being cited was removed from the later edition. Much of the material
referenced from the 2003 edition was also contained in the 1989 edition.
14

Jones-Rikkers, 2001; Kedia & Daniel, 2003; Romano & Dellow, 2009). Moreover, a survey of
top managers at businesses across the United States found that “an appreciation for cross-cultural
differences and foreign language skills were the most important requirements at the entry level”
(Kedia & Daniel, 2003). In short, an increasing number of employers cite global mindedness,
which Hett defined as “a worldview in which one sees oneself as connected to the world
community and feels a sense of responsibility to its members” (as cited in Clarke et al., 2009, p.
174), as a desired characteristic in their employees.
With nearly a quarter of all American jobs are tied to international trade (Douglas &
Jones-Rikkers, 2001), many companies find international sales growing faster than domestic
sales (Kedia & Daniel, 2003), and many of the “activities and interactions that once were
assumed to occur within the borders of one state are increasingly occurring across national
boundaries” (McKeown, 2009, p. 16). As such, American students must be able to relate,
interact, and compete with people and cultures that differ significantly from mainstream
America. The American Association of Community Colleges has itself stated,
Because of technological advances in communication and transportation, foreign trade is
growing. Consequently, more businesses are looking for people with an understanding of
international issues. Many community colleges offer international programs. While such
programs are not available at every college, pressure is increasing for community
colleges to foster an awareness of foreign cultures and the interconnected nature of the
world economy, (2010a, para. 5).
Like Under Secretary Kanter and the American Association of Community Colleges,
community college leaders increasingly recognize the need to prepare their graduates for a global
society (Mendoza et al, 2009). As previously stated, community colleges educate nearly half of
all undergraduates in this country. They are an integral, essential component of the American
higher education system. Yet, they and their students are disproportionately underrepresented in
programs that are “essential to the future of our higher education institutions and they are also
15

essential to the future of what young people will need to know and do in a global economy in a
global world” (Loveland, 2010, p. 20).
For the benefit of the students, the colleges, and as this study shows broader society,
community colleges must find ways to effectively offer international programs, not least of all
study abroad. For those who posit that study abroad is outside the mission of today’s community
colleges, I would refer to the President Truman’s Commission on Higher Education for
American Democracy, which in the late 1940s proposed the creation of a “network of public,
community-based colleges to serve local needs” (American Association of Community Colleges,
2010b). If the need for graduates and citizens who can relate, interact, and compete with people
and cultures from all corners of the globe is not local, what is?
It is true that study abroad is not the only option for community colleges interested in
internationalizing, and may not always be the best or most feasible option, especially at the
increasing number of community colleges that face budget shortfalls or outright financial crises.
However, study abroad is a key component of internationalization and, as will be discussed in
more detail in the next chapter, has consistently shown itself to be one of the most effective ways
for students to develop the skills inherent to global mindedness (Institute of International
Education, 2007). Providing students with study abroad opportunities is a meaningful way for
community colleges to help prepare their graduates for the workforce. Additionally, countries
such as Mexico, China, the Netherlands, Israel, and New Zealand are developing community
college systems (Bandler, 2002), creating new opportunities for U.S. community colleges to
develop linkages with international institutions. Despite the opportunities, only a fraction of
community colleges currently offer study abroad programs.

16

Therefore, this dissertation seeks to begin to understand why, in the face of so much
research highlighting the benefits of study abroad, so few community colleges offer their
students the opportunity to study abroad. In order to understand this, it may first help to
understand what makes the colleges that do offer study abroad different from colleges that do
not. Therefore, this study aimed to answer the question, what are the macro-level factors that
influence the development and deployment of study abroad programs in community colleges?

17

Chapter 2
Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
Because of the lack of work specifically related to study abroad in community colleges,
my study is informed by several bodies of literature that relate indirectly to this topic, but from
which much can be extrapolated. These bodies of literatures include: the literature which
examines the relationship between colleges and their surrounding communities and the influence
of the community on nearby institutions, literature on the mission of community colleges,
especially pertaining to serving local needs, globalization and internationalization of higher
education literature, and the literature on study abroad. This literature review will review each of
these bodies in order; the literature on internationalization of the academe will be examined with
a special focus on internationalization at community colleges. The final section of the literature
review will analyze the brief work specifically related to study abroad in community colleges.
The relationship between the community and the college
Understanding the connections between higher education and the surrounding community
is important to undertake a macro-level analysis; however, Harkavy (1998) stated over a decade
ago that “community impacts on schooling have not been seriously addressed by either
governmental policy or American higher education” (p. 4). On the whole his assertion remains
true, with the literature focused almost exclusively on the impact of the college on the
community, but not vice versa.
The literature on the relationship between a community and the college that inhabits it
generally falls into the category of research on “town and gown.” According to Mayfield (2001),
“ ‘town and gown’ is a term dating from medieval Europe identifying distinct spheres for the
university (gown) and for lay people in the communities (town)” (p. 237). Historically the town-

18

and-gown relationship has often been fraught with tension over issues ranging from student
behavior to traffic to student housing to perceived lack of respect for the expertise of those
outside the university (Clavelle, 2001; Gumprecht, 2003; Weill, 2009). A major source of
tension has been the frequent treatment of the community as a laboratory, collecting data and
enriching scholarship without truly engaging the community (Dardig, 2004; Harkavy, 1998;
Mayfield, 2001). Indeed, “the city was the logical site for creative faculty and students to
effectively integrate theory and practice” (Harkavy, 1998, p. 11).
Although universities, especially urban universities, have a long history of studying the
community, they have much more recently begun engaging in it and developing true universitycommunity partnerships (Clavelle, 2001; Leiderman, Furco, Zapf, & Goss, 2004; Mayfield,
2001; Weill, 2009). An example of such partnerships is the establishment of a University of
Vermont (UVM) – Burlington Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC). The purpose of
the UVM/Burlington COPC is:
To create effective, reciprocal, sustainable partnerships within UVM
and among UVM, the City of Burlington, and residents and organizations
of the Old North End (and in surrounding low-income areas). The overall
goal…is to further the Old North End’s physical, economic, social, and
political development, while advancing the university’s mission of service,
education, and research (Clavelle, 2001, p. 20).
The aims of the example above are not unlike the goals of Seth Low, president of
Columbia University from 1890 to 1901. Low’s desire was for the university “to influence the
life of New York” (Bender, as quoted in Harkavy, 1998, p. 14). Low, who later served as the
mayor of New York, and many university leaders since him have striven for their universities to
shape the surrounding communities. To a large extent they have succeeded. In the single study I
found in this area, for example, Gumprecht (2003) stated that, in college towns, “colleges and
their people shape the urban personality” (p. 52). Notably, the towns in his study were home to
19

virtually every type of higher education institution, from public research universities to churchrelated colleges to historically black colleges, except for community colleges.
Unlike the institutions described above, community colleges have the distinction of being
themselves at least partially shaped by their communities. For example, community colleges
regularly work with local employers “to fashion curricula that dovetail with the needs of
industry” (Fernandez, 2009, p. 23). Thus, St. Louis Community College in St. Louis, Missouri,
has retrained autoworkers for jobs at the local Boeing plant, while Redlands Community College
in El Reno, Oklahoma, teaches agriculture professionals how to write farm-work plans
(Fernandez, 2009).
Responding to local community needs has long been a component of what Cohen and
Brawer (2003) have identified as the community service function of community colleges. This
function was pioneered by those institutions that often served as “cultural centers” for their
communities – the private junior colleges and rural colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 2003, p. 23). The
public colleges that adopted this idea often did so “as a useful aspect of their relations with the
public” (Cohen & Brawer, 2003, p. 23) – that is, to foster town-gown relationships.
The missions of the community college
As discussed in the previous chapter, the American community college began with the
creation of a single institution, Joliet Junior College in 1901, and has evolved to include nearly
1,200 public, private, and tribal community colleges. Collectively they enroll some 11.7 million
students, or approximately 40 percent of all undergraduate higher education enrollments today.
One-third of these students seek employment qualifications, one-third seek credits to transfer to a
four-year schools, and the final third attend strictly for personal interest or to upgrade themselves
in their current job (Cohen, 2002).

20

Although each community college has its own mission or missions, mission typologies
can help identify mission commonalities. Cohen and Brawer ( 2003) organize community
college missions into six categories: 1) collegiate education or academic transfer; 2) career
education or vocational-technical; 3) remedial or developmental education; 4) community
service; 5) continuing education; and 6) general education. Many community colleges embrace a
combination of multiple missions; moreover, these missions overlap as “education is rarely
discrete” (Cohen & Brawer, 2003, p. 24).
Workforce development is one aspect of community college missions that has received
significant attention in the literature. In their national survey of community college
administrators, Amey and VanDerLinden (2002) found that academic transfer, workforce
preparation, and lifelong learning were the primary missions of community colleges. Workforce
and economic development and meeting the training needs of employers and students appear to
be emerging missions, as those areas were consistently mentioned by the 87% of respondents
who indicated that their school’s mission had changed in the previous five years. In contrast,
Jacobs and Dougherty (2006) found that “as a fundamental mission of community colleges,
[workforce development] faces an extremely uncertain future because of structural changes in
the economy and the emergence of new competitors” (p. 53).
Most recently, Mendoza et al. (2009) looked at the perceived challenges, actions, values,
and missions of community colleges today and in 10 years. A focus group of board of trustee
members, community college presidents, senior administrators, administrators, and faculty
members developed the top six critical issues faced by institutions. The full Community Colleges
Futures Assembly then voted on these issues. In addition to reaffirming the need to respond
continually to local needs and issues, Mendoza et al. (2009) found an anticipated shift toward

21

life-long learning, globalization (reflecting the need to prepare graduates for a global society),
and innovation and partnerships. Study abroad may be one approach for community colleges to
address these latter issues.
The results of the focus group study above, especially in regards to globalization, affirm
earlier research indicating that the mission of community colleges was being reshaped by the
global economy. Nearly a decade before the study conducted by Mendoza et al., Levin (2000)
found that governing boards and other members of community college decision-making bodies
had begun to react and conform to the needs and expectations of business and industry. By the
end of the twentieth century the community college’s mission focused less on education, social
needs, and individual development and more on training, economic needs, and workforce
preparation (Levin, 2000). On the whole, the mission of the community college had become
“suited to the rhetoric of the global economy and to its demands” (Levin, 2000, p. 2).
Globalization and higher education
Study abroad has its beginnings well before any current discussion of globalization.
Certainly, however, globalization has heightened awareness of study abroad and, possibly,
increased the importance of the skills a student gains by studying abroad. While globalization is
not the focus of this study, one must understand the impacts of globalization in order to more
fully understand the current conversation about study abroad. Therefore, I will briefly address
the topic of globalization before refocusing on issues that are more directly related to the study
and research questions.
Numerous definitions of the term ‘globalization’ exist. Altbach and Knight (2007) define
globalization from an education perspective as the “economic, political, and social forces
pushing 21st century higher education toward greater international involvement” (p. 290). More

22

often, the term globalization is used in the literature without any precise or formal definition;
instead authors frequently describe characteristics of the globalized world or of the global
economy.
Duderstadt (2000) described the effects of globalization as rendering the U.S. no longer
self-sustaining with an economy and companies deeply interdependent with other countries and
peoples. Bok (2006) posited that the global society means Americans are increasingly affected
by circumstances outside this country, from international crises to foreign governments and
cultures. Gregor (2002) characterized the global economy as being one of internationalized labor
markets, knowledge-intensive production processes, and highly specialized information. Levin
(2002) described a social process that connects cultures and groups and integrates people. All of
these authors also mention the importance of changing and expanding communications networks
and technology.
The implications of globalization for higher education are many. According to Bok
(2006), today’s college students will need to know more about international affairs, countries,
and cultures than previous generations of students. Kedia and Daniel (2003) call for U.S.
universities to place a stronger emphasis on the integration of international and cross-cultural
topics across the curriculum, while Duderstadt (2000) suggests that a key aim of the academe has
become to enable students “to communicate, to work to live, and to thrive in multicultural
settings whether in this country or anywhere on the face of the globe” (p. 19). As previously
noted, the American Association of Community Colleges has similarly stated,
Because of technological advances in communication and transportation, foreign
trade is growing. Consequently, more businesses are looking for people with an
understanding of international issues. Many community colleges offer
international programs. While such programs are not available at every college,
pressure is increasing for community colleges to foster an awareness of foreign

23

cultures and the interconnected nature of the world economy, (2010a, para. 5).
Given that almost 30% of companies in a recent survey believed that insufficient
international competence led to a failure to fully exploit international opportunities and that 80%
of companies believed their overall business would increase if their staff had greater
international expertise (Kedia & Daniel, 2003), businesses would seem to be only too eager for
the academe to fulfill this new aim. Globalization is steadily changing the needs of students,
which in turn affects higher education, including community colleges. Levin states
unequivocally “globalization has altered the community college as an institution, refashioning a
local institution…to an institution that is more entrepreneurial and corporate on one hand and
more conscious of its connections to a global community on the other” (Levin, 2002, p. 123).
Gregor (2002) identified broader trends in higher education that are the result of
globalization. These trends include: the changing objectives of higher education, such as
increasing responsibility for meeting national economic development needs; policy and practice
which are increasingly related to labor force demands for a highly educated workforce; the
massification of higher education, whereby access to higher education is shifting from elite
access to universal access; an increase in the number and diversity of higher education
institutions and providers; the use of new technology, making the provision of transnational
courses easier and cheaper; changes in institutional practices and organization, including the
spread of business culture within the academe and private sector partnerships; and the
internationalization of higher education (Gregor, 2002). Community colleges have not been
unaffected by these trends. The last of the trends identified by Gregor (2002),
internationalization, is a response to globalization (De Wit, 2000) and the subject of a great deal

24

of literature. The next section of this dissertation will explore the literature on the
internationalization of higher education.
The internationalization of higher education
Study abroad is very often situated within the context of internationalization at colleges
and universities and is sometimes even used as a proxy measure of an institution’s overall
internationalization. Therefore, it is important to understand the evolution of internationalization
in higher education in order to better understand study abroad’s role and place within the
discourse on institutional internationalization today.
Altbach and Knight (2007) note that universities have been inherently international in
nature since their earliest origins, attracting students and scholars from many countries. The
current process of internationalization in higher education builds on this tradition and can be
defined as “the process of integrating an international/intercultural dimension into the teaching,
research, and service functions of the institutions” (De Wit, 2000, p. 10). De Wit (2000) further
notes that internationalization is a process and that it is a response to globalization, but should
not be confused with globalization itself. That is, globalization of the economy and society
begets internationalization of higher education. Internationalization, in turn, can occur in a
variety of ways and encompass a number or programs or activities. Examples of the
internationalization of higher education may include area studies, infusion of international
themes into existing courses, development of international courses, the presence of international
students on campus, linkages between institutions for research and exchange, and study abroad
(Altbach & Knight, 2007; Bandler, 2002; Bok, 2006; De Wit, 2000; Duderstadt, 2000; Gregor,
2002; Guerin, 2009; Hser, 2005).

25

Schoorman (2000) has developed a framework exploring how internationalization is
implemented on college campuses. This framework is guided by Systems Theory principles and
based on the perspective of higher education as an organizational system. This framework
conceptualizes internationalization as “educational institution’s adaptation to the changes in an
increasingly global and interdependent environment” (Schoorman, 2000, p. 4) and holds that
internationalization is a comprehensive, multifaceted process. It also identifies core
characteristics necessary for successful internationalization, such as commitment to
internationalization, organizational leadership, and funding. As will be discussed in more detail
in the following section, most of these characteristics have also been identified as important to
the development of study abroad programs.
The American Council on Education (ACE) has conducted the most extensive empirical
work on internationalization of U.S. higher education. In 2001, ACE used a series of surveys to
examine the status of internationalization in U.S. colleges and institutions (Siaya & Hayward,
2003). They conducted a national sample of 752 community colleges, liberal arts colleges,
comprehensive universities, and research universities and a survey of 1,027 undergraduate
faculty and 1,290 undergraduate students all from institutions that responded to the first survey.
The study was descriptive in nature, but provided a comprehensive, national understanding of the
internationalization of higher education. In 2006, ACE conducted a follow-up study to provide
an update and comparison; however, faculty and students were not surveyed in 2006 (Green,
Luu, & Burris, 2008).
Across institution types Siaya and Hayward (2003) identified a number of weaknesses.
These include that most institutions exhibited low overall levels of commitment to
internationalization and that the majority of faculty and students were supportive of international

26

activities, but failed to participate in them. They also found foreign language enrollment to be
static and increasingly concentrated in Spanish (Siaya & Hayward, 2003). Green, et al. (2008)
found that these same weaknesses remained, and in some cases, became worse. For example,
they found a decline in the proportion of institutions that require foreign language study for
graduation. This finding is supported by Bok (2006) who also sounded a note of concern
regarding language enrollment, stating that “fewer colleges require language study for at least
some students (73%) than was true in 1966 (89%)” (p. 233).
Findings from the 2001 surveys include: institutional type alone did not determine
internationalization success; the personal interest of faculty and staff contributed greatly to
campus internationalization efforts; liberal arts colleges were the most likely and comprehensive
institutions were the least likely to earmark funds for scholarships for international students;
research universities were the most likely to seek and receive external funding for international
programs and to have an office employing full-time, non-student staff to administer international
programs; and community colleges were the most likely to offer faculty development workshops
in internationalizing the curriculum and the least likely to include internationalization in the
mission statement (Siaya & Hayward, 2003). Green, et al. (2008) found that these trends
continue, with a minority of institutions mentioning internationalization in their mission
statements and also less than half (44%) employing a full-time administrator to coordinate
internationalization efforts. However, investment in international opportunities for faculty and
education abroad opportunities for students rose in the first half of the 2000s (Green et al., 2008).
Internationalization in community colleges
As discussed in earlier sections of this literature review, both the fact of globalization and
the need for higher education to adapt to its demands, largely by internationalizing the institution

27

and/or curriculum, are well established. In short, globalization means interconnected markets and
societies. As noted previously, it also means that students and graduates today must be equipped
with a different set of skills than past generations. While their ability to attract students and
scholars from around the world has been that colleges and universities have long been
international in nature (Altbach & Knight, 2007), the demands of globalization and the changing
needs of society and business require that higher education be more purposeful in its
internationalization efforts than in the past.
The characteristics for successful internationalization as described in Schoorman’s (2000)
framework – organizational leadership, funding, and commitment to internationalization – are
examples of the conscientious actions and commitments necessary for a college or university to
successfully internationalize. Indeed, it is no longer a matter of if, but of when and how, that all
higher education institutions internationalize; as the American Association of Community
Colleges stated, “…pressure is increasing for community college to foster an awareness of
foreign cultures and the interconnected nature of the world economy” (2010a, para. 5). It is
within the context of this discourse that I will examine the state of internationalization at the
community college level.
In the past few years, as the discussion on educating community college students “in the
overarching cross-cultural and international aspects and ramifications of their future employment
and personal lives” (Guerin, 2009, p. 644) has increased, higher education scholars have
produced a significant amount of literature on internationalization in community colleges (Green,
2007; Green, et al., 2008; Green & Siaya, 2005; Guerin, 2009; Hult & Motz, 2008; Levin, 2000;
Levin 2002; Raby, 2008; Raby & Valeau, 2007). This work, which highlights the importance of
internationalization to community colleges and their students, as well as the challenges colleges

28

face in internationalizing, and the successes they have already achieved, is the focus of this
section.
As mentioned previously, the American Council on Education included community
colleges in their study of internationalization at U.S. colleges (Green et al., 2008; Siaya &
Hayward, 2003). Siaya and Hayward (2003) found many positive developments in the
internationalization of community colleges including improvements in the area of foreign
language (with a small, but growing number, of colleges even instituting a foreign language
admission requirement), study abroad, international student enrollment, and the acquisition of
external funding to support international programs. Perhaps unexpectedly, they discovered that
little difference existed between community colleges and other institution types; on the whole, a
greater disparity existed among community colleges than between those institutions and other
types (liberal arts, comprehensive, and research universities). Siaya and Hayward (2003)
identified the biggest hurdle for internationalization as funding. Additionally, only one-quarter of
community colleges included internationalization as part of the college mission statement,
perhaps indicating a lack of commitment to the process. Siaya and Hayward (2003) found that
38% of community colleges offered study abroad programs.
In the follow-up survey, Green, et al. (2008) found that many of these issues persisted.
For example, they found that community colleges were the least likely institution type to have a
written plan addressing institution-wide internationalization, that 68% of community colleges
received no external funding for internationalization in 2006, and that 51% of responding
community colleges reported that none of their 2005 graduates participated in study abroad
(Green et al., 2008). However, they did find that 85% of responding institutions offered study
abroad programs for credit in 2006. This differs considerably from Raby (2008), who reported

29

only a total of 114 community colleges offering study abroad in academic year 2005-2006. One
possible explanation for this difference is response bias. Green, et al. (2008) note that community
college response rates were so low as to warrant telephone follow-up reminders to institutions. It
could be that the institutions with the weakest internationalization efforts were less likely to
respond to the ACE survey than those with stronger internationalization implementation. Raby
(2008) used the Open Doors report, which may experience less response bias, being an annual,
well-established survey.
In addition to the inclusion of community colleges in the research of Siaya and Hayward
(2003), additional research has focused on internationalization at community colleges
specifically. As previously discussed, community colleges made great strides in the area of
internationalization, with many adopting an international and multicultural focus (Bandler, 2002;
Levin, 2000, 2002; Siaya & Hayward, 2003). This section will look specifically at the ways in
which community colleges achieved internationalization and the barriers to further
internationalization.
Raby and Valeau (2007) outline the phases of internationalization in community colleges
as well as the rationales for internationalization at these institutions. The phases they identify are
the recognition phase, expansion and publication phase, augmentation phase, and
institutionalization phase (Raby & Valeau, 2007). The recognition phase lasted from 1967 to
1984 and saw many firsts for community college internationalization from the first study abroad
office, which opened at Rockland Community College in 1969, to the first faculty-led study
abroad programs in 1974. The second phase, expansion and publication, overlapped slightly with
the first phase, lasting from 1980-1990. During this phase, community colleges began receiving
grants for curriculum internationalization and developing state and regional consortia (Raby &

30

Valeau, 2007). Augmentation, the third phase, lasted from 1990-2000. At this time, community
colleges began to enhance their internationalization efforts, intensifying the recruitment of
international students and “diversifying disciplines for infusion and study abroad” (Raby &
Valeau, 2007, p. 7). The last phase is that of institutionalization, which began in 2000. This
phase has seen “an explicit push to include international education in institutional mission
statements” and significant growth in study abroad programs at community colleges (Raby &
Valeau, 2007, p. 8).
Raby and Valeau (2007) argue that community colleges have four rationales for
internationalizing their campuses. These are: 1) political, or the perception of international
education as being important for national security; 2) economic, which recognizes international
education as a means to enhance international trade and commerce; 3) humanist, where
international education is a process that helps students relate to others and facilitates tolerance
and peace; and 4) academic integrity, or the idea that courses and/or programs that lack
international themes are incomplete.
The most comprehensive work on the achievement of internationalization at community
colleges was conducted by Green and Siaya (2005), who analyzed the responses of 233
community colleges to an institutional survey conducted by the American Council on Education.
Green and Siaya (2005) developed an internationalization index to measure the extent of
internationalization on community college campuses. Using a five point scale of zero, low,
medium, medium-high, and high, they found that the majority of community colleges scored low
overall and that none scored high. Individual colleges did, however, score highly active on
individual dimensions of internationalization (articulated commitment, academic offerings,

31

organizational infrastructure, external funding, institutional investment in faculty, and
international students and student programs).
Their findings included several common strategies for highly active community colleges,
as compared to their lower scoring counterparts (Green & Siaya, 2005). These included: seeking
external funding for international education, having an office to oversee international education
programs, highlighting education abroad in recruitment literature, providing funding for faculty
to lead study abroad programs and attend conferences, having an international general education
course requirement, and offering workshops and funding for faculty to internationalize their
curricula.
More recently, Green (2007) analyzed barriers to internationalizing community colleges.
She found the major barriers to internationalization are institutional as well as individual, with
the single most powerful obstacle being the “perception that institutional leaders do not view
international education as relevant” (Green, 2007, p. 19). Additional barriers included the lack of
institutional strategy, the fragmentation of international programs, a lack of funding, and a lack
of faculty expertise and interest in international learning or teaching.
Building on the work of Green and Siaya (2005), Hult and Motz (2008) conducted a
benchmark study on international business education in community colleges. Their study focused
on five pillars of internationalization – strategic commitment, program offerings, organizational
infrastructure, funding, and investment in faculty. Using data from 428 colleges, they found
investment in faculty to be the most important pillar in achieving a highly internationalized
business program. They also found that nearly two-thirds of community colleges administer
international business programs via an individual, presenting a potential hurdle to infusing
internationalization more broadly.

32

The most recent work in internationalization in community colleges, which also builds on
the work of Green and Siaya (2005) and Green, et al. (2008), is that of Harder (2010). Using data
from the American Council on Education, Harder conducted an ex post facto study designed to
explore levels of internationalization at community colleges in the U.S., examine the impact of
rural, suburban, or rural settings on overall levels of internationalization, and examine whether
relationships exist between the dimensions of internationalization within each classification. The
findings from this study include that, while internationalization is low across all community
colleges, institutions located in rural areas have significantly lower levels of internationalization
than campuses in suburban or urban areas. More importantly, the study found that the lack of
international experiences often results in graduates of community college being subject to an
employability penalty (Harder, 2010).
While gains in language programs, international or area studies, and internationallyinfused curriculum are important, some might argue that such forms of internationalization may
not be enough to prepare students for the still developing global realities. Indeed, “teaching other
countries’ languages, culture, or geography is inadequate to deal with global issues. Learning
about current events in other countries will be insufficient to solve problems of a global nature”
(Lim, Miller, Riley, McPherson, & Simon, 2003, p. 10). It should be noted that much of the work
on study abroad comes from higher education institutions and/or associations with an interest in
the expansion of study abroad. Lim, et al. (2003) is one such example and may therefore
overstate its case. Nevertheless, study abroad – which allows students to experience events in
other countries – is certainly an alternative to simply learning about events in other countries.

33

The literature on study abroad
This study is especially interested in one aspect of internationalization in particular, and
that is study abroad. Study abroad has nearly 90 years of history in this country, with a steadily
increasing number of students choosing to partake in this activity; for example, the number of
students studying abroad quadrupled between 1987-1988 and 2007-2008 (Institute of
International Education, 2009). Nevertheless, the total proportion of students who study abroad
is still less than two percent of American higher education enrollments (Commission on the
Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, 2005). Therefore, while study abroad has
garnered attention from policymakers (for example the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln
Study Abroad Fellowship Program, whose report was cited earlier in this paragraph), the
relatively small number of students who study abroad, and the especially small number from
community colleges, may account for the thin body of research on study abroad in community
colleges.
Limited literature exists on study abroad in community colleges. There is little empirical
work on study abroad of any kind. In the research that does exist on study abroad, most
references to study abroad at community colleges are part of research on internationalization,
which includes study abroad. Typically the extent of the focus on study abroad at community
colleges is a report on its history or frequency of programs (Green, et al., 2008; Green & Siaya,
2005; Hult & Motz, 2008; Raby, 2008; Raby & Valeau, 2007; Raby 2008). There is also no
existing work on connections between study abroad and the larger community, an area in which
this study may be of benefit to the field of study abroad research.
Literature on study abroad primarily consists of studies examining the benefits of study
abroad on student development. However, one important article looked at study abroad

34

programs, rather than impacts. In an effort to contribute to a clearer articulation of educational
goals in study abroad, Engle and Engle (2003) proposed a classification system for study abroad
programs. Their proposed system would divide study abroad programs into five levels. The first
level is that of study tour. Such a program lasts from several days to several weeks with
collective housing and English language instruction by home institution faculty. Short-term study
abroad programs, with a duration of three to eight weeks and the possibility for housing with
local families, comprise level two. The intensity of the program increases from level to level
until level five, semester and academic year programs with individual integration home stays and
all curricular and extracurricular activities conducted in the target foreign language.
Engle and Engle (2003) argue for such a classification system on the grounds that each
year a wider range of program options are available to students, all of which are often simply
identified as “study abroad.” A rating scale, on the other hand “would work to widen the scope
of the student’s ability to discern the true nature of the program he or she is considering” (Engle
& Engle, 2003, p. 15). Additionally, they posit that such a scale could shift institutional politics
behind study abroad. For example, currently many institutions eagerly display their total number
of students participating in study abroad, essentially competing with one another to have the
most students abroad. Yet, an increasing number of those students participate in the least
demanding programs. Therefore, a classification system could potentially encourage institutions
to focus on higher level programs, where students accrue ever greater personal and professional
benefits, rather than reveal that, for example, 80% of their students go abroad on level one study
tours.
Engle and Engle (2003) do note the important role that study tours play in providing
international exposure to students who have never traveled abroad and otherwise likely would

35

not. This role cannot be understated, especially at the community college level where,
anecdotally at least, the single most important role of study abroad is to open students eyes and
minds to other parts of the world. Additionally, shorter programs are “especially appealing to
students with employment constraints or family obligations which preclude their participation in
programs of longer duration” (NAFSA: Association of International Educators, 1997).
The benefits of study abroad
Considerable empirical research on the benefits of study abroad exists. Studies range
from those that have studied students directly (Carlson et al., 1990; McKeown, 2009) to a study
that surveyed employers regarding differences between recent hires with and without study
abroad experience (Gardner, Gross, & Steglitz, 2008). This literature review will divide this
research into the four clusters identified by the Michigan State University Office of Study
Abroad (2009): 1) academic/intellectual, such as developing problem solving and foreign
language skills; 2) professional, such as gaining a sense of direction for the student’s future
career; 3) personal, including the development of confidence and a stronger sense of personal
identity; and 4) inter-cultural, such as developing an increased interest in other cultures and
decreased ethnocentricity. These areas are represented in the literature to varying degrees. While
I was unable to locate any studies that have been conducted on community college students,
empirical studies have been conducted on students from a wide range of colleges and have
consistently found that study abroad benefits students’ development. Therefore, there is no
reason to believe that community college students would not similarly benefit from the provision
of study abroad.
Before examining the benefits that accrue to study abroad participants, and because study
abroad is virtually always a voluntary activity, it is first necessary to understand the ways in

36

which students who study abroad may differ from those who do not. This question, how do
students who study abroad differ from those who remain on their home campus, was the focus of
a quantitative study of 303 University of California and University of Massachusetts at Amherst
students (Carlson et al., 1990). Study abroad participants (study abroad group) completed preand post-study abroad questionnaires probing interest in other countries, attitudes toward the
United States, career motivation, and motivations to study abroad. Non-study abroad participants
(control group) completed the pre-questionnaire only.
The authors found that study abroad participants have a significantly greater interest in
other cultures, current events, and international affairs than students who do not study abroad and
to be less positive about cultural life in the United States than non-study abroad participants
(Carlson et al., 1990). The study also provided insight into students’ motivations for studying
abroad, or not. For example, the study abroad group was primarily motivated by the “cultural and
living experiences” they expected to have (Carlson et al., 1990, p. 31). A significant proportion
of the control group indicated they were interested in studying abroad but chose not to because it
was not necessary for their course of studies or might delay their graduation. These concerns are
legitimate, and may be especially essential to address for community college students; however,
as the following sections indicate, numerous important benefits do accrue to students who study
abroad, even for brief periods of time. The four benefits that will be examined in detail, in order,
are 1) academic/intellectual; 2) professional; 3) personal; and 4) inter-cultural.
Academic/intellectual.
In 1923, the University of Delaware’s Professor Kirkbride argued that study abroad
would be an excellent way for students to gain an understanding of other countries and cultures
and to improve their language skills (Kochanek, 1998; Massey & Burrow, 2009). In developing

37

his program, Kirkbride specifically stated that such an experience would be useful for training
future foreign language teachers; indeed, for many decades thereafter study abroad was
essentially in the exclusive domain of language majors (Mohajeri Norris & Gillespie, 2009). Not
surprisingly, then, much research on study abroad outcomes and benefits has focused on the
acquisition and improvement of language skills (Cohen & Shively, 2007; Gray, Murdock, &
Stebbins, 2002; Magnan & Back, 2007). These findings, the overwhelming majority of which are
based on empirical research, will not be reviewed further here.
Unlike much of the work in this area, which focuses on language acquisition, McKeown
(2009) investigated the impact of studying abroad on intellectual development. The research
used the MID, an existing essay-format instrument, to measure students’ intellectual reasoning
ability before and after a semester-long study abroad experience. In addition to determining
whether students participating in study abroad made gains in intellectual development,
McKeown (2009) also sought to understand which additional variables (such as demographics)
were associated with any intellectual development gains. McKeown (2009) found that gains in
intellectual development were uneven, with the greatest gains occurring within students who had
not previously traveled abroad; importantly the intellectual development of students for whom
study abroad was their first meaningful international experience “caught up to their more
experienced peers after one semester abroad” (p. 92). The study also found that, as Carlson, et al.
(1990) and others have reported (as cited in McKeown, 2009), considerable self-selection at
every step of studying abroad leading to differences between those students who choose to study
abroad and those who do not is well-established.
The second and third development clusters identified by the Office of Study Abroad at
Michigan State University (2009), professional development (for example gaining a sense of

38

direction for the student’s future career) and personal development (such as the development of
confidence and a stronger sense of personal identity), will be examined in tandem in the next
section.
Professional and personal.
The areas of professional and personal skill development are closely intertwined in the
literature. Professional development, especially, has long motivated students to study abroad. For
example, in 1954-1955 the U.S. Department of State surveyed American students studying
abroad and found the goal of professional advancement to be of paramount importance in the
decision to study abroad (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1958). One student even wrote in their
response, “…That way I’ll also have better bargaining power when I want a raise once I get
established” (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1958, p. 370); another wrote, “I’m here to get background
that will help me in foreign trade” (p. 373). It is clear, then, that even in the early days of study
abroad students were motivated by the idea that studying abroad would equip them with valuable
skills for future employment.
In general this is true. Studying abroad provides students with a career skill set that
employers increasingly value (Obst et al., 2007). Kitsantas and Meyers (2001) found that study
abroad programs were a significant factor in students’ preparation to function in multicultural
environments and enhance students’ international understanding. More importantly, Gardner, et
al. (2008) found that fully half of the employers they surveyed believed that recent hires with
study abroad or international internship experience differed significantly from recent hires
without international experience in several areas. These areas are: interacting with people who
hold different interests, values, or perspectives; understanding cultural differences in the
workplace; and adapting to situations of change.

39

More explicitly, study abroad has been shown to be highly correlated with the career
decisions of study abroad alumni (Mohajeri Norris & Gillespie, 2009). In a survey of 17,000
former students who participated in study abroad programs between 1950 and 1999, Mohajeri
Norris and Gillespie found that the majority of study abroad participants gained skills that
influenced their career path and helped them develop interest in a career direction that they
pursued. In addition to influencing the career path, Mohajeri Norris and Gillespie (2009) also
found that study abroad contributes to personal development and increased self-confidence.
While Norris and Gillespie’s (2009) study looked at issues beyond identity development,
a number of recent studies have been conducted on the effects of study abroad on identity
development. One popular instrument for measuring such development is the Cross Cultural
Adaptability Inventory (CCAI), a 50-question survey examining Emotional Resilience,
Flexibility/Openness, Perceptual Acuity, and Personal Autonomy. Personal Autonomy, which
measures “how one maintains his/her identity and belief system in an unfamiliar environment
with different values” (Kitsantas, 2004, p. 444), correlates very well to establishing identity.
In 2004, Kitsantas surveyed 232 students enrolled in European study abroad programs
before (pretest) and shortly after (posttest) the study abroad experience using the CCAI and
personal data questionnaire to assess their self-awareness and cross-cultural effectiveness. She
found students scored higher on the posttest CCAI in all areas, with the greatest gains being
made in the area of Personal Autonomy. Likewise, Black and Duhon (2006) used the CCAI to
determine whether University of Southern Mississippi study abroad participants were becoming
more empathetic and cross-culturally tolerant and whether they were also becoming more selfconfident and independent. In both studies, students experienced gains in all areas. In the
Kitsantas (2004) study, students gained the most in Personal Autonomy; Black and Duhon

40

(2006) found student gains ranging from 7.7 points in Personal Autonomy to 17.3 points in
Perceptual Acuity.
It should be noted, however, that the professional gains of students are tempered when
they do not articulate their international experience in ways that have meaning for potential
employers (Gardner, et al., 2008). To maximize the professional value of study abroad, Gardner,
et al. (2008) state that students must reflect upon their experience and take care to highlight the
academic and personal growth value of their study abroad and not simply present their
experience as a travel log. Highlighting their intercultural learning (for example an increased
interest in other cultures and decreased ethnocentricity) may also be beneficial to students
seeking to help perspective employers understand how study abroad has helped them develop.
Intercultural development is the final development cluster that this literature review will explore.
Intercultural.
Among the most prominent and consistently cited benefits of study abroad are an
enhanced worldview, global perspective, and cross-cultural effectiveness (Gray et al., 2002;
Kitsantas, 2004; Kitsantas & Meyers, 2001; Obst et al., 2007), all of which contribute to world,
or global, mindedness. Douglas and Jones-Rikkers (2001) specifically looked at
worldmindedness, which they defined as “the extent to which individuals value the global
perspective … and appreciates cultural differences,” (p. 58). Their study found that participating
in study abroad positively impacts a student’s worldmindedness. This finding may be of especial
interest to community colleges interested in meeting the needs of employers, given that
employers, as noted previously in this chapter, place an increased emphasis on such global
mindedness.

41

Clarke et al. (2009) investigated the potential intercultural proficiencies expected from a
semester study abroad program for U.S. students. They found that students who had spent a
semester abroad were more globally minded than those who had not, had enhanced intercultural
communication skills, a greater openness to diversity, and heightened intercultural sensitivity.
Given that over half of all students who study abroad do so in short-term programs, a number
that increases to three-quarters for community college students, (Raby, 2008), two studies on
short-term program effects may be more appropriate.
Gray et al. (2002) used assessment surveys to study students at Missouri Southern State
College. They found that even studying abroad for a short period of time increases the awareness
students have of themselves and their own culture and challenges strongly held opinions and
beliefs. Ismail, Morgan, and Hayes (2006) conducted a similar study at Purdue University using
an instrument to measure “openness to diversity.” Their findings indicated that short-term
programs (here, three weeks) may significantly increase students’ openness to diversity on a
similar magnitude as students who participated in semester-long programs.
Study abroad in community colleges
As stated previously, little work has been published specifically on study abroad in
community colleges. The research that does touch on study abroad in community colleges is
generally research on internationalization (sometimes with a focus on community colleges) that
also covers study abroad, typically by reporting its history or frequency of programs (Green, et
al., 2008; Green & Siaya, 2005; Hult & Motz, 2008; Raby, 2008; Raby & Valeau, 2007; Raby
2008). That may be at least in part because of the relative newness and limited scope of study
abroad in community colleges. It may also be because of the special challenges that study abroad
presents for community colleges, in particular in meeting the needs of non-traditional students,

42

such as those with work or family obligations (Raby, 2008). This section will revisit a brief
background on the history of study abroad in community colleges, as presented in the previous
chapter and then review the findings of the work that has been published on community college
study abroad programs.
The first community college study abroad programs began in the late 1960s and early
1970s (Raby & Valeau, 2007). Rockland Community College opened a study abroad office in
1969 with other colleges following suit for the next decade. By 1977, 300 community colleges
were engaged in international education (Shannon, 1978, as cited in Raby & Valeau, 2007).
Raby (2008) reported that the number of community colleges offering study abroad
programs has increased 34% since 2000, while the number of community college students
studying abroad has increased 60% in that same time period. Sixty-two percent of community
college students who study abroad do so in Europe, with Italy being the top destination of choice.
Slightly more than 76% of students participate in short-term, summer programs of eight weeks or
less. Business students comprise the greatest percentage (15.6) of study abroad participants with
declared majors. Compared to four-year schools, community colleges send more minorities and
fewer white students abroad.
Raby (2008) also identified three major challenges to the development of community
college study abroad programs. First is the challenge of serving the diverse population of
community college students. Specifically, community colleges need to develop programs that
can accommodate students with work and family obligations. The second challenge is
institutional constraints, such as stakeholder support, funding, and dedicated office staff.
Institutional constraints can be especially challenging at those institutions that do not include
internationalization or international education in either their mission or strategic plans. Finally,

43

Raby identified the need for further professionalization of staff to be able to handle issues such
as risk management, evaluation, and pre-departure/re-entry programs, as a challenge for
community colleges to develop study abroad programs.
Raby (2008) found two models of study abroad predominated in the community colleges.
The most common model is faculty-led programs. The second model is that of consortium. Little
information is available on the administration of programs by faculty, campus offices, or
consortia. Halder (1997) offers the materials developed and used by Iowa’s community colleges
to establish the Iowa Community College Consortium for Study Abroad in the mid-1990s. These
materials are useful in understanding the responsibilities of consortium members, such as
“participating colleges will advertise consortium activities in their published schedule of classes”
and “the lead school offering the program will provide the faculty member” (Halder, 1997, p. 9).
Hser (2005) identified factors that have been major obstacles for study abroad. These
impediments include a lack of funding, negative perceptions by faculty, and in some cases social
and/or political chaos in study abroad locations. All of the factors identified in this section of the
literature review need to be explored more thoroughly in relation to study abroad in community
colleges to better understand which ones, as well as others not identified here, enhance or impede
the development of community college study abroad programs.
In sum, much research has been conducted on campus internationalization generally and
at community colleges and on study abroad. Much of the work on study abroad focuses on the
benefits conferred to students by study abroad. However, virtually no work has been done on the
impact of the community on community college programming or study abroad program
development at community colleges. This study seeks to examine this process by examining the
macro-level factors that impact the development of said programs.

44

Chapter 3
Methods and Methodology
Chapter 3 describes the methods and methodology that were used in this study. As
discussed in the introduction, the purpose of this study is to shed light on factors that may inhibit
or promote the development of study abroad at community colleges. Specifically, this is an
analysis of macro-level factors that influence the development and success of study abroad
programs at community colleges. The primary research question, then, is: What are the macrolevel factors that influence the development and deployment of study abroad programs at
community colleges? Within the context of this study, macro-level factors include such variables
as average income, urbanization of the community, presence of foreign-born individuals, and ties
with external constituents in the local community.
Study abroad in community colleges has rarely been studied. What existing research
there is has largely been conducted using survey instruments (Green et al., 2008; Green & Siaya,
2005; Hult & Motz, 2008). I followed a similar approach using surveys, first to understand basic
demographics, administrative decisions and structures, and study abroad offerings in community
colleges, then to query senior-level administrators about the influence of the community in
making these decisions. Together the surveys should allow for an understanding of the various
factors that impact the development and success of study abroad programs in community
colleges.
This chapter describes the methods and methodology I used to conduct a study on the
macro-level factors that influence study abroad development in community colleges. I will begin
this chapter by examining the reasons to use surveys in this study, to be followed by an

45

examination of my survey design, and finally by a discussion of the sample and data analysis
procedures. The instruments used in this study are included in the appendices.
Why use surveys?
The survey method is well established in educational research. Surveys in educational
research appeared as early as 1817 when Marc Antoine Jullien de Paris designed an international
survey of education systems (De Landesheere, as cited in Creswell, 2005). The modern
educational survey appeared during the interwar years (approximately 1920-1940) with the
development of different scales of measurement and improved sampling techniques; by the midtwentieth century the popularity of surveys in educational research was firmly established
(Creswell, 2005).
Creswell (2005) notes that survey research is appropriate for learning about a population
and describing trends. Given that the exploratory nature of this study requires further learning
about the population and the trends in macro-level factors affecting study abroad program
development, survey research seems highly appropriate. Additionally Creswell (2005) states that
electronic surveys provide an easy form of data collection, “although their actual use may be
limited because not all participants have access to computer or are comfortable using websites
and the Internet” (p. 361). Given the nature of the participants (mid- to upper-level
administrators at higher education institutions) and the increased prevalence of the internet and
technology, this limitation would seem not to apply to this study.
Surveys are especially appropriate for this study which seeks to collect information to
understand questions about the relationships between community college study abroad
programming and macro-level factors. Alreck and Settle (2004) note that survey research is often
the most effective and dependable way to obtain accurate, reliable, and valid information. As is

46

frequently the case with surveys, those in this study are being conducted with the intention of
enhancing the literature within the discipline (Alreck & Settle, 2004).
While surveys are not the only method for acquiring data about attitudes or opinions
(Alreck & Settle, 2004), they seem the most appropriate for this study, where field
experimentation and focus groups would be impractical owing to geography and the size of the
sample. (Given that this study surveyed more than 750 community colleges, and that focus
groups should consist of fewer than a dozen participants (Alreck & Settle, 2004), over 60 focus
groups would have been necessary to achieve the same reach. Furthermore, community colleges
from Maine to Hawaii were surveyed, also making focus groups difficult to implement.)
Additionally, surveys typically generate a significantly larger amount of data than experiments
(Alreck & Settle, 2004); large amounts of data are especially desirable given the exploratory
nature of this study. Additional advantages of the online survey method include the ability to
reach a larger and more dispersed sample and the elimination of interviewer bias (Alreck &
Settle, 2004).
Alreck and Settle (2004) identify one of the major potential limitations of the survey
approach as non-response, with participants feeling “too embarrassed or threatened to give the
information” (p. 8). However, most often this problem develops when a survey seeks
information on issues associated with social taboos; given the institutional nature of this survey,
it is unlikely that any non-response was due to threat or sensitive questions.
Studying a problem of interest to the population is one way to encourage a higher
response rate (Creswell, 2005) though. An earlier survey by the organization Community
Colleges for International Development (2009) found widespread interest in the topic, as have
my wide ranging conversations with community college faculty members, administrators, and

47

policy makers, all of which point to a sufficient level of interest to solicit responses to this
survey.
Survey design
This study was a two-part study. In the first part of the study, I used a survey instrument
to collect data from community colleges regarding background/demographic information,
international activities on campus, and their experiences with the development of study abroad
programs. These data were intended to measure 1) the internationalization of the college and 2)
the success of college’s study abroad programs. In developing this survey, I modified and built
upon the American Council of Education survey which has been the basis for much of the work
on community college internationalization to date (Green, 2007; Green et al., 2008; Green &
Siaya, 2005; Hult & Motz, 2008; Siaya & Hayward, 2003). The survey was then administered
electronically to directors of institutional research at community colleges accredited by the
American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). These individuals were identified using
information from each school’s website. Institutional researchers were selected over other
administrators, such as vice presidents, deans, or faculty members, based on numerous
conversations with community college faculty, administrators, and policy makers, including
community college presidents and high-level personnel from the AACC. The reason for this
recommendation concerns the scope of the data being collected, much of which is available only
from institutional research offices. However, institutional researchers were requested to consult
with other administrators to answer questions they believed were beyond their purview. This
request was keeping in practice with other community college surveys such as Green, et al., 2008
and Green and Siaya, 2005.

48

I examined internationalization by looking at indicator variables. Examples of indicator
variables for internationalization of the college included the number of international students on
campus, the number of foreign-born faculty members, and foreign language requirements and
course offerings. The indicator variables for success of the college’s study abroad programs
included the number of programs offered, the number of years for which study abroad has been
offered, the program format, such as faculty-led, semester-long, community college consortium,
or coordination by third party including four-year university, the average number of students
who participate in each program, and the overall percentage of students who participate in study
abroad. Indicator variables for this study were adapted from the American Council of Education
survey as well as created specifically to understand macro-level influences on study abroad
program development.
The survey was designed using “smart” survey features so that some of the questions
users were asked depended on the answers they gave. For example, if a participant replied that
the institution administered study abroad programs, the participant was then asked in what year
the first study abroad program was offered. If the institution had no study abroad programs, the
survey skipped this question. Respondents also had the opportunity to share additional comments
at the end of the survey. These additional comments were then used to give voice to the
individual participants and the institutions they represent. The complete survey instrument is
included in the appendix.
The survey also asked the respondent to identify the community or district that the
college serves. Identification was recorded using both geographic measures, such as city, county,
or tribal community, and the level of urbanization, such as urban, rural, or suburban. Participants
were also asked about the strength of the institution’s ties to entities within the community, such

49

as local government, chamber of commerce, K-12 school district, four-year college or university,
business and industry, etc.
Following the completion of the initial data collection and analysis, I then embarked on
the second step of the survey and data collection process. This portion of the study involved
surveying senior-level administrators, including chancellors, presidents, vice-presidents, and
deans, from institutions that had responded to the question in the first survey that asked whether
the institution administered study abroad programs. At institutions that administer study abroad
programs, the senior administrator overseeing study abroad was surveyed. At other institutions,
the vice president of academic affairs was surveyed; if the position is vacant or non-existent, the
president received the survey. The second survey was designed to better understand the
connections community colleges have forged with external constituencies within the community
and the ways in which these constituencies have influenced study abroad program development,
or the lack thereof.
The census survey approach that I employed has been used successfully to study other
aspects of internationalization on community college campuses in the past (Green & Siaya, 2005;
Hult & Motz, 2008). This approach offers a number of advantages. One of the most important,
given the exploratory nature of this study, is generalizability, while the primary limitation is the
risk of response bias (Creswell, 2005). While the findings are discussed in detail in the next
chapter, I will note here that one-third of institutions that responded to the question of whether
they administered study abroad programs responded in the affirmative. This proportion falls
between the numbers reported by Raby (2008) , who found 114 community colleges, or roughly
10% of all two-year colleges, offering study abroad programs in 2005-2006 and Green, et al.
(2008) who found 85% of responding institutions offered study abroad programs for credit in

50

2006. In 2003 Siaya and Hayward found that 38% of community colleges offered study abroad
programs, a number quite close to what this study found. Therefore, the findings from this study
appear to offer some level of generalizability, while exhibiting no greater response bias than
similar research.
Instrument Design
For the initial survey, a number of questions were adapted from the American Council on
Education survey, which was also the basis for the Hult and Motz (2008) survey. Additional
questions have also been written to understand stakeholder interest and participation in the
development of study abroad programs. Understanding stakeholder interest is especially
important in the context of community colleges as community colleges have the distinction of
being themselves at least partially shaped by their communities. As previously discussed,
community colleges regularly work with local employers “to fashion curricula that dovetail with
the needs of industry” (Fernandez, 2009, p. 23). For example, St. Louis Community College in
St. Louis, Missouri, has retrained autoworkers for jobs at the local Boeing plant, while Redlands
Community College in El Reno, Oklahoma, teaches agriculture professionals how to write farmwork plans (Fernandez, 2009). Responding to local community needs is a key component of
what Cohen and Brawer (2003) have identified as the community service function of community
colleges.
A number of items asked participants to respond to a statement using a 1-5 Likert scale
where 1 is strongly disagree, 3 is neutral, and 5 is strongly agree. Each item was written to be as
clear and brief as possible, focus on a single idea, and convey an opinion or feeling rather than a
fact. Survey questions were created to represent both ends of the spectrum in keeping with the
principles of instrument construction (Thorndike, 2005). In that way a consistent respondent who

51

strongly agrees with the item representing one end of the spectrum would be expected to strongly
disagree with the item at the other end of the spectrum.
Before being administered nationally, the survey was piloted with a small group of
approximately 10 community college faculty and administrators, including institutional
researchers, deans, policymakers, and faculty members from institutions around the country, in
the states of Ohio, Washington, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. This pilot study was designed to
ensure that the questions were clear and concise and that instrument had sound face validity.
Based on feedback from this pilot group, a few questions were reworded and two follow-up
questions added. No major changes were made.
The sample
The sample for this study was American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)
member schools and their local communities. The AACC represents roughly 1,200 accredited
community colleges in all 50 states, including public, private, and tribal colleges. I chose to
survey all AACC member institutions for which contact information for an office of institutional
research was available for multiple reasons. Owing to the exploratory nature of this study, a
comprehensive sample seemed most appropriate. Using the criteria of online contact
information, the sample totaled 751 institutions from all 50 states. In addition to the initial
invitation to participate in the study, all institutions received two separate reminder emails
requesting their participation. Copies of the invitation and reminders are included in the
appendices.
In total 142 institutional researchers submitted a response to this survey. Responses to
individual questions ranged from a high of N=43 (Q6: Is your institution authorized to offer
baccalaureate degrees?) to a low of N=4 (Q28: How many students received academic credit for

52

participating in individual study abroad programs?). While low, it should be noted that a low
response rate was, unfortunately, expected, given the extra efforts necessary for Green et al.
(2008) to obtain a 30% response rate.
The second survey examined the aspects of the relationship with the local community.
This survey was distributed electronically to senior-level administrators at the 33 institutions that
responded to the question in the first survey that asked whether they administered study abroad
questions. This survey, which asked slightly different questions depending whether or not an
institution administered study abroad programs, consisted of one Likert-type response and six
open-ended questions concerning the impact of the community and stakeholders upon the
development of study abroad programs. Administrators who received this survey also received
up to three reminder emails requesting their participation. At institutions where a senior-level
administrator at a level below the president had not responded, the president then received an
invitation and up to one reminder to participate. In total, 11 responses were submitted, for a
response rate of 33%. Seven of the responses came from institutions that did not administer study
abroad programs (a 32% response rate for that sub-group) and four came from institutions that
did administer study abroad programs (a 33% response rate for that sub-group). In contrast to the
survey of institutional researchers, every survey submitted in the second part of the survey was
completed in full.
Data analysis
The findings from the analysis of the survey data are presented in detail in the following
chapter. Initially this study was planned to be a regression study to analyze macro-level factors
that influenced the development and success of study abroad programs at community colleges.
However, owing to the small sample size (the majority of survey questions had n<30), the data

53

were analyzed more broadly, primarily with descriptive statistics. The primary research question
that is being studied is: What are the macro-level factors that influence the development and
deployment of study abroad programs at community colleges? Within the context of this study,
macro-level factors include such variables as average income within the community and
percentage of students receiving financial aid, transfer rates to four-year institutions, average
student age, and degree of urbanization. Additionally, I examined the relationships between
elements of college internationalization (foreign language offerings, structure of international
programs administration, presence of international faculty and students) and study abroad
programming.
As no work has previously been done on relationships between program offerings and
macro-level factors, this study was designed to be exploratory in nature. Its focus is on
identifying relationships and laying a foundation for future work in this area.

54

Chapter 4
Findings
This study, an analysis of macro-level factors that influence the development and success
of study abroad programs at community colleges, attempted to shed light on factors that may
inhibit the development of study abroad at community colleges, as well as factors that may
encourage such program development. This chapter presents key findings from two surveys that
were administered to institutional researchers and senior administrators at community colleges.
The findings are organized around the following themes: 1) profile of community colleges, 2)
profile of the communities served, 3) international activities and internationalization efforts at
the college, 4) study abroad programming, and 5) the relationship with the community and
stakeholders. I also further describe the sample and compare it to the population of community
colleges at large. Following this discussion I explore the primary research question: What are the
macro-level factors that influence the development and deployment of study abroad programs at
community colleges?
Two surveys were conducted to answer the research question. The first surveyed 751
institutional researchers to gain an understanding of the landscape, demographics, and
internationalization of community colleges today. The second surveyed 33 high-level
administrators, including presidents, chancellors, vice presidents, deans, and directors, from
institutions that responded to the first survey to obtain a more in-depth perspective on the
successes and challenges of study abroad program development at community colleges. The
major focus of this second survey was the influence of the community and relationships with
external constitutions on such program development. The remainder of this chapter presents the
findings from these two surveys.

55

Survey of institutional researchers
In total 142 institutional researchers responded to the first survey, yielding a response rate
of 18.9%. Responses to individual questions ranged from a high of N=43 (Q6: Is your institution
authorized to offer baccalaureate degrees?) to a low of N=4 (Q28: How many students received
academic credit for participating in individual study abroad programs?). For those questions, 13
in total, which were asked to only those at institutions that administer study abroad programs
(n=11), the range was from 9 (7 questions) to 4 (Q44: How many students received academic
credit for participating in individual study abroad programs?). Eighteen responses were received
to the two questions that were asked exclusively to those at institutions that do NOT administer
study abroad programs (n=22).
While on the low side, this response rate was not unanticipated given the difficulties
documented by Green, et al. (2008) during their study. For example, due to the lower response
rate during the ACE study, non-responding community colleges received telephone reminders, in
addition to previous written reminders (Green, et al., 2008). Additionally, policymakers at the
American Association of Community Colleges and Community Colleges for International
Development had both indicated that response rates for the type of study undertaken in this
dissertation tend to be on the lower side. With these issues in mind, the initial survey was piloted
to a group of administrators, including deans, faculty, and institutional researchers, to ensure that
the questions were appropriate and could reasonably be expected to be answered. The survey
instructions also noted that participants were encouraged to consult with other administrators to
answer questions they felt were beyond their purview. Additionally, each participant received up
to two follow-up reminders about the survey. A full copy of the survey is included in Appendix
A; the survey questions have been organized by theme.

56

Survey of senior administrators
The second survey in this study was distributed electronically to senior-level
administrators at the 33 institutions that responded to the question in the first survey that asked
whether they administered study abroad questions. This survey, which asked slightly different
questions depending whether or not an institution administered study abroad programs, consisted
of one Likert-type response and six or seven (depending on the version) open-ended questions
concerning the impact of the community and stakeholders upon the development of study abroad
programs. Administrators who received this survey also received up to three reminder emails
requesting their participation. In total, 11 responses were submitted, for a response rate of 33%.
Seven of the responses came from institutions that did not administer study abroad programs (a
32% response rate for that sub-group) and four came from institutions that did administer study
abroad programs (a 33% response rate for that sub-group). In addition to the initial invitation to
participate, each administrator received up to three reminders. At institutions where a seniorlevel administrator at a level below the president had not responded, the president then received
an invitation and up to one reminder to participate. Copies of the surveys are included in
Appendix B (institutions that do not offer study abroad) and Appendix C (institutions that offer
study abroad).
The following is an examination of the responses to these surveys. This discussion has
been organized around the following themes: 1) profile of community colleges, 2) profile of the
communities served, 3) international activities and internationalization efforts at the college, 4)
study abroad programming, and 5) the relationship with the community and stakeholders. The
first three themes are the province of the first survey; the last two themes were examined in both
surveys.

57

Profile of community colleges
Eight questions from the first survey and one question from the second survey examined
the theme of the profile of the institutions that participated in this study. The questions from the
survey of institutional researchers covered two areas, a profile of the students (for example, age
and financial aid) and a profile of the administrative structure (for example, availability of
baccalaureate degrees, appointment of trustees). The survey of senior level administrators asked
respondents at institutions that did not administer study abroad programs how they felt their
institution differed from, or was similar to, institutions that administered study abroad programs.
Students.
Across all institutions, full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment ranged from 763 to 32,362.
The mean full-time equivalent student enrollment was 6,383 and median was 4,649. At
institutions that do not administer study abroad programs (n=19), the minimum was 763 and the
maximum was 15,700, with a mean of 5,120, a median of 3,284 and a standard deviation of
4,311.33. For institutions that administer study abroad programs (n=9), the minimum FTE
enrollment was 1,348 and the maximum 32,362. The mean was 9,484 and the median was 6,000
with a standard deviation of 9,387.38. These numbers compare to a mean of 5,797 students
enrolled in AACC-member institutions (American Association of Community Colleges, 2010c).
The minimum average age of full-time students was reported as 20-21 and the maximum
average age was recorded as 36. The overall mean was 25.25 years and the median reported
average age was 25.5. At institutions that administer study abroad programs (N=9), the mean age
of full-time students was nearly identical to the mean age at all responding institutions, 25.24 and
the median was slightly lower at 24.3 years. The standard deviation was 3.26 years. At

58

institutions that do not administer study abroad programs (N=18), the mean age was 25.17 and
the median was 25 years, with a standard deviation of 2.68 years.
While the average age of students at responding institutions seems to be below the
national average, overall, the distribution of ages is similar to the national averages, as reported
by the American Association of Community College. According to the AACC’s most recent
statistics, the overall average age of community college students is 28, with 46% being 21 or
younger, 40% being 22-39 and 16% being 40 or older (American Association of Community
Colleges, 2010c).
Survey participants were also asked about financial aid, as a student’s finances have
previously been shown to be a major factor in students’ decisions whether or not to study abroad
(Hser, 2005; Raby, 2008). Percentages of students receiving financial aid at responding
institutions ranged from 5 to 95%, with a mean of 54.88% and a median of 60%. At institutions
that administer study abroad programs (N=8), the mean is 41.63% and the median is 44.5%, with
a standard deviation of 22.16%. At institutions that do not administer study abroad programs
(N=16), the mean and median are 68.11% and 70%, respectively, with a standard deviation of
16.88%.
At the 23 institutions that provided information on the average financial aid award in
2009-2010, the average award ranged from a low of $240 to a high of $8,085. The median award
was $2,858 and the mean award was $3,140. One institution that administers study abroad
indicated this figure was not available. For the remaining institutions the mean, median, and
standard deviation were $1,941.50, $2,254.50, and $1,067.03. Among institutions that do not
administer study abroad programs, the mean award was $3,527, with a median of $3,300 and a
standard deviation of $1,843.36.

59

Nationally, 59% of community college students apply for financial aid, with 46%
ultimately receiving it (American Association of Community Colleges, 2010c). On average, the
institutions that responded to this survey have a higher percentage of students receiving financial
aid than the national average, a difference that is most visible when looking at those institutions
that do not administer study abroad programs. Figures on average financial aid awards are not
available.
As part of understanding the student profile at community colleges participating in this
study, the survey also asked about students’ transfer rates to four-year colleges and universities.
A total of N=25 responses were received to this question; transfer rates ranged from a low of 0%
to a high of 56% with an overall median transfer rate of 20.51% and a mean of 20.72%. At
institutions that administer study abroad programs (N=8), the median transfer rate was 24.25%
and the mean was 23.97%. The median transfer rate at schools that do not administer study
abroad programs (N=14) was 20.51% and the mean and standard deviation were 21.67% and
11.78%. These rates are comparable with previously reported transfer rates throughout the
country. For example, in California, the nation’s largest community college system, 40% of
students transfer to four-year institutions; in Texas the number is half that (Chen, 2009;
CityTownInfo.com, 2009; Moore, Shulock, & Jensen, 2009). The next section will discuss
findings about the second prong of the theme, the administrative profile of community colleges.
Administrative profile.
A growing trend in community college education is the availability of the baccalaureate
degree (Lewin, 2009, Moltz, 2010). This model has evolved faster than the scholarship in the
field; for example, “scholars do not know enough about these community college baccalaureate

60

programs to say whether they have adversely affected existing two-year programs” (Moltz, 2010,
To add or not to add section, Para. 19).
To see whether a correlation between degree type and existence of study abroad
programs existed, this survey asked whether the institution offered a BA or was strictly a twoyear institution. Among all survey respondents (N=43), institutions administering study abroad
were nearly as likely to be accredited to offer baccalaureate degrees as those that did not
administer study abroad. In the former case, 9% of survey respondents indicate they are
authorized to offer baccalaureate degrees. At institutions that do not administer study abroad
programs, 10% offer the four-year degree. Offering baccalaureate degrees is becoming
increasingly common. For example, community colleges in a number of states including Texas,
Nevada, and Washington now offer BA degrees, and in Florida 18 of its 28 community colleges
offer at least one baccalaureate degree (Lewin, 2009; Moltz, 2010). However, whether or not an
institution offers baccalaureate degrees does not seem to factor into frequency of study abroad
program administration.
Given the influence of trustees on programming decisions and the various ways in which
they can be appointed (Vaughan & Weisman, 1997), the process of trustee selection was one of
the administrative areas that this survey queried. Among all responding institutions (N=35),
governor appointment of trustees was most common, with 45% of institutions that administer
study abroad programs and 47% of institutions that do not, reporting that trustees are selected in
that manner. These numbers appear to be slightly lower than the most recent national average. In
2008, the Association for Community College Trustees surveyed almost 750 local boards from
39 states and 34 state boards and found 53% of community college trustees were governor-

61

appointed (Moltz, 2009). (For historical perspective, in 1995, 35.1% of trustees were appointed
by the governor (Vaughan & Weisman, 1997)).
At institutions that do not administer study abroad programs (N=19), appointment by
local elected officials and election by precinct were the next most common trustee selection
procedures, at 16% each. District-wide election was reported by 11% of institutions, while
another 11% indicated that their institution’s trustees are selected by a combination of
appointment and election, a common practice nationally (Moltz, 2009). At institutions that
administer study abroad programs (N=11), 27% of respondents reported selecting trustees via
district-wide election with the remaining institutions split between appointment by local elected
officials, election by precinct, and other. (The other process of selection was recorded as
“appointment by sponsoring school districts.”)
Somewhat related to the issue of trustee appointment, in that it can also be out of the
control of the institution, is how the curriculum is determined, specifically the level at which it is
set. For example, while the majority of all respondents (N=37) indicated that their institution’s
curriculum is set at the institutional level, such as by the board of trustees or a curriculum
committee, a handful of institutions (n=7 or 19%) did report that their curriculum is determined
at the state level, such as by a statewide board.
Eighteen percent of those institutions that administer study abroad programs reported
their curriculum was set at the state level, as well as 20% of schools that do not administer study
abroad. A further 16% (n=6) of all responding institutions indicated that the institution’s
curriculum is determined in some other way. All six respondents in this category, three of which
administer study abroad programs and three of which do not, indicated that their curriculum is
determined at a combination of the institutional and state levels.

62

The majority of respondents, however, indicated that the curriculum is set at the
institutional level. At institutions that do not administer study abroad programs (n=20), 65%
(n=13) of institutions set their curriculum at the institutional level, versus 55% (n=6) of
institutions that administer study abroad. There would appear to be significant selfdetermination, then, for community colleges to choose whether and how study abroad fits into
their curriculum.
Given this leeway, senior administrators from institutions that did not administer study
abroad programs were asked in the second survey, “How do you believe institutions that
administer study abroad programs are different from or similar to your institution?” A total of
N=7 responses were received to this question, and the theme of resources quickly emerged in
their responses. A vice president for academic affairs at a college on the west coast replied, “I
suspect that schools with big study abroad programs serve a larger proportion of middle income
or higher students.” A dean of academic affairs in the northeast echoed that sentiment, adding,
“They [the community colleges with study abroad programs] have the resources to advertise,
recruit, plan, manage, and evaluate the program. … Students have the financial resources.”
Another vice president for academic affairs in New York was more to the point: “They are
wealthier and have a less diverse student population.” A respondent from a college in the
Carolinas agreed, writing, “…Students who have more disposable income to cover costs.” Only
two responses cited institutional factors (“programs of study that are flexible to include study
abroad courses” and not have the same “necessary buy-in from stakeholders including faculty,
students, administration, and board”). It is clear from these responses that the communities from
which students hail are greatly important in shaping the feasibility and viability of study abroad

63

programs. The following section presents the findings about the communities these colleges
serve.
Profile of communities
As discussed in Chapter 2, the community plays an important role in shaping its
community college. Responding to local community needs has historically been a component of
the community service function of community colleges (Cohen & Brawer 2003); for example,
community colleges often work with local employers to align their curricula with the needs of
local industry (Fernandez, 2009). Community has also played a role in international endeavors at
community colleges. The first community college international education consortia, created in
the late 1960s, consisted primarily of community colleges that, among other characteristics, had
strong community support – often for initiatives that went beyond district borders (Korbel,
2007).
Therefore understanding more about the communities they serve is imperative to try to
answer the question of what factors impact the development of study abroad at community
colleges. The first question respondents to the first survey were asked pertaining to their
communities was to identify the geographic area that best described the community or district the
institution serves. These geographical areas were: city or part of a city; county or part of a
county; multiple counties; tribal community; other. Thirty-nine responses (N=39) were received
to this question. One respondent selected “other” and indicated that their institution serves “local
school districts.” The remaining responses broke down as indicated in the following table.

64

Table 1
Community or District Served
___________________________________________________________________________
Do not administer
%
Administer
%
Total %
study abroad
study abroad
City or part of a city

6

30%

4

36%

12

31%

County or part of a county

3

15%

1

9%

7

18%

Multiple counties

10

50%

6

55%

19

49%

Tribal community

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Other

1

5%

0

0%

1

3%

Total

20

100%

11

100%

39 100%

Note: n=8 institutions responded to this question but did not respond to the question asking
whether the institution administers study abroad programs.
At institutions that administer study abroad programs (n=11), the breakdown was 36%
institutions that serve a city or part of a city; 9% that serve a county or part of a county; and 55%
that serve multiple counties. At institutions that do not administer study abroad programs (n=20),
the breakdown was 50% multiple counties; 30% city or part of a city; 15% county or part of a
county, and 5% other (local school districts).
The survey instrument next asked respondents to select the degree of urbanization of their
community or district. Respondents were given three choices, urban, suburban, or rural. These
classifications are the same as the Carnegie classification system. A total of 39 responses were
received (N=39), with 21% indicating they serve an urban community or district (n=8); 33% a
suburban community (n=13); and 46% a rural community or district (n=18).
Among institutions that administer study abroad programs, the percentages of urban- and
suburban-serving institutions were greater than for all respondents (at 27% and 36%,

65

respectively), while the percentage of institutions serving rural districts was lower (36%). In
contrast, 55% of responding institutions that do not administer study abroad programs identified
their degree of urbanization as rural, with 20% serving an urban community and 25% serving a
suburban area. These findings support Harder (2010), who found overall levels of
internationalization to be significantly lower at rural community colleges than at urban or
suburban campuses. For example, one respondent from a rural institution articulated the
challenges these institutions often face, writing in the comments section:
We are a very rural college. ‘International’ to our students means going to a large city
located about 50 miles away; going out of the country would not be considered except by
a handful of students at this time due to cost and cultural considerations.
As indicated by the comment above, in addition to the urban or suburban setting of the
college, finances often play a role in study abroad participation. Raby (2008) found lack of funds
to be one of the single greatest challenges to expanding study abroad in community colleges. It is
likely, then, that the economic circumstances of the community could impact study abroad
program development and offerings. Therefore, the third question that pertained to community
profile concerned the median household income within the service area. Fifty-three percent of all
respondents indicated that the median household income in their community or district was
$20,001 to $40,000. A further 12 respondents, or 35%, indicated a median household income of
$40,001 to $60,000. The remaining four responses were split between $20,000 or less (n=1),
$60,001 to $80,000 (n=1), and $80,001 to $100,000 (n=2). At institutions that administer study
abroad programs (N=10), the breakdown was split between $20,001 to $40,000 (n=6 or 60%);
$40,001 to $60,000 (n=3 or 30%); and $80,001 to $100,000 (n=1 or 10%). Five percent (n=1) of
institutions that do not administer study abroad programs reported a median household income in

66

the community of $20,000 or less, with 47% reporting a median income of $20,001 to $40,000,
42% reporting $40,001 to $60,000, and the remaining 5% $60,001 to $80,000.
Because community can play such a key role in determining the scope and success of
international endeavors at community colleges (Harder, 2010; Korbel, 2007), the survey of
senior administrators asked respondents to describe the mindset of the community they serve,
and characteristics of that community, regarding “international.” A total of N=11 responses were
received to this question and, in general, respondents described communities and students with
positive “international” mindsets. “[Our community] is an international/global community. The
mindset is a healthy, welcoming one, and students are used to interacting with international
students, visitors, and employees,” wrote the Provost of an institution in New York that does not
administer study abroad. Likewise, a vice president for academic affairs responded that, “They
live it everyday…our students come from 155 different countries and speak 125 different
languages.” The respondent from a college in Washington stated, “At our college, ‘international’
is a way of life. Perhaps a third of our local students are immigrants/refugees from a variety of
countries. In addition we have 400+ international students on F1 visas.” Only one respondent
provided a description that could not necessarily be interpreted as positive. A dean from Maine
wrote, “I would describe the mindset as acceptance.” None of these institutions administered
study abroad programs.
Participants at institutions in North Carolina and Michigan, neither of which administered
study abroad programs, responded to this question from an economic or competitiveness pointof-view. “Some students do not understand the importance of ‘global’ when local economic
situation is so poor. Others realize everything is connected globally,” wrote a vice president from
a North Carolina community college. Similarly, the president of an institution in Michigan

67

responded, “I believe that there is little thought about international students, etc., but much
consideration to international competition for jobs.”
One president in the Pacific Northwest acknowledged a community that “doesn’t
particularly like outsiders” but that fully supports international students and international trips,
perhaps because “[the college] brings a diversity of individuals and experiences that is nonthreatening and therefore embraced.” Yet, even within an international community,
internationalization can be a difficult task, an issue illuminated by the president of a rural college
in Washington that administered study abroad programs. “Though we are a fairly rural
community college, our area is home to a national laboratory that internationalizes the
community significantly. However, the bulk of our students think in provincial terms, so
international might well be a trip across the Canadian border not far from here.” Indeed, as the
next section will show, while community colleges have made great strides in international
activities and internationalization efforts, there is still much work to be done.
International activities and internationalization efforts
Altbach and Knight (2007) note that, in attracting students and scholars from many
countries, universities have been inherently international in nature since their earliest origins.
The current process of internationalization at colleges and universities builds on this tradition
and can be defined as “the process of integrating an international/intercultural dimension into the
teaching, research, and service function of the institutions” (De Wit, 2000, p. 10).
Internationalization occurs in a variety of ways and encompasses a number or programs or
activities. In addition to study abroad, examples of the internationalization of higher education
may include area studies, infusion of international themes into existing courses, development of
international courses, the presence of international students on campus, and linkages between

68

institutions for research and exchange (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Bandler, 2002; Bok, 2006; De
Wit, 2000; Duderstadt, 2000; Gregor, 2002; Guerin, 2009; Hser, 2005). Therefore, before asking
questions about study abroad offerings, this study first sought to understand the context and
extent of internationalization at the responding campuses. The first survey sought the answers to
nine questions on internationalization. These questions began by querying the enrollment of
international students and presence of international faculty, important for being one of the oldest
elements of internationalization (Altbach & Knight, 2007) as well as the fact that “the number of
international students on campus represents a strong indicator of an institution’s
internationalization” (Hser, 2005, p. 44).
A total of N=33 responses were received to the question, “How many international
students were enrolled in your institution in 2009-2010?” Overall, international student
enrollment ranged from a high of 9,000 (n=1) to a low of 0 (n=2). The mean number of
international students who were enrolled in 2009-2010 was 33, with a median of 633.03 and a
standard deviation of 1,997.41. At institutions that administer study abroad programs (n=10)
these numbers were noticeably higher, with a mean of 78 and a median of 797.60. The standard
deviation was 1,985.13. The range for number of enrolled international students at institutions
that administer study abroad programs was 27 to 6,419.
Institutions that do not administer study abroad programs (n=18) had a range of 9,000 to
0, a mean of 530.47, a median of 9, and a standard deviation of 2,055.88. However the mean
value owes almost entirely to a single outlier: one institution reported 9,000 international
students were enrolled in 2009-2010. When this outlier is removed, the mean becomes 59.89, the
median changes only slightly (to 8), and the standard deviation becomes 145.87. Therefore, with

69

the exception of the outlier, it appears that institutions that administer study abroad programs
also enroll a higher number of international students.
The second question that addressed aspects of internationalization was, “How many
international faculty members (non-U.S. citizens) taught at your institution in 2009-2010?”
Responding institutions (N=27) reported employing very few international faculty members,
with the greatest number at a single institution being four and 16 institutions reporting that no
international faculty members taught at the institution in 2009-2010. The mean number of nonU.S. citizens teaching at a responding institution was 0.54 at those institutions that do not
administer study abroad programs and 0.89 at those that do. The median was 0 across
institutional types and standard deviations were 0.89 and 1.45 respectively.
Like the presence of international students on campus, foreign language offerings are an
important facet of internationalization in higher education. However, unlike study abroad
enrollments, which are on the rise (Institute of International Education, 2009), foreign language
enrollments have been steadily decreasing. Bok (2006) stated “fewer colleges require language
study for at least some students (73%) than was true in 1966 (89%)” (p. 233). Similarly, Siaya
and Hayward (2003) found foreign language enrollments to be static and highly concentrated in
Spanish, while fewer and fewer institutions are requiring foreign language study for graduation.
The results of this study confirm these findings.
For example, while only two of the 33 institutions that responded to the question “How
many foreign languages were offered in 2009-2010” did not offer any foreign languages in that
year, the most common number of languages offered was one (n=9 or 27% of respondents
offered a single foreign language). The median number of languages offered was two.
Interestingly, of the six institutions that offered five or more languages in 2009-2010, four of

70

them were institutions that did not administer study abroad programs. However, institutions that
did not administer study abroad programs also accounted for seven of the nine institutions that
offered a single foreign language. Overall, the median number of languages offered at
institutions that did not administer study abroad (n=21) was two. At institutions that
administered study abroad programs (n=10), the median number of languages offered was three;
this was also the most common number of languages offered, with 30% (n=3) of responding
institutions offering that number of foreign languages. Means and standard deviations are not
possible to interpret because of the “or more” wording in the final response choice.
Thirty-five institutions responded to the follow-up question that asked which languages
were offered. Of these institutions, 21 did not administer study abroad programs and 11 did.
Spanish was by far the most common language offered in 2009-2010 with 97% of all institutions
offering it, including 100% of those that administer study abroad programs and 95% of those that
do not. The frequency with which Spanish is offered is not surprising given the fact the foreign
language offerings and enrollments are increasingly concentrated in Spanish (Green, et al., 2008;
Siaya & Hayward, 2003). French was the second most frequently offered language, and was
offered by more than half of all institutions. Chinese, German, and Japanese rounded out the top
five most commonly offered foreign languages in 2009-2010. By comparison, Green, et al.
(2008) found the top five most commonly taught languages to be Spanish, French, German,
Japanese, and Italian, with Chinese coming in sixth.
Study participants were also asked whether they offered any degrees or certificates which
included a foreign language requirement. Of the 36 responses received to this question, 20 (56%)
offered a degree or certificate program that included a foreign language requirement. Among
institutions that administer study abroad programs (n=11), this number rose to 82%, or 9 of 11

71

institutions. Conversely, at those institutions that responded to this question and also indicated
that they do not administer study abroad programs, the number fell to 52%, with 11 of 21
offering a degree or certificate program which included a foreign language requirement. Fortyeight percent, or 10 institutions, do offer such a program or degree.
Sixteen responses were received to the follow-up question, “How many students
completed a degree or certificate program which included a foreign language requirement in
2009-2010?” One respondent indicated this information is unavailable and another stated that
“foreign language is required in our new baccalaureate programs, and we will graduate about
100 students per year beginning in 2010-2011.” The range for the remaining 14 institutions was
from a low of 0 to a high of 1,500 with a mean of 187.64, a median of 30, and a standard
deviation of 434.37.
At institutions that administer study abroad programs (n=7) these numbers rise to 278
(mean), 50 (median), and 599 (standard deviation). However, much of this rise is attributable to
the outlier institution which reported 1,500 students completing a degree or program which
included a foreign language requirement. Without that outlier, the mean falls to 33 and the
standard deviation to 29; the median remains unchanged at 50. At institutions that do not
administer study abroad programs (n=9), the mean is 120.13, with a median of 29.5 and a
standard deviation of 285.73. Again, a single outlier (in this case, 826 students) accounts for the
large mean. Removing the outlier, the mean falls to 16.43 while the median remains relatively
unchanged at 29.
The fourth component of overall internationalization that this survey sought to
understand was the administrative structure of international programs (internationalization
efforts, international student/scholar services, study abroad) at each community college. A total

72

of N=34 responses were received to this question. Overall, exactly half of all respondents
selected “a single office oversees international activities and programs” as the statement that best
represents the administrative structure of international programs. At institutions that administer
study abroad programs this answer was selected by 45% of respondents, compared to 48% at
institutions that do not administer study abroad programs. However, while nearly one-quarter of
all respondents indicated “no office oversees international activities and programs,” only nine
percent, or a single institution, chose this answer from institutions that administer study abroad
programs.
Table 2
Administrative Structure of International Programs
___________________________________________________________________________
Do not administer
%
Administer
%
Total %
study abroad
study abroad
No office oversees
7
International activities and programs

33%

1

9%

8

24%

A single office oversees
10
International activities and programs

48%

5

45%

17

50%

Multiple offices oversees
2
International activities and programs

10%

4

36%

6

18%

Other

2*

10%

1**

9%

3

9%

Total

21

100%

11

100%

34

100%

* “Admissions and business oversees admission process. There is no program.” and “Interested
faculty create initiatives.”
** “Ad hoc committee under auspices of VP/Instruction and Student Services”
Note: N=2 institutions responded to this question but did not respond to the question asking
whether the institution administers study abroad programs.

73

These findings compare favorably with what other research has found. For example,
while only 12% of community colleges had at least one office dedicated exclusively to
administering international education programs at the beginning of the decade (Hayward and
Siaya, 2001, as cited in Green, 2007), more recently Green and Siaya (2005) found that 61% of
community colleges had an office that administered international education programs.
In contrast, 33% (N=7) of institutions that do not administer study abroad programs
chose this answer. Likewise, 36% (N=4) of institutions that administer study abroad chose
“multiple offices oversee international activities and programs” compared to 10% (N=2) of
institutions that do not. Additionally, three institutions, one that administers study abroad
programs and two that do not selected “other.” The institution that administers study abroad
indicated the administrative structure of international programs is “ad hoc committee under [the]
auspices of vice president of instruction and student services.” Alternate structures at non-study
abroad administering institutions were “there is no program” and “interested faculty create
initiatives.”
Across all institutions (N=31), the number of people specifically assigned to international
education duties ranged from 0 to 9. The median was 2, with a mean of 2.14, and a standard
deviation of 2.18. At institutions that administer study abroad programs (n=11), the range was
from 1 to 9, with a median of 2, a mean of 3.18, and a standard deviation of 2.56. At institutions
that do not administer study abroad programs (n=20), the median, mean, and standard deviation
were 1, 1.49, and 1.49, respectively.
It is not surprising then, based on the analysis above that, when asked about which
internationalization activities the responding college engaged in (N=31), recruitment/enrollment
of international students and foreign language education were the most common activities to

74

comprise internationalization efforts. As illustrated Table 5, these activities were by far the most
common at institutions that did not administer study abroad programs. At institutions that did
administer study abroad programs, however, study abroad was the most common activity,
followed by foreign language education, the incorporation of international content across the
curriculum, and fourth, recruitment/enrollment of international students.
Table 3
Internationalization Activities at Community Colleges
___________________________________________________________________________
Do not administer
%
Administer study % Total %
study abroad (N=19)
abroad (N=11)
(N=31)
Recruitment/enrollment
of international students

13

61%

8

73%

22

71%

7

37%

9

82%

16

52%

13

61%

9

82%

22

18%

Study abroad

5

26%

10

91%

16

52%

International professional dev.
opportunities for faculty
Other

5

26%

6

55%

11

35%

3*

16%

1**

9%

4

13%

Incorporation of international
content across the curriculum
Foreign language education

* “No specific focus on international students.” “None.” and “Annual international festival.”
** “Hosting of Fulbright Scholars from international countries.”
Note: N=1 institution responded to this question but did not respond to the question asking
whether the institution administers study abroad programs.
Looking at the breakdown of internationalization activities at community colleges that
did and did not administer study abroad programs, it appears that overall internationalization
more frequently involves more activities at colleges that administered study abroad than at those
that did not. Following this question, which was designed to understand the internationalization

75

landscape before narrowing the focus to study abroad, the survey’s attention turned squarely to
study abroad. The next section will discuss the findings about study abroad in community
colleges.
Study Abroad Programs
Ultimately, the most important question of the first survey came in this section. The
question was, “Does your institution administer any study abroad programs?” The responses to
this question (yes or no) were used to identify trends and patterns between institutions that
administered study abroad programs and those that did not in all other questions. Responses to
this question were also used to determine which version of the second survey the senior
administrator would receive. A total of N=33 responses were received to this question, 22 of
whom indicated the institution did not administer study abroad programs and 11 of whom
responded affirmatively. As a percentage of institutions that administer study abroad programs,
33% seems reasonable. This number falls between the numbers reported by (Raby, 2008) who
found 114 community colleges, or roughly 10% of all two-year colleges, offering study abroad
programs in 2005-2006 and Green, et al. (2008) who found 85% of responding institutions
offered study abroad programs for credit in 2006. Siaya and Hayward (2003) found that 38% of
community colleges offered study abroad programs, a number quite close to what this study
found.
All respondents to the first survey, whether or not they administered study abroad
programs, were asked to estimate the percentage of students at the institution who participated in
study abroad in 2009-2010. Overall, 82% of all responding institutions, or 28 of 34 respondents,
indicated that less than one percent of students at their institution participated in study abroad in
2009-2010. The remaining six institutions (28%) reported that one to three percent of students

76

studied abroad. Among institutions that administer study abroad programs (n=10), the numbers
were evenly split, with half reporting less than one percent studied abroad and half reporting one
to three percent did so. Twenty of 21 institutions that do not administer study abroad programs
reported less than one percent of their students participated in study abroad, with a single
institution reporting the one to three percent participation rate. These numbers are to be expected,
and in fact compare favorably with the national average; the proportion of all college students
who study abroad annually amounts to less than two percent of total higher education
enrollments (Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, 2005).
When students do participate in study abroad programs, it appears that they almost
always participate in a program affiliated with their college (either administered directly by the
institution or available through a consortium or other formal agreement). For example, when
asked whether the institution supports students in individual study abroad efforts (i.e., facilitate
participation in study abroad programs of interest to the student, but which are not administered
by the institution or through a consortium or special agreement), most institutions that responded
to this survey answered no. Of the 33 total responses, 23 institutions (70%) indicated they did not
support students with 10 institutions (30%) doing so. At institutions that did not administer study
abroad programs, slightly fewer did not provide this support, with only 5 of 21 institutions (24%)
responding affirmatively to this question. At institutions that administered study abroad
programs, roughly half (5 of 11, or 45%) supported individual study abroad efforts.
Far fewer institutions, a total of four, responded to a follow-up question asking how many
students received academic credit for participating in individual study abroad programs. The
most likely reason for this especially small response is that relatively few institutions support
individual study abroad programs; this information also may not be readily available. The

77

respondents included one institution that did not administer study abroad programs and three
institutions that did. The institution that did not administer study abroad programs responded that
zero students received academic credit for participating in individual study abroad programs. The
three institutions that administered study abroad programs reported that 10, 40, and 70 students
received academic credit for participating in individual study abroad programs.
Similar to questions relating to overall internationalization, respondents to the first survey
were asked several questions pertaining to the administrative structure of study abroad and their
institutions. The first of these questions was whether the institution had “one or more
professional staff or faculty members dedicated at least half-time to study abroad program
development and/or administration.” Of the 37 responses received to this question, 78% (N=29)
responded that the institution did not have one or more professional staff or faculty members
dedicated at least half-time to study abroad program development and/or administration. Twentytwo percent (n=8) did have one or more professional staff or faculty members dedicated at least
half-time to study abroad program development and/or administration. At institutions that
administered study abroad programs (n=11), 45% responded yes and 55% responded no. At
institutions that did not administer study abroad programs (n=22), 14% responded yes and 86%
responded no.
As discussed in the previous question, of the eight institutions that indicated that one or
more professional staff or faculty members were dedicated at least half-time to study abroad
program development and/or administration, three were from institutions that did not administer
study abroad programs and five from institutions that did. Seven of the eight institutions,
including all three institutions that did not administer study abroad, had one person specifically
assigned to study abroad duties. A single institution had two people assigned to these duties. Not

78

surprisingly, that institution administered study abroad programs. Nationally, in 2006 39% of
community colleges reported that study abroad was supported by at least a half-time professional
staff or faculty member (Green, et al., 2008).
Beyond personnel resources, the survey then sought to understand the prevalence of
alternative models of study abroad that are in place at community colleges. I was especially
interested in two models in particular: 1) the consortium model, which has existed for several
decades and is perhaps best exemplified by the Community Colleges for International
Development (CCID) organization (Korbel, 2007) and 2) formal agreements with four-year
institutions, such as the one Michigan State University has in place with a local community
college. As such, the next two survey questions asked about these models.
Consortia are important because they allow community colleges to offer their students
study abroad opportunities without the college needing to develop and administer programs
directly. In the senior administrators’ survey, the associate vice president for academic affairs at
an institution in Florida described the college’s membership in CCID as a best practice; likewise,
the president from a college in Washington that administered study abroad programs also
highlighted the college’s involvement in a consortium of colleges in the region.
In the first survey, of the N=35 institutions that responded to the question that asked
whether the institution belonged to a consortium of community colleges which offered study
abroad programs in which the institution’s students could participate, 22 (63%) did not belong to
a consortium of community colleges which offers study abroad programs and 13 (37%) did. A
similar breakdown was reported by institutions that did not administer study abroad programs
(n=22), with 68% not belonging to such a consortium and 32% doing so. At institutions that

79

administered study abroad programs (n=11), slightly more than half (n=6 or 55%) belonged to a
consortium and the remaining 45% of respondents did not.
As stated above, another possible way for a community college to offer its students study
abroad, without directly administering a program, is via an agreement with a four-year college or
university which allows the community college’s students to participate in study abroad
programs administered by the four-year school. Thirty-four institutions responded to the question
that asked if the institution had such an agreement in place. Of the 34 institutions, eight had such
an agreement and 26 did not (or 24% and 76%). At the 11 institutions that administered study
abroad programs, four (or 36%) had an agreement with a four-year college or university to allow
the community college’s students to participate in study abroad programs administered by the
four-year school and seven (64%) did not. At institutions that did not administer study abroad
programs (n=22), 82%, or 18 institutions, did not have such an agreement in place and 18% (four
institutions) did. One respondent to the senior administrators’ survey, a dean in Maine, included
in the response to a question about the development of study abroad programs that the
community college “ha[d] been contacted by a local four-year institution about their program
and they have extended an invitation for our students to participate” but there were “no takers” to
date.
In light of the fact that the majority of community colleges do not administer study
abroad programs, the survey of senior administrators sought to better understand the particular
barriers to study abroad. Seven responses were received to the question, “If your institution were
to decide today to develop study abroad programs, what would be the biggest hurdle to this
implementation?” Six of the seven cited insufficient financial resources, at either the institutional
or student level, or both. The only response that did not mention a lack of financial resources

80

highlighted another pressing need at community colleges that do not administer study abroad
programs, a “lack of experience of administration, faculty, and students.”
In lieu of the above question, respondents from institutions that administered study
abroad programs were asked, “What characteristics of your community made study abroad
development possible at your institution?” Two of the responses to this question also directly
referenced the importance of financial resources. The president at one community college in
Washington stated bluntly, “Sufficient wealth and levels of education. The national lab and a
significant federal presence makes us one of the most educated (per capita) spots in the U.S.”
The other respondent to this question, an associate vice president for academic affairs at a
community college in Florida, did not have this natural wealth to point to, but instead responded,
“…Our current provost applied for a Title VI grant to develop the study abroad program at our
college.” From all responses to both questions, it is clear that financial resources are the major
barrier or enabler to the development of study abroad programs. This finding is supported by
Hser (2005) who previously highlighted the lack of funding as one of the biggest obstacles to
study abroad program development.
The following section will present additional findings and practices specific to
institutions that administer study abroad programs.
Institutions that administer study abroad.
After obtaining information in regards to overall study abroad participation and the
administrative structure of study abroad programs, several questions queried specific study
abroad practices at the institutions that indicated they administered study abroad programs. The
first of these was in what year the first study abroad program was offered. Six responses were
received to this question, with study abroad programs first offered in: 1971, 1990, 1995-1996,

81

1998-1999, 2000, and 2005. Given that the first study abroad programs began in the late 1960s
and early 1970s (Raby & Valeau, 2007), this distribution indicates responding institutions’
programs were of varying degrees of maturity, including one program that is among the most
mature in the country.
Respondents were then asked to indicate the number of for-credit, semester- or quarterlong study abroad programs they administered across three categories: faculty-led programs,
exchange programs, and third-party programs. None of the institutions administered any thirdparty programs. Two institutions indicated they offered faculty-led programs (1 or 2 programs
and 3 programs) and three indicated they offered exchange programs (1, 2, and 92 programs).
This is not surprising as short-term programs have previously been reported to comprise the
majority of study abroad offerings at all types of institutions, especially community colleges. For
example, Raby (2008) and recent Open Doors reports (Institute of International Education, 2009;
2010) found that faculty-led programs predominate; they reported that over half of all students
who study abroad do so in short-term programs, a number that increases to 76% for community
college students. (Engle and Engle (2003) note the important role that study tours play in
providing international exposure to students who have never traveled abroad and otherwise likely
would not. This would appear to be the case for at least two colleges in this study. Replying to a
question in the second survey one president wrote, “the bulk of our students think in provincial
terms, so international might well be a trip across the Canadian border not far from here,” while
another stated, “many of our students have never traveled outside the valley.” Both schools have
successfully implemented short-term study abroad programs, however.)
Eight responses were received to the follow-up question in the initial survey, which asked
respondents to indicate the number of for-credit, short-term programs they administer in two

82

categories: faculty-led programs and not faculty-led programs (which could be exchange
programs, offerings by third-party providers, or any other model). Of the eight institutions, none
offered a program that was not faculty-led. Numbers of faculty led programs were 1 (at two
institutions), 2 (at three institutions), and 3, 5, and 300 (at one institution each). The last number
could be data entry error. As to the average number of participants in each study abroad program,
eight institutions responded to the question that sought this information. The mean number of
participants in each study abroad program was 15, with a median of 13.5 and a standard
deviation of 7.65.
This study also sought to learn the extent to which financial resources were spent on
study abroad programs in 2009-2010. Of the six responding institutions, two indicated this
information was unavailable. The remaining four responses, from lowest to highest were: $0
beyond salaries; $8,000; $25,000; and $700,000.
One of the most positive findings, from an international education perspective, is that the
majority of respondents believe that, over the next decade, their institution is likely to increase
the number of study abroad programs it administers. This is not surprising when considering the
results of the question that asked to what extent the respondent perceived the following as
benefits to offering study abroad programs for the college’s students. As Table 6 demonstrates,
the helpfulness of study abroad in developing an internationally aware workforce, perhaps the
single most important long-term benefit of study abroad, did not go unnoticed by the
respondents. Seven of nine respondents indicated that study abroad was beneficial or very
beneficial in meeting this objective.

83

Table 4
Extent to Which Study Abroad Is Beneficial for the Following Activities
___________________________________________________________________________
No. of responses
Mean score
Standard deviation
Helpful for the hiring
needs of local businesses

9

2.56

1.51

Helpful for the college to
recruit students

9

3.11

0.78

Helpful for students transferring
to 4-year institutions

9

3.67

0.71

Helpful for developing an
internationally aware workforce

9

4.22

0.83

Other

No responses

No responses

No responses

Impact of the community on study abroad program development.
The relationship between the community colleges in this study and their stakeholders
(including local businesses) and communities will be discussed in the following section.
However, before examining those relationships, I will present findings from the survey of senior
administrators regarding the impact of the community on study abroad program development.
Respondents from institutions that administered study abroad programs were asked how
the community influenced the development of study abroad programs at the institution, while
participants at community colleges that did not administer study abroad programs were asked to
what extent the community, and characteristics of the community, matter in thinking about the
development of study abroad programs. The most succinct response, from a dean of academic
affairs in Maine, was one word: critical. Others illustrated this point by referencing the economic
conditions, size and degree of urbanization, or racial/ethnic backgrounds of their students. For
example, the participant from a community college in North Carolina wrote, “The cost of study

84

abroad is out of the reach of most of our students. Unemployment is high, students or parents are
out of work. Study abroad is considered a luxury that is just not affordable at this time.” Echoing
the findings of Harder (2010), the president from a small community college in Michigan
responded, “We are small, rural, and see ourselves as disadvantaged for international programs.”
From a college in Florida that administered study abroad programs, the associate vice president
for academic affairs illustrated the same point, but with the opposite outcome: the community
college’s “proximity to a major university” has positively influenced the college’s development
of study abroad programs. The vice president from a college in Washington offered perhaps the
most complete response about the dilemmas facing many community colleges today.
The community demographic creates a paradox for us. While the global nature of our
students and curriculum argue for creating more opportunities for international education
experiences, the flip side is that our community is largely low-income and ties to
jobs/family. Though many endured significant hardships in getting to the U.S., travel
abroad is now unattainable.
When a college does begin to think about study abroad, the characteristics of the
community can have a real impact on the programs the institution develops. One respondent
wrote, “the interests of students and community members have led to study abroad programs in
Central and South America.” Similarly, another participant referenced the community’s impact
on the choice of potential program locations. “The characteristics of this community matter a lot
in determining study abroad programs. For these reasons, we are focusing on Africa and South
America.” One institution seeks and incorporates feedback regarding “the need for local
residents to learn about global trade and international issues.” A community college in
Washington that administered study abroad went a step further, allowing the “destination and
location [to be] developed by a community advisory board.” Clearly the relationship with the

85

community and stakeholders can be important in the development and success of study abroad
programs.
Relationship with the community and stakeholders
After collecting information about the institution, the district or community it serves,
internationalization practices, and study abroad programs and practices, this study then sought to
understand the relationship between various stakeholders and the development and
implementation of study abroad programs. To understand these relationships, both surveys asked
the question, “How strong is the relationship between your community college and the following
organizations: Local school district, Local government offices, Chamber of commerce or trade
center, Four-year college or university, Local/district business and industry?”
In the first survey, a total of 36 responses (N=36) were received to this question, with
N=11 responses from institutions that administered study abroad programs. As illustrated in
Table 7, the majority institutions indicated a “strong” relationship with all organizations.
Average relationship strength was higher for institutions that administered study abroad
programs than for those that did not. While institutions that did not administer study abroad
programs reported a mean relationship strength of 3.75 across all categories, institutions that did
administer study abroad programs reported relationship strengths ranging from 4.18 (strength of
relationship between the college and local school districts) and 3.90 (with local/district business
and industry).

86

Table 5
Survey 1: Strength of Relationship with External Stakeholders
___________________________________________________________________________
Do not administer
Administer
Total
study abroad (N=20)
study abroad (N=11*) (N=36*)
mean std. dev
mean std. dev
mean std. dev
Local school district (K-12)

3.75

0.85

4.18

0.75

3.83

0.85

Local government offices

3.75

0.79

4.00

0.63

3.81

0.71

Chamber of commerce
or trade center

3.75

0.91

4.18

0.63

3.86

0.83

Four-year college
or university

3.75

0.64

4.18

0.70

3.83

0.65

Local/district business
and industry *

3.75

0.79

4.18

0.74

3.80

0.72

Other

Not selected

Not selected

Not selected

* N=10 for institutions that administer study abroad; N=35 total responses.
Note: N=5 institutions responded to this question but did not respond to the question asking
whether the institution administers study abroad programs.
In the second survey, a total of N=11 responses were received to this question, seven of
which came from institutions that did not administer study abroad programs. The responses to
the second survey are displayed in Table 8.

87

Table 6
Survey 2: Strength of Relationship with External Stakeholders
___________________________________________________________________________
Do not administer
Administer
Total
study abroad (N=7)
study abroad (N=4)
(N=11)
mean std. dev
mean std. dev
mean std. dev_
Local school district (K-12)

3.86

0.69

5.00

0.00

4.27

0.79

Local government offices

3.86

0.69

4.75

0.50

4.18

0.75

Chamber of commerce
or trade center

4.57

0.79

4.75

0.50

4.64

0.67

Four-year college
or university

4.14

0.69

4.75

0.50

4.36

0.67

Local/district business
and industry *

4.43

0.79

5.00

0.00

4.64

0.67

Other

Not selected

Not selected

Not selected__

The small number of responses to this question makes it difficult to interpret these results.
However, it does appear that senior administrators judged the strength of the relationships
between their institution and all external stakeholders to be stronger than suggested by the initial
survey. The connection between strength of relationship with external stakeholders and
prevalence of various programming at the community college (in this case study abroad) is an
area for future research.
In order to better gauge the relationships with external stakeholders generally, senior
administrators were asked, “How has your institution leveraged its relationships with external
constituents to develop programs or curriculum on campus?” The most common response was
the use of advisory boards, particularly with technical and career and workforce preparation
programs (9 of 11 respondents indicated they leverage relationships with external constituents by
way of advisory boards). Similarly, two institutions indicated they work directly with local
88

employers to develop appropriate programs. The respondent from a community college in North
Carolina stated, “We use feedback from local employers to develop courses/programs to meet
their need for employees or training. Our advisory committees provide feedback on our programs
to ensure we are meeting employee needs.” Likewise, the president of a Washington state
community college responded, “Any program that we consider developing starts with an
advisory board of community members from the relevant professions, and we work with these
experts to design a curriculum.”
Other examples of relationships with external stakeholders included K-12 partnerships to
“create a seamless pipeline from the high school program to the college ones by working closely
with the principals and teachers” to partnerships with regional healthcare facilities for clinical
rotations and internships, to “international travel to Ghana through Habitat for Humanity” and
inviting external constituencies “to college policy making events.”
Beyond overall relationships with stakeholders, this study sought to understand how these
relationships might impact the development of study abroad programs. Therefore, in the first
survey, institutions that did not administer study abroad programs were asked two additional
questions about stakeholder support: “To what extent have the following stakeholders influenced
the decision not to develop study abroad programs?” and “To what extent would support from
the following stakeholders be necessary for your institution to develop study abroad programs?”
As illustrated in the following tables, in both cases the stakeholders were board of trustees,
students, faculty, administration, local community, local businesses, and other. Higher scores
indicate a greater extent of influence on the decision not to develop study abroad programs. It is
important to note, however, that the number of “don’t know” responses climbs dramatically

89

when dealing with stakeholders outside the immediate campus community of students, faculty,
and administration.
Table 7
Extent to Which Stakeholders Influenced Decision Not to Develop Study Abroad Programs (at
Institutions That Did Not Administer Study Abroad Programs)
___________________________________________________________________________
No. of responses
Mean score
Standard deviation
Board of trustees

17

2.88

0.86

Students

18

2.56

1.10

Faculty

18

3.00

1.19

Administration

18

3.39

1.09

Local community

17

2.82

1.07

Local businesses

16

2.63

0.72

Other*

6

3.33

1.69

* Respondents were requested to indicate what the other was. Only one institution did so,
indicating “other institutions” had impacted the decision not to develop study abroad programs.
______________________________________________________________________________
Respondents from institutions that did not administer study abroad programs were also
asked to what extent support from the same stakeholders would be necessary to develop study
abroad programs. Based on the results in the preceding question, it is not surprising that
administration, faculty, and students were the stakeholders from whom support was considered
most necessary for an institution to develop study abroad programs, with every responding
institution (N=18) indicating support from these groups would be either “important” or “very
important.” In contrast, when asked about the local community and local businesses, half or
more of respondents selected “neither important nor unimportant.” While this could very well be

90

true, as the mid-point on a five-point scale, this selection may also have been used as a form of “I
don’t know.”
Table 8
Extent to Which Stakeholder Support Would Be Necessary to Develop Study Abroad Programs
(at Institutions That Did Not Administer Study Abroad Programs)
___________________________________________________________________________
No. of responses
Mean score
Standard deviation
Board of trustees

17

4.18

0.86

Students

18

4.39

1.10

Faculty

18

4.61

1.19

Administration

18

4.78

1.09

Local community

18

3.44

1.07

Local businesses

18

3.11

0.72

Other*

1

4.00

1.69

* Respondents did not indicate what other stakeholder support was necessary.
Respondents from institutions that administered study abroad programs were asked
similar questions about stakeholder support: “To what extent have the following stakeholders
negatively impacted the decision to develop study abroad programs at your institution?” and “To
what extent has support from the following stakeholders been important in the development of
study abroad programs at your institution?” As was also the case with institutions that did not
administer study abroad, and illustrated in the following tables, the stakeholders were board of
trustees, students, faculty, administration, local community, local businesses, and other. Higher
scores indicate greater negative impact on whether or not to develop study abroad programs. As
shown in Table 11, “board of trustees” was the stakeholder most often reported as negatively
impacting the decision whether or not to develop study abroad programs.
91

Table 9
Extent to Which Stakeholders Negatively Impacted the Development of Study Abroad Programs
___________________________________________________________________________
No. of responses
Mean score
Standard deviation
Board of trustees

8

2.13

0.86

Students

9

1.89

1.10

Faculty

9

1.78

1.19

Administration

9

1.78

1.09

Local community

9

2.00

1.07

Local businesses

9

2.00

0.72

Other*

2

2.00

1.69

* No indication what other stakeholders negatively impacted program development.
To better understand the issue of stakeholder support, the second study asked senior
administrators from institutions that did not administer study abroad programs, “What type of
support and from which stakeholders, would be necessary for your institution to develop study
abroad programs?” Interestingly, only one of the seven responses mentioned specific
stakeholders (administration, foundation, and state approval). The remaining six responses all
highlighted the need for financial resources to develop these programs. The respondent from a
community college in Washington summed up the needed and desired stakeholder support
succinctly by writing, “We would need significant scholarship support for student participants.
That could come from private foundations, business groups, or others.” Yet, beyond financial
support, one participant hinted at an issue that may be deeper than support any stakeholder could
provide, responding that one of the most necessary types of support would be “assurance of
safety when traveling abroad.”

92

Beyond these questions, variations of which were asked to respondents from all
community colleges, participants at community colleges that administered study abroad
programs were also asked several questions in the first survey which the results indicate may
have been difficult for institutional researchers to answer. For example, when asked, “With 1
being not at all and 5 being very much, to what extent do you believe the local community has
supported the development of study abroad programs at your institution?” eight of nine
respondents selected the mid-point (3) of the five-point scale, suggesting that this information
may be unknown to many institutional researchers. The same issue may have impacted the
following question, which asked, “With 1 being not at all and 5 being very much, how aware is
the local community of your institution’s study abroad programs?” Again, the responses all
clustered around the mid-point, though less dramatically than in the previous question, with a
mean of 2.44 on the 5-point scale. The question of community support for and awareness of
study abroad programs is, however, central to the second survey that was conducted of seniorlevel administrators.
Ultimately, both the community and college can benefit by raising awareness and support
for study abroad programs. The last question senior administrators were asked was, “In what
ways does your community benefit from your institution’s study abroad programs?” One
respondent focused on the value to business, stating “students gain an international perspective”
that “makes for a better employee once our students graduate.” Another highlighted the value of
study abroad to rural communities, writing “we are not a cosmopolitan community so these
programs add a more global perspective to members of the community.” A third response
highlighted both the value to the community as well as the workplace: “the people who
participate…bring back with them an enthusiasm for the topic and ideas that are then further

93

developed for the community. Graduates of the college who are associated with study abroad
initiatives in any way benefit from an increased understanding of global issues in the
workplace.”
Moreover, beyond being a beneficiary of the new outlook participants bring to the
community, its members and businesses, the community can play a key role in the success of
study abroad. The president from a community college in Washington responded to the question,
“Why has study abroad succeeded at your institution?” by noting that the college’s model
worked “because we included community members in the trip who could travel on an audit/noncredit basis.” Similarly, the college in Florida has “sponsored trips to the Ukraine for business
programs,” which had the effect of allowing the community to benefit from the college’s study
abroad programs directly, as well as indirectly because “a global perspective makes [students]
well-rounded citizens.” Collaborations of this nature could potentially allow study abroad to
continue to grow at community colleges while simultaneously benefiting the community.
Conclusion
This chapter presented the findings from two surveys of institutional researchers and
senior administrators. Although the small sample size does not allow for any formal statistical
analysis, a number of potential findings emerge from the first survey. Based on responses to
survey questions, institutions that administered study abroad programs tended to be larger, more
urban, and from higher income areas than those that did not. These macro-level factors seem to
impact whether an institution administers study abroad programs. These findings are not
unsurprising: intuitively it makes sense that “wealthier” students are more likely to have the
means to study abroad and that larger institutions have a larger pool of students and faculty to
draw from to develop and fill study abroad programs. Raby (2008) has previously found that

94

ability to afford study abroad programs is a challenge for many community college students, an
issue which was echoed repeatedly in the written responses submitted by senior administrators.
Likewise, the findings from this study seem to indicate that community colleges in rural areas
administer study abroad programs at lower frequencies than urban or suburban schools. This
finding is in keeping with Harder (2010), which found that rural colleges have lower levels of
internationalization as compared to suburban or urban campuses overall.
Additionally, community colleges that administered study abroad programs also tended
to enroll higher numbers of international students, employed more international faculty
members, and offered foreign language classes in greater numbers than institutions that did not
administer study abroad programs. These findings make sense, too, from the perspective that
study abroad is one element of internationalization (Green, et al., 2008) and institutions with a
commitment to internationalization may take a multi-pronged approach to implement that
strategy. These factors, too, which are institutional in nature but also impact the overall flavor of
the campus and community, seem to impact study abroad program development and deployment.
The most significant finding from the initial survey, however, is the relationship between
the community college and external constituencies including school districts, four-year
institutions, local businesses, and trade associations. The initial findings indicated that
institutions that administer study abroad programs have stronger relationships with these
organizations than institutions that do not administer study abroad programs. Because of the
small sample size in the second survey of senior administrators, it is difficult to draw any
correlations or conclusions, but this is an area that could benefit from future study. The findings
presented in this chapter will be discussed further in Chapter 5.

95

Chapter 5
Discussion, Limitations, and Recommendations
This chapter presents a discussion of this study’s findings, which were detailed in
Chapter 4. The conceptual framework and literature review presented in Chapter 2 is used to
further explore and understand the issues raised in this study. Limitations of this study and
recommendations for future research are presented. The final section of this chapter focuses on
recommendations for community colleges and policymakers.
The purpose of this study was to shed light on factors that may inhibit or promote the
development of study abroad at community colleges. Specifically, this was an analysis of macrolevel factors that influence the development and success of study abroad programs at community
colleges. Within the context of this study, macro-level factors included such variables as average
income, urbanization of the community, presence of foreign-born students and faculty, and ties
with external constituents in the local community. Before analyzing the findings, it should first
be stated that this study is operating with a sample that is very small. While more will be said
about the limitations of the study in the section on limitations, it should be stated that, due to this
small sample size, the generalizability of the results and the recommendations that follow from
them must be considered within the context of the small sample size.
The findings indicate that the single most important factor is financial resources, at the
institutional as well as individual (student) level. Additionally, community colleges in urban or
suburban locations administered study abroad programs with greater frequency than those in
rural locations. This is consistent with Harder’s (2010) research, which found rural schools have
lower overall levels of internationalization than their urban or suburban counterparts. While the
presence of foreign-born individuals on campus may help the college achieve greater

96

internationalization, high immigrant populations with fewer financial resources may make study
abroad programs less viable. Likewise, ties with external constituents and stakeholders may be
important, but the most important aspect of these relationships, as far as study abroad is
concerned, is the financial resources these constituents may be able to provide for the college.
The reason is that, as with previous research (Hser, 2005; Raby, 2008; Schoorman, 2000; Siaya
& Hayward, 2003), this study found the availability of financial resources to be the single
greatest factor in a community college’s ability to develop study abroad programs.
Implications for practice and recommendations
The evidence is clear that, to achieve success in today’s world, students must have a
global mindset. As the president from a community college in Washington stated,
“Internationalizing ones’ campus presents students with the new global culture. It’s a prereq for
life in the contemporary world.” That said, it is also clear that for many community colleges
today, the financial reality is such that study abroad is a luxury, out of reach for cash-strapped
schools, students, and communities. This study has found that these schools tend to be smaller
and more rural. While study abroad may be financially infeasible, with employers increasingly
seeking students with cross-cultural and foreign language communication skills (Calhoon et al.,
2003; Douglas & Jones-Rikkers, 2001; Kedia & Daniel, 2003; Romano & Dellow, 2009), and
graduates of community college often subject to an employability penalty due to lack of
international experiences (Harder, 2010), students must have opportunities to develop a global
mindset on campus. The following table shows various ways in which this can be accomplished.

97

Table 10
Forms of internationalization at community colleges
___________________________________________________________________________
Internationalization Mechanism
Description
____________
Enrollment of international students

Enrolling international students allows
community colleges to diversify their student
bodies and can potentially provide an
additional revenue stream. In 2006, the
student body consisted of at least 5% of
international students at more than one out of
ten community colleges (Green, et al., 2008).

Employment of international faculty and/or staff

This mechanism encompasses the hiring of
foreign nationals and/or naturalized U.S.
citizens into positions with direct interaction
with students. Community colleges
responding to this study reported engaging in
this activity in minimal numbers.

Foreign language course offerings

Foreign language offerings and enrollments
are increasingly concentrated in Spanish
(Green, et al., 2008; Siaya & Hayward,
2003). Ninety-seven percent of institutions
responding to this dissertation study offered
Spanish classes.

Foreign language requirements

Requiring a set number of foreign language
courses or credits for admission or as part of
a degree or certificate program. Green, et al.
(2008) found that 10% of community
colleges had a foreign language admission
requirement and 19% had a foreign language
graduation requirement.

Area studies courses or other
internationalized course offerings

Area studies or other international program
offerings may consist of anything from a
course featuring a geographic region of the
world to coursework on global trends or
issues to an international business course.
Hult and Motz (2008) note that program
offerings can readily be adapted to market
situations.

98

Table 10 (cont’d)
Intercultural events

Intercultural events vary widely, and include
everything from international festivals to
programs that pair U.S. and international
students (Green, et al., 2008). The goal is to
increase exposure to and showcase the
myriad cultures on a campus.

Study abroad

Study abroad is a for-credit, academic
activity of variable duration, during which
students, often accompanied by faculty
members, travel overseas to study and
interact in another country and culture. The
number of community colleges offering
study abroad varies considerably from a high
of 85% (Green, et al., 2008) to a low of 10%
(Raby, 2008). One-third of respondents to
this study offered study abroad programs.

As Table 12 illustrates, when study abroad is not practicable, numerous alternatives exist
to enhance the global mindset of the student body. Indeed, even when study abroad is offered, to
best support the development of globalmindedness in students who are unable or uninterested in
study abroad, the board and administration should emphasize an attainable program of
internationalization: the ready availability of foreign language and area studies courses, for
example, or the hiring and enrollment of international faculty and students. All of these activities
contribute to campus internationalization, and can help the students – as well as the larger
community – to develop an interest in or understanding of international issues or cultures.
Program offerings, which refer to the curriculum, are an important aspect of internationalization
because they are “relatively easy to reverse, can be adapted to market situations, and have shorter
impact” (Hult & Motz, 2008). Importantly from a workforce preparedness and competitiveness
perspective, other research has found that foreign language and cross-cultural competencies are
viewed by businesses as most beneficial (Olney, as cited in Romano & Dellow, 2009).
99

Community colleges therefore have many possibilities to internationalize without developing and
implementing study abroad programs.
Some participants in this study provided specific examples of how their institution is able
to facilitate such international understanding without administering study abroad programs.
“[Our community] is an international/global community. The mindset is a healthy, welcoming
one, and students are used to interacting with international students, visitors, and employees,”
wrote the provost of one college. Likewise, a vice president for academic affairs highlighted the
diversity represented in the student body: “They live it everyday…our students come from 155
different countries and speak 125 different languages.” The respondent from a college in
Washington stated, “At our college, ‘international’ is a way of life. Perhaps a third of our local
students are immigrants/refugees from a variety of countries. In addition we have 400+
international students on F1 visas.” None of these institutions administered study abroad, yet
senior administrators all felt that the college and its community had a positive international
mindset, in part because of the internationalization activities at the school.
Beyond internationalizing the curriculum and student body, study abroad offers an
excellent opportunity for international experience for those students for whom it is feasible. For
an institution that wants to offer study abroad programs to its students, but that lacks the
financial or administrative resources to develop and deploy its own programs, consortia with
other community colleges or partnerships with four-year institutions can be viable options. While
the Community Colleges for International Development (CCID) consortium is one of the largest,
oldest, and best-known (and membership in which was suggested as a best practice by one
community college president who participated in this survey), other consortia are developing.
For example, one respondent noted that a consortium for community colleges in the state of

100

Washington has allowed the institution to develop longer, non-faculty-led programs. Likewise, a
collaborative partnership between Michigan State University and Lansing Community College
(LCC) gives LCC students the opportunity to participate in the university’s vast study abroad
program offerings (Lansing Community College, 2011). Such collaborations can go the other
way, as well. A professor at a community college in New York noted that his school, which has
developed an international business study abroad program, has had drop-in students from
Dartmouth College and Georgetown University (personal communication, June 2, 2010).
Additionally, community colleges should look for collaborations with businesses and
other community organizations that could lead to sustainable study abroad programs (and help to
promote the importance of understanding international cultures to the community). For example,
one college in this study developed a successful model by allowing members of the community
to participate in a study abroad trip to Australia; another school found success in sponsoring trips
to the Ukraine for business programs. In seeking these partnerships, administrators and trustees
would do well to ask whether a joint model with business(es) could be developed. For example,
is there a business with a need in a specific location? Might a local business be willing to help
provide scholarships for students, who could be their future employees, or other financial
support? Beyond the business community, is there a natural connection to a particular country or
region owing to immigration, a sister city, or major industry that might increase interest in study
abroad on the part of students or the larger community? Not only can asking these questions help
a college to develop a successful and sustainable study abroad program, but by engaging the
business community to it allows the college to further its community service function and deepen
its role as a “cultural center” (Cohen & Brawer, 2003, p. 23).

101

It is worth noting again that this study found that community colleges that administered
study abroad programs had stronger relationships with external stakeholders than institutions that
did not. While more research is necessary to better understand this connection, certainly working
to cultivate relationships with local business and industry, chambers of commerce or trade
centers, school districts, government offices, and four-year colleges or universities could be
beneficial in an effort to develop successful study abroad programs as well as helping to solidify
support for the college and its activities generally. Joining forces to create a long-term
relationship with the goal of developing a program meaningful to the community and allowing
other stakeholders to be part of a process normally reserved for those on campus also exhibits
some of the best practices cited by Leiderman, et al. (2004) in their work on campus-community
partnerships.
In addition to examining opportunities or strengthening relationships with external
stakeholders, community colleges must also focus on building and sustaining faculty support for
study abroad and other international programs. From the responses from senior administrators,
faculty support would seem to be a necessity for study abroad to be successful. Responding to
the survey, the administrators cited “the initiative of individual faculty and staff members,” “the
willingness of individuals and groups to step up and support our efforts,” and “very committed
faculty members” as characteristics that made study abroad development possible and successful
at participating community colleges. Training and education of the faculty vis-à-vis the
importance of instilling a global perspective in students for their future success is one potential
course of action. For example, the president from a community college in North Carolina that
administered study abroad indicated that “many of our faculty strongly support the incorporation
of international education into the curricula,” but that “some faculty view international education

102

as a diminishment of traditional curricula.” As this is the experience at an institution with a
successful study abroad program, it seems clear that cultivating faculty support does not end with
the implementation of study abroad, but is an ongoing process.
While faculty support or community involvement may be able to provide the initial
impetus or final push in the successful development of study abroad at community colleges, this
study found that the overriding factor is financial. For that reason, the strongest recommendation
in this chapter is directed not to any community college, but to policymakers. Martha Kanter, a
former community college chancellor and current undersecretary for education in the United
States, has stated that international programs “are essential to the future of our higher education
institutions and they are also essential to the future of what young people will need to know and
do in a global economy in a global world” (Loveland, 2010, p. 20). Essential, but also expensive.
And while funding is available, such as the Title VI grant used to develop a study abroad
program mentioned by a vice president from one college, it is not enough. For example, the
requirement for matching funds that is a requisite for applying for or receiving many grants may
well deter colleges with the greatest financial need. While funding for colleges to develop study
abroad programs cannot be paramount in the current fiscal and political environment, it is
important for policymakers to recognize the dichotomy that exists between what they do in
commissioning work that calls for an ever-greater number of students to study abroad and
pressures colleges and universities to meet a specific target (Commission on the Abraham
Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, 2005), and the lack of funds they allocate to meet
this goal.
The impact of such actions is to create yet another unfunded (and often ignored) mandate
or to potentially divert college-level funds from programs, such as language study and other

103

areas of the curriculum, which may benefit a larger number of students than study abroad can
benefit, especially at the community college level. The latter, whereby study abroad might be
developed or deployed in lieu of other aspects of internationalization, could have especially dire
consequences for students. As Guerin (2009) noted, “relying on study abroad as the chief vehicle
of international education, however appealing it may be, will ultimately fail to appreciably
impact the lives and learning of the large majority of students” (p. 612).
This is especially important when considering that Harder (2010) has found that a lack of
exposure to international experiences often results in an employability penalty for graduates of
community colleges. Given that nearly half of all U.S. undergraduates are enrolled in community
colleges, and that this study and others (Raby, 2008; Siaya & Hayward, 2003) have found that
fewer than half of all community colleges offer students the ability to study abroad, a significant
number of individuals never have the opportunity to gain exposure to international experience in
this way. Perhaps the greater concern, however, is not the lack of study abroad opportunities, per
se, but the lack of other international activities and programs that often go hand-in-hand with
study abroad. A glaring example from this study was the responses to the question, “how many
international students were enrolled in your institution in 2009-2010?” Institutions that
administered study abroad programs reported a mean of 797.60 international students studying
on campus, while those that did not administer study abroad reported a median of 9. While the
sample of size of this study is too small to allow for any generalization of this statistic, it is
nevertheless worth considering, keeping in mind previous research that has found that “the
number of international students on campus represents a strong indicator of an institution’s
internationalization” (Hser, 2005, p. 44).

104

The lack of exposure to international experiences can have implications not only for
students, but for their communities. International programs, including study abroad, were
repeatedly described as enriching communities, especially small, isolated, rural communities,
never more clearly than by one community college president from the state of Washington:
In general ours is a very conservative rural community that doesn’t particularly like
outsiders or government for that matter, yet our international students and international
trips are fully supported by the community. We bring a diversity of individuals and
experiences that is non-threatening and is therefore embraced. That being said the
community is better off and changed because of what we do.
Beyond providing the community with new and different perspectives and ideas,
internationalization, from enrolling international students, to focusing on language and area
studies, to study abroad, helps provide employers with a globally-aware workforce that, in turn,
helps business to be more competitive. Kedia and Daniel (2003) found that 80% of companies
believed their overall business would increase if their staff had greater international expertise and
30% of companies believed that insufficient international competence led to a failure to fully
exploit international opportunities. The changes wrought by globalization on business have
necessarily changed the needs of students, simultaneously reshaping the institutions that serve
them. Levin is clear that globalization has refashioned community colleges from local
institutions to schools that are “more conscious of [their] connections to a global community”
(Levin, 2002, p. 123). Such changes are likely to continue as a workforce with the ability to
relate, interact, and compete with myriad people and cultures is increasingly necessary to
compete effectively in the globalized world.
Institutional factors impacting study abroad development
As noted previously, this study was especially interested in one particular example of
internationalization at community colleges: study abroad. This section, then, will examine the

105

institutional factors that appeared to impact study abroad development. This study found that
financial resources were the single largest factor in whether or not a community college chose to
develop a study abroad program. This finding is in keeping with Siaya and Hayward (2003), who
identified funding as the biggest hurdle for internationalization. Funding has also previously
been identified as necessary, not only to study abroad, but to campus internationalization
generally by Schoorman (2000), who developed a framework exploring how internationalization
is implemented on college campuses. This framework conceptualizes internationalization as “as
educational institution’s adaptation to the changes in an increasingly global and interdependent
environment” (Schoorman, 2000, p. 4), and identifies several core characteristics necessary for
successful internationalization, such as commitment to internationalization, organizational
leadership, and funding.
A vice president for academic affairs enumerated these exact institutional characteristics
when he attributed the success of the college’s study abroad program to, “faculty and
departmental support, presidential support, a full-time coordinator of international education, and
support from student affairs.” Moreover, this institution was also able to marshal the necessary
financial resources to develop study abroad programs by utilizing a Title VI grant from the U.S.
Department of Education.
Beyond institutional financial considerations, this study also found that community
colleges that administered study abroad programs tended to have larger student bodies as well as
smaller percentages of the student bodies that received financial aid than at community colleges
that did not administer study abroad. Given that previous research has identified funding as the
largest hurdle for students to participate in study abroad (Hser, 2005; Raby, 2008), it is
reasonable that institutions with wealthier student bodies as indicated by fewer students receiving

106

financial aid would be more likely to administer study abroad programs, as well as that larger
institutions would be better able to support these programs. For example, if one percent of
students were interested in and able to study abroad, an institution with 1,000 students would
have a total of 10 students who might study abroad, whereas at an institution of 5,000 students,
there might be 50 to justify and support a study abroad program.
Institutional resources were certainly key, as reflected by one senior administrator who
wrote, “the president of the college ensured that funds were available to meet expenses. In
addition, student life funds $15,000 in scholarships for study abroad students.” In additional to
such financial resources, the responses to the survey of senior administrators also highlighted the
significance of faculty and administrative support, as well as student interest, on the development
of study abroad programs. Specifically, survey respondents cited “more faculty willing to
travel,” “students…have a keen interest in participating,” and “buy-in from stakeholders
including faculty, students, and administration” as ways in which institutions that administered
study abroad programs differed from their institutions, which did not. These responses align with
previous research findings. Hser (2005) identified negative perception by faculty and in some
cases social and/or political chaos in study abroad locations as barriers to program development.
Raby (2008) identified as challenges the need for community colleges to serve a diverse
population of students along with institutional constraints, such as stakeholder support, funding,
and dedicated office staff, and the need for further professionalization of staff to be able to
handle issues such as risk management and pre-departure/re-entry programs. These challenges
were also articulated by participants in the senior administrators’ survey. For example, the vice
president from a college in North Carolina indicated that “instructors interested and trained to

107

handle international travel” and “assurance of safety when traveling abroad” would be necessary
for the college to develop study abroad programs.
Finally, this study found that, at the institutional level, overall internationalization may be
an important factor in whether a college offers study abroad programs. For example, the
variables in this study that were used as proxy measures for overall internationalization – the
number of international students enrolled in the college, the number of international faculty
members, and the number of languages offered – all occurred in higher numbers at institutions
that administered study abroad programs than at those that did not. These factors are important,
particularly those that relate to foreign language offerings and degrees that require language
study, in that previous research has found that these variables are “some of the highest indicators
of an institution’s internationalization” (Hser, 2005, p. 44). The connection between
internationalization and study abroad programs could be reflective of a commitment to imbue
students and the community with a global perspective. These institutional-level factors would
clearly seem to have an impact on the development of study abroad programs. Likewise this
study found that community-level factors appear to have an equally important impact on
program development.
Impact of the community on study abroad development
Community colleges do not exist in a vacuum, but as part of a larger community. Other
scholars have noted the symbiotic relationship between community and college. For example,
Fernandez (2009) found that community colleges regularly work with local employers to develop
a curriculum that meets the needs of industry. The findings of this study very much support the
idea that the community matters in how (and if) a community college thinks about study abroad,

108

develops study abroad programs, what model of program the college develops, and whether the
programs are successful.
Geographically speaking, the degree of urbanization appears to impact the development
of study abroad programs. Proximity to specific businesses or institutions can be a factor in
program development. For example, one community college in Florida partially attributed its
success with study abroad to the college’s proximity to a major research university. Likewise, an
otherwise-rural college in Washington reaps the benefits of a “national laboratory and significant
federal presence” in an area that otherwise has a “lack of cosmopolitanism” according to its
president, in his response to a survey question. However, overall, this study found that
community colleges located in rural areas are less likely to administer study abroad programs
than institutions in more urban areas. Harder (2010) found that institutions located in rural areas
have significantly lower levels of internationalization than campuses in suburban or urban areas.
It is not surprising, then, that colleges in rural areas are less likely to administer study abroad
programs than their urban and suburban counterparts. When they do, however, the benefits to the
community of study abroad can be especially pronounced, as other opportunities for developing
a global perspective may not exist. In their responses to a survey question, senior administrators
highlighted that these benefits include: “bring[ing] a diversity of individuals and experiences that
is non-threatening;” “add[ing] a more global perspective to members of the community;” and
students who return to the community with “an enthusiasm…and ideas that are then further
developed for the community.”
Whether rural, suburban, or urban, this study found that the community itself is a factor
in program development and can exercise influence over study abroad development and success.
From the survey of senior administrators, which focused on the impact of the community in

109

developing study abroad, two areas of influence stand out in particular: 1) the ability to support
study abroad, especially financially, and 2) the ability to influence the location for study abroad
programs. Just as the most important institutional-level factor would appear to be financial
resources, so too does the wealth of the surrounding community have an impact on the
development of study abroad programs. The wealth factor was mentioned specifically by
administrators at community colleges that did not administer study abroad programs. One
respondent wrote, “I suspect that schools with big study abroad programs serve a larger
proportion of middle income or higher students.” A vice president for academic affairs in New
York was more to the point: “They are wealthier and have a less diverse student population.”
Responding from an institution that administered study abroad programs, the president of a
community college in Washington addressed the ability of community involvement in offsetting
the issue of a student body with insufficient resources: “There is a money problem in our student
population as a whole” but the study abroad program was successful “because we included
community members in the trip who could travel on an audit/non-credit basis.” It is clear from
these responses that the communities from which students hail are greatly important in shaping
the feasibility and viability of study abroad programs.
The second area of influence that stands out is influence over the locations for study
abroad programs. The president of a community college in Washington stated, “the destination
and curriculum is developed by a community advisory board.” At another college, the president
responded that, “the interests of students and community members have led to study abroad
programs in Central and South America.” The provost of a third institution reported that “strong
relationship with the Pan-African community” led to the development of an exchange program

110

with the University of Namibia and the increase in the Hispanic population and students has
“influenced faculty-led short-term programs in South America.”
These practices within study abroad development appear quite similar to the practices
discussed by Fernandez (2009), whereby community colleges regularly work with local
employers “to fashion curricula that dovetail with the needs of industry” (Fernandez, 2009, p.
23). Just as St. Louis Community College in St. Louis, Missouri, has retrained autoworkers for
jobs at the local Boeing plant, or Redlands Community College in El Reno, Oklahoma, teaches
agriculture professionals how to write farm-work plans (Fernandez, 2009), these findings show
that community colleges are tailoring their study abroad programs to the needs and interests of
their communities.
Additionally, it appears that local business has an important impact on community
colleges generally and can play an important role in study abroad programming. As globalization
changes the landscape for business, business in turn looks to community colleges to provide
them with employees with the skills for a globalized world. The American Association of
Community Colleges (2010a) has noted “…more businesses are looking for people with an
understanding of international issues…pressure is increasing for community colleges to foster an
awareness of foreign cultures and the interconnected nature of the world economy” (para. 5).
Mendoza et al. (2009) found an anticipated shift toward life-long learning; globalization, which
reflects the need to prepare graduates for a global society; and innovation and partnerships. The
findings from this study support the shift toward globalization and foreign awareness.
For example, multiple respondents from community colleges that administered study abroad
programs articulated benefits to business as ways the community benefits from the institution’s
study abroad program. “Students gain an international perspective that helps them in their

111

careers…This also makes for a better employee once our students graduate,” wrote one
community college president. Another participant responded to the question that “graduates of
the college who are associated with study abroad initiatives in any way benefit from an increased
understanding of global issues in the workplace.”
Overall, these findings are in keeping with Levin (2000), who found that governing
boards and other members of community college decision-making bodies had begun to react and
conform to the needs and expectations of business and industry. By the end of the twentieth
century the community college’s mission had become “suited to the rhetoric of the global
economy and to its demands” (Levin, 2000, p. 2). Responses such as the two above also directly
fulfill one of the rationales posited by Raby and Valeau (2007) for community colleges to
internationalize their campuses: the economic rationale, which recognizes international education
as a means to enhance international trade and commerce. The economic benefit to the local
economy as well as the individual students may be especially important at rural institutions
where Harder (2010) found that the lack of international experiences for many graduates of rural
community colleges often results in them being subject to an employability penalty. Further
research would be necessary to determine the magnitude, if any, of the economic benefit to the
local economy. Additional areas for future research, as well as the limitations of this study, are
discussed in the following section.
Limitations and future research
The largest limitation to this study is the small sample size and likelihood of response
bias. For example, a number of institutional researchers responded to the initial survey email
indicating that they would not be responding because their institution did not offer study abroad
programs. While each received a prompt response encouraging their participation, it is likely

112

many chose not to participate. Additionally, others in the same circumstance may have chosen to
simply disregard the request without sending an email stating as much.
Additionally, this survey requested 2009-2010 data, based on feedback and advice from
institutional researchers. However, the survey instructed clearly that if 2009-2010 data is
unavailable, respondents may use data from 2008-2009 for all questions in this survey. In that
case, they were asked to make a note of the earlier data in the comments section. Two
respondents indicated they used earlier data to respond to the enrollment and financial aid
questions in this survey.
A third limitation, in hindsight, was the use of institutional researchers to complete the
initial survey. As previously noted, this approach was suggested to me in conversations with
community college policy makers and administrators (including one community college
president), because of the breadth and depth of the information collected by and available to
institutional researcher. Ultimately, however, I believe that most institutional researchers simply
did not have the knowledge to respond to many of the questions, and the available data varied
considerably by campus. This limitation is especially apparent with regard to questions that
asked about the community. Institutional researchers were requested, in the instructions, to
confer with other administrators as necessary to complete the survey. While at least one did so,
indicating in the comments section, “I had assistance from the vice chancellor for instruction in
completing this survey,” it is more likely that others chose not to respond, or responded to few
questions. Therefore, this limitation may have directly led to what I have already stated is the
biggest limitation of this study, the small sample size, which in turn limited the possible sample
size for the second survey, total responses which numbered only nine.

113

Finally, it must be noted that, in part due to the small sample size, this study has
limitations as far as its contributions to the field of study abroad research. There is little here that
is new in regards to which factors impact the development of study abroad programs. Findings
that the financial situation of a college or its students is the single largest factor, and that factors
such as overall level of internationalization at the college, perception of risk, faculty interest, and
urbanization of the community also play a role, support previous research (Green, 2007; Green,
et al., 2008; Harder, 2010; Hser, 2005; Hult & Motz, 2008; Raby, 2008). However, these
findings generally do not further the assertions others have made. Where the study brings value
is in its contribution to the discourse of internationalization as internationalization impacts the
community served by a college. Given community colleges’ historical mission of community
service (Cohen & Brawer, 2003), and the indications from this study that international programs,
including study abroad, serve to internationalize the broader community, this could be a new
direction in the study of internationalization at community colleges.
As a result of the limitations mentioned above, particularly the limitation of sample size,
future research would be necessary before generalizing the findings in this study. Additionally,
research focusing on connections with external constituents and the prevalence of study abroad
programming – or other international activities – could also be useful based on the strength of
relationship differences observed in this study. An additional opportunity for future research
could lie in studying the community’s institutions (for example, elementary and secondary
schools, businesses, and local government offices) to understand how study abroad programming
could best meet the community’s needs.
Another area for future research could be to examine the impact immigrant populations have on
the demand for study abroad programs. Comments from senior administrators initially indicate

114

that a lack of financial resources, perhaps combined with previous exposure to global
viewpoints, might decrease the demand for study abroad at community colleges with large
immigrant populations. A complementary question, however, is whether such a population might
lead to an increase in demand in other areas of internationalization, from foreign language
offerings to specific courses. Finally, future research could examine the study abroad models
mentioned by two senior administrators. One of these models allowed members of the local
community to participate in study abroad programs on a non-credit basis; the other institution
had sponsored trips for business programs. While neither of these models has been mentioned in
previous research on the topic, future research could help practitioners understand the
opportunities these models may present.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of macro-level factors on the
development and implementation of study abroad programs in community colleges. In order to
investigate the impact of numerous factors, the following research question was explored: What
are the macro-level factors that influence the development and deployment of study abroad
programs at community colleges?
The results of this study found that several factors appear to impact the development of
study abroad programs, the single largest of which is financial: the wealth of institution, the
student body, and the surrounding community all have a major impact on the development of
study abroad programs. Beyond wealth, this study indicates that the makeup of the community,
its employment base, connections to other countries or regions (such as through immigration),
and overall support are all key factors that impact the development of study abroad and the
locations where the programs occur. The findings also indicate that institutions that administer

115

study abroad programs have stronger relationships with external stakeholders. The results of this
study also found that degree of urbanization appears to be a factor (in support of Harder (2010)),
as well as institution size. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it appears that institutions with
other international programs (such as international students enrolled on campus, foreign
language classes, and international faculty) are more likely to administer study abroad programs.
A global mindset is crucial for American students, communities, and employers; yet
currently too few community college students have the opportunity to understand and experience
international issues and cultures. Hopefully the results of this study can help to shape the
thinking of community colleges looking to embark upon greater internationalization of the
college, and especially the creation of study abroad opportunities for their students.

116

APPENDICES

117

Appendix A – Survey of Institutional Researchers
Study Abroad in Community Colleges Survey
This survey is part of a research study for a doctoral dissertation at the Michigan State University
College of Education. This survey requests background and demographic information about your
institution and about your institution’s experiences with study abroad programs. You will also be
asked a few questions about the community that your institution serves.
The survey requests data for the 2009-2010 academic year. IF 2009-2010 DATA IS
UNAVAILABLE, you may use data from 2008-2009; however, please make a note of that in the
comments section. To answer some questions you may wish to consult with other faculty or
administrators at your colleges, for example from international programs offices (including study
abroad and international student services), and/or the chief academic officer. If exact totals or
percentages are unavailable for a question, please provide your best estimate. If you serve multiple
campuses or institutions, you may complete the survey for each campus or college you serve.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary; you may withdraw at anytime or refuse to
answer any particular questions. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by
completing and submitting the survey.
This section collects information about your institution and community.
1. How many full-time equivalent students were enrolled in 2009-2010 (as reported to IPEDS)?
IF 2009-2010 DATA IS UNAVAILABLE, you may use data from 2008-2009 for this and all
questions in this survey; however, please make a note of that in the comments section.
2. What was the average student age of full-time students in 2009-2010?
3. What percentage of students received financial aid in 2009-2010?
4. What was the average financial aid award in 2009-2010?
5. What was the transfer rate to four-year colleges or universities reported for your institution
for the 2009-2010 IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey?
6. Is your institution authorized to offer baccalaureate degrees?
Yes

No

7. Which of the following best describes the community or district your institution serves?
City or part of a city
Tribal community
County or part of a county

Other

Multiple counties

118

8. Select the degree of urbanization of your community or district.
Urban

Suburban

Rural

9. What was the median household income in your community or district in 2009?
$20,001 to $40,000

$60,001 to $80,000

More than $100,000

10. How strong is the relationship between your community college and the following
organizations?
Neither weak
Very weak
Weak
Strong Very strong
nor strong
Local school district (K-12)
Local government offices
Chamber of commerce or
trade center
Four-year college or
university
Local/district business and
industry
Other
11. How are your institution's trustees selected?
Appointed by governor

District wide election

Appointed by local elected officials

Election by precinct

Appointed by state elected officials

Other

12. At what level is your institution's curriculum determined?
State level, such as by a statewide board
Institutional level, such as by the board of trustees or curriculum committee
Other
This portion of the survey collects information about international activities.
13. How many international students were enrolled in your institution in 2009-2010?
14. How many international faculty members (non-U.S. citizens) taught at your institution in
2009-2010?
15. Does your institution offer any degree or certificate programs which include a foreign language
requirement?
Yes

No
119

15a. [Asked to those who responded yes to question 15.] How many students completed a
degree or certificate program which included a foreign language requirement in 2009-2010?
16. How many foreign languages were offered in 2009-2010? Do not include English as a Second
Language or American Sign Language.
0
3
1

4

2

5 or more

17. Select the foreign languages that were offered in 2009-2010 from the list below.
Arabic
Japanese
Chinese
Russian
French
Spanish
German

Other

Italian

Other

18. Choose the statement that best represents the administrative structure of international programs
(internationalization efforts, international student/scholar services, study abroad) at your institution:
No office oversees international activities and programs.
A single office oversees international activities and programs.
Multiple offices oversee international activities and programs.
Other
19. How many people are specifically assigned to international education duties?
20. Which of the following activities comprise internationalization efforts at your institution?
Select all that apply.
Recruitment/enrollment of
Study abroad
international students
International professional
Incorporation of international content
development opportunities
across the curriculum
for faculty
Foreign language education
Other
This portion of the survey collects information about study abroad.
For the purposes of this survey, study abroad refers to academic, for-credit study during which
students physically leave the United States to study in a host country. Study abroad programs may
range from one week (including programs that are embedded within a course) to a full academic year.

120

21. Estimate the percentage of students at your institution who participated in study abroad in
2009-2010.
Less than 1 percent

1 percent to 3 percent

3.01 percent to 5 percent

5.01 percent to 10 percent

10.01 percent to 25 percent

More than 25 percent

22. Does your institution have one or more professional staff or faculty members dedicated at least
half-time to study abroad program development and/or administration?
Yes

No

22a. [Asked to those who responded yes to question 22.] How many people are specifically
assigned to study abroad duties?
23. Does your institution belong to a consortium of community colleges which offers study abroad
programs in which your students may participate?
Yes

No

24. Does your institution have an agreement with a four-year college or university which allows
your students to participate in study abroad programs administered by the four-year school?
Yes

No

25. Does your institution support students in individual study abroad efforts? (i.e., facilitate
participation in study abroad programs of interest to the student, but which are not administered
by your institution or through a consortium or special agreement.)
Yes

No

25a. [Asked only to those who responded yes to question 25.] How many students received
academic credit for participating in individual study abroad programs?
26. Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

My institution's study abroad
offerings exceed those of our
peer institutions.
My institution's study abroad
offerings are on par with
those of our peer institutions.
Study abroad offerings at our
peer institutions exceed
offerings at my institution.

121

Neither Agree
nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

27. Does your institution administer any study abroad programs?
(Note: for the purposes of this study, administered means that the institution has control over
and runs the daily operation of the program.)
Yes

No

[Questions 28 and 29 were asked only to those who indicated their institution did not administer
study abroad programs.]
28. To what extent have the following stakeholders influenced the decision NOT to develop study
abroad programs at your institution?
Definitely Probably Don't
Probably Definitely N/A
have not have not know
have
have
Board of trustees
Students
Faculty
Administration
Local community
Local businesses
Other
29. To what extent would support from the following stakeholders be necessary for your institution
to develop study abroad programs?
Neither
Very
Very
Unimportant Important nor Important
N/A
Unimportant
Important
Unimportant
Board of Trustees
Students
Faculty
Administration
Local community
Local businesses
Other
[Questions 30 to 40 were asked only to those who indicated the institution administered study
abroad programs.]
30. In what academic year was your first study abroad program offered?

122

31. How many for-credit, semester- or quarter-long study abroad programs are administered by your
institution?
Faculty led programs
Exchange programs
Third-party programs
32. How many for-credit, short-term (less than 8 weeks in length) study abroad programs are
administered by your institution?
Faculty led programs
Not faculty led programs
33. What is the average number of participants in each study abroad program administered by your
institution?
34. How much (in dollars) did your institution spend on study abroad programs in 2009-2010?
35. To what extent has support from the following stakeholders been important in the development
of study abroad at your institution?
Neither
Very
Very
Unimportant Important nor Important
N/A
Unimportant
Important
Unimportant
Board of trustees
Students
Faculty
Administration
Local community
Local businesses
Other
36. To what extent have the following stakeholders negatively impacted the development of study
abroad programs at your institution?
Definitely Probably Don't
did not
did not know
Board of trustees
Students
Faculty
Administration
Local community
Local businesses
Other
123

Probably Definitely N/A
did
did

37. With 1 being not at all and 5 being very much, to what extent do you believe the local
community has supported the development of study abroad programs at your institution?
38. With 1 being not at all and 5 being very much, how aware is the local community of
your institution’s study abroad programs?
39. Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree
nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Over the next decade, my
institution is likely to
increase the number of study
abroad programs it
administers.
Over the next decade, my
institution is likely to reduce
the number of study abroad
programs it administers.
40. With 1 being not at all beneficial and 5 being very beneficial, to what extent do you perceive
the following as benefits to offering study abroad programs for your students?
Not at all
beneficial
1

2

3

4

Very
Beneficial
5

Helpful for the hiring needs
of local businesses
Helpful for the college to
recruit students
Helpful for students
transferring to 4-year
institutions
Helpful for developing an
internationally aware
workforce
Other
41. Please share any additional thoughts or comments you have on study abroad at your institution
or in community colleges generally.

124

42. Contact information (optional):
Name
Title
Email address
Number of years at current institution

125

Appendix B – Survey of Senior Administrators at Institutions That
Do Not Administer Study Abroad
Study Abroad in Community Colleges Survey
This survey is part of a research study for a doctoral dissertation at the Michigan State University
College of Education. This survey contains one multiple choice question and seven open-ended
questions. You will also have the opportunity to add any additional comments or information
that you would like to add.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary; you may withdraw at anytime or refuse
to answer any particular questions without penalty. You indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate by completing and submitting the survey.
1. How strong is the relationship between your institution and the following organizations?
Neither weak
Strong
Very strong
Very weak Weak
nor strong
Local school district
(K-12)
Local government
offices
Chamber of commerce
or trade center
Four-year college or
university
Local/district business
and industry
Other
2. How has your institution leveraged its relationships with external constituents to develop
programs or curriculum on campus?
3. Describe the mindset of your community and your students regarding “international.”
4. To what extent does your community, and characteristics of this community, matter in
thinking about the development of study abroad programs?
5. If your institution were to decide today to develop study abroad programs, what would be the
biggest hurdles to this implementation?
6. What type of support, and from which stakeholders, would be necessary for your institution
to develop study abroad programs?
7. How do you believe institutions that administer study abroad programs are different from or
similar to your institution?
126

Please share any additional comments you may have on this topic.

127

Appendix C – Survey of Senior Administrators at Institutions That
Administer Study Abroad
Study Abroad in Community Colleges Survey
This survey is part of a research study for a doctoral dissertation at the Michigan State University
College of Education. This survey contains one multiple choice question and seven open-ended
questions. You will also have the opportunity to add any additional comments or information
that you would like to add.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary; you may withdraw at anytime or refuse
to answer any particular questions without penalty. You indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate by completing and submitting the survey.
1. How strong is the relationship between your institution and the following organizations?
Neither weak
Strong
Very strong
Very weak Weak
nor strong
Local school district
(K-12)
Local government
offices
Chamber of commerce
or trade center
Four-year college or
university
Local/district business
and industry
Other
2. How has your institution leveraged its relationships with external constituents to develop
programs or curriculum on campus?
3. How has the community you serve influenced the development of study abroad programs at
your institution?
4. Describe the mindset of your community and your students regarding “international.”
5. What characteristics of your community made study abroad development possible at your
institution?
6. Why has study abroad succeeded at your institution?
7. In what ways does your community benefit from your institution's study abroad programs?

128

Please describe any best practices you would like to sharing regarding the development
and administration of study abroad programs at your institution.
Please share any additional comments you may have on this topic.

129

Appendix D – Invitations to Participate and Content Forms

Dear [Name],
I am inviting you participate in research to study macro-level factors that influence the
development and success of study abroad programs at community colleges. This study is for my
doctoral dissertation at the Michigan State University College of Education.
This study is open to institutional research administrators at community colleges and is
conducted using electronic surveys.
To participate, please follow this link to the survey:
${l://SurveyLink?d=Take the Survey}
Alternately, you may copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
${l://SurveyURL}
This survey requests background and demographic information about your institution and about
your institution’s experiences with study abroad programs. You will also be asked a few
questions about the community that your institution serves. You may refuse to any questions and
may withdraw at any time without penalty.
I do not know of any risks to you if you decide to participate in this survey. All reports of the
results will not include any identifiable information all responses will be kept strictly
confidential. You may choose whether or not to include your name and contact information at
the end of the survey.
The survey should take you about 30 minutes to complete. I hope you will take the time to
complete this questionnaire and return it. Your participation is entirely voluntary, but would be
greatly appreciated. Regardless of whether you choose to participate, please let me know if you
would like a summary of my findings. To receive a summary, please email me at
singersm@msu.edu. I anticipate the dissertation will be complete, and the results available, by
the fall of 2011.
If you have any questions or concerns about completing the survey or about this study, you may
contact Dr. Reitumetse Mabokela, Principal Investigator, at 517-353-6676 or
mabokela@msu.edu. If you have any concerns about your rights as a participant in this study you
may contact the Human Research Protection Program via email at irb@msu.edu or 517-3552180.

Sincerely,
Sarah Singer,
Doctoral Candidate
singersm@msu.edu

130

Dear Dr. [Last Name]:
I am inviting you to participate in a research study on macro-level factors that influence the
development and success of study abroad programs at community colleges. This study is for my
doctoral dissertation at the Michigan State University College of Education.
Earlier this fall I surveyed institutional researchers to understand which community colleges are
and are not developing and administering study abroad programs. As [your institution]
responded to this initial survey, I am now inviting you to participate in the second portion of this
study, which surveys senior administrative personnel, including presidents and chancellors,
provosts, vice presidents, and deans, to gain a deeper understanding of the impact of the
community on the decision to develop study abroad programming.
To participate, follow this link to the survey:
${l://SurveyLink?d=Take the Survey}
Alternately, you may copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
${l://SurveyURL}
This survey contains one multiple choice question and seven open-ended questions. You will
also have the opportunity to add comments or additional information. You may refuse to answer
any question and may withdraw at any time without penalty. I do not know of any risks to you if
you decide to participate in this study. All reports of results will not include any identifiable
information and all responses will be kept strictly confidential.
The survey should take you approximately 30 minutes to complete and is available through
Friday, December 17, 2010. Your participation is entirely voluntary, but would be greatly
appreciated. Regardless of whether you choose to participate, please let me know if you would
like a summary of my findings. To receive a summary, please email me at singersm@msu.edu. I
anticipate the dissertation will be complete, and the results available, by the fall of 2011.
If you have any questions or concerns about completing the survey or about this study, you may
contact Dr. Reitumetse Mabokela, Principal Investigator, at 517-353-6676 or
mabokela@msu.edu. If you have any concerns about your rights as a participant in this study,
you may contact the Human Research Protection Program via email at irb@msu.edu or 517-3552180.
Sincerely,
Sarah Singer
Doctoral Candidate
singersm@msu.edu

131

REFERENCES

132

REFERENCES
Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (2004). The survey research handbook (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations
and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290-305.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2009). Fast facts. Retrieved October 22, 2009,
from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/fastfacts.aspx
American Association of Community Colleges. (2010a). A look at the future. Retrieved
November 5, 2010, from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/history/Pages/lookatfuture.aspx.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2010b). Community colleges past to present.
Retrieved January 24, 2010, from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/history/Pages/pasttopresent.aspx
American Association of Community Colleges. (2010c). Fast facts. Retrieved November 8,
2010, http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/factsheet2010.pdf
Amey, M. J., & VanDerLinden, K. E. (2002). The institutional context of community college
administration (Research Brief Leadership Series No. 4, AACC-RB-02-03). Washington,
DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Bailey, T. R., & Smith Morest, V. (2004). The organizational efficiency of multiple missions for
community colleges. New York.
Bandler, M. J. (2002). The global linkage [Electronic Version]. U.S. Society & Values:
Community Colleges in the United States, 7, 11-14.
Black, H. T., & Duhon, D. L. (2006). Assessing the impact of business study abroad programs on
cultural awareness and personal development. Journal of Education for Business, 81(3),
140-144.
Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and
why they should be learning more. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Calhoon, J. A., Wildcat, D., Annette, C., Pierotti, R., & Griswold, W. (2003). Creating
meaningful study abroad programs for American Indian postsecondary students. Journal
of American Indian Education, 42(1), 46-57.
Carlson, J. S., Burn, B. B., Useem, J., & Yachimowicz, D. (1990). Study abroad: The experience
of American undergraduates. New York: Greenwood Press.

133

Chen, G. (2009). Why 60% of community college students never transfer. Retrieved February
12, 2010, from http://www.communitycollegereview.com/articles/191
CityTownInfo.com. (2009). Texas looking to boost community college transfers. Retrieved
February 12, 2010, from http://www.citytowninfo.com/career-and-educationnews/articles/texas-looking-to-boost-community-college-transfers-09052601
Clarke, I., III, Flaherty, T. B., Wright, N. D., & McMillen, R. M. (2009). Student intercultural
proficiency from study abroad programs. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(2), 173181.
Clavelle, P. (2001). Progressive approaches to university-community relations. Connection,
Winter 2001, 19-20.
Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and
French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. The Modern
Language Journal, 91(2), 189-212.
Cohen, A. M. (2002). America's community colleges: On the ascent [Electronic Version]. U.S.
Society & Values: Community Colleges in the United States, 7, 5-8.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1989). The American Community College (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American Community College (4th ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program. (2005). Global
competence & national needs: One million Americans studying abroad. Washington, DC.
Community Colleges for International Development. (2009). Survey of Members on Global
Education Concerns. Retrieved November 29, 2009, 2009, from
http://ccid.kirkwood.cc.ia.us/news/Survey%20of%20Members%20on%20Global%20Edu
cation%20Concerns%20JuneJuly%2009.pdf
Connell, C. (2010). Global community. International Educator, 19, 32-40.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Dardig, J. C. (2004). Urban connections: A course linking college students to the community.
College Teaching, 52(1), 25-30.

134

De Wit, H. (2000). Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education. In L. C.
Barrows (Ed.), Internationalization of high education: An institutional perspective.
Papers on higher education. (pp. 9-21). Bucharest, Romania: United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
Douglas, C., & Jones-Rikkers, C. G. (2001). Study abroad programs and American student
worldmindedness: An empirical analysis. Journal of Teaching in International Business,
13(1), 55-66.
Duderstadt, J. J. (2000). A university for the 21st Century. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2003). Study abroad levels: Toward a classification of program types.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, IX, 1-20.
Fernandez, K. (2009). Back to work: Training programs offer displaced workers skills for
success ina reviving economy. Community College Journal, 80(3), 16-25.
Gardner, P., Gross, L., & Steglitz, I. (2008). Unpacking your study abroad experience: Critical
reflection for workplace competencies. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University
Collegiate Employment Research Institute.
Geller, H. A. (2001). A brief history of community colleges and a personal view of some issues
(open admissions, occupational training and leadership). George Mason University,
Fairfax, VA.
Gonzalez, J. (2010). At the White House, praise and new challenges for education's 'unsung
heroes.' [Electronic Version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 7,
2011 from http://chronicle.com/article/PraiseNew-Challenges-for/124822/.
Gray, K. S., Murdock, G. K., & Stebbins, C. D. (2002). Assessing study abroad's effect on
international mission. Change, 34(3), 44-51.
Green, M. F. (2007). Internationalizing community colleges: Barriers and strategies. New
Directions for Community Colleges, (138), 15-24.
Green, M. F., Luu, D., & Burris, B. (2008). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses:
2008 edition. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Green, M. F., & Siaya, L. (2005). Measuring internationalization at community colleges.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Gregor, A. D. (2002). Globalization, trade liberalization and higher education: Research areas
and questions. Occasional papers in higher education. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: The
University of Manitoba Center for Higher Education Research and Development.

135

Guerin, S. H. (2009). Internationalizing the curriculum: Improving learning through international
education: Preparing students for success in a global society. Community College Journal
of Research and Practice, 33(8), 611-614.
Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1958). American Objectives in Study Abroad. The Journal
of Higher Education, 29(7), 369-374.
Gumprecht, B. (2003). The American college town. Geographical Review, 93(1), 51-80.
Halder, J. (1997). How Iowa community colleges developed a consortium for study abroad.
Paper presented at the Conference of the Community Colleges for International
Development.
Harder, N. (2010). Internationalization efforts in United States community colleges: A
comparative analysis of urban, suburban, and rural institutions. Poster session presented
at the annual meeting of the American Association of Community Colleges, Seattle, WA.
Harkavy, I. (1998). School-community-university partnerships: Effectively integrating
community building and education reform. Paper presented at the Joint Forum: U.S.
Department of Education and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
from http://www.community-wealth.org/_pdfs/articles-publications/universities/paperharkavy.pdf.
Hoffa, W. W. (2007). A history of U.S. study abroad: Beginnings to 1965. Carlisle, PA: The
Forum on Education Abroad.
Hser, M. P. (2005). Campus internationalization: A study of American universities'
internationalization efforts. International Education, 35(1), 35-48.
Hult, T., & Motz, W. (2008). Benchmark study on international business education at
community colleges. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Institute of International Education. (2007). Open doors 2007. New York: Institute of
International Education.
Institute of International Education. (2009). Open doors 2009. New York: Institute of
International Education.
Institute of International Education. (2010). Open doors 2010. New York: Institute of
International Education
Ismail, B., Morgan, M., & Hayes, K. (2006). Effect of short study abroad course on student
openness to diversity. Journal of Food Science Education, 1, 15-18.
Jacobs, J., & Dougherty, K. J. (2006). The uncertain future of the community college workforce
development mission. New Directions for Community Colleges, 136, 53-62.
136

Joliet Junior College. (n.d.). History. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from
http://www.jjc.edu/about/college-info/Pages/history.aspx?c=1
Kanter, M. (2010). The Linchpin: The new mission of community colleges. Secretary Arne
Duncan's remarks at the White House Summit on Community Colleges. Retrieved
January 7, 2011 from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/linchpin-new-missioncommunity-colleges.
Kedia, B. L., & Daniel, S. (2003). U.S. Business Needs for Employees with International
Expertise. Paper presented at the Needs for Global Challenges Conference.
Kitsantas, A. (2004). Studying abroad: The role of college students' goals on the development of
cross-cultural skills and global understanding. College Student Journal, 38(3), 441-452.
Kitsantas, A., & Meyers, J. (2001). Studying abroad: Does it enhance college student crosscultural awareness? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the San Diego State
University and the U.S. Department of Education Centers for International Business
Education and Research (CIBER 2001).
Kochanek, L. (1998). Study abroad celebrates 75th anniversary [Electronic Version]. UD Special
Delivery, 1. Retrieved October 12, 2009 from
http://www.udel.edu/PR/SpecialUDelivery/vol1no1/anniversary.html.
Korbel, L. (2007). In union there is strength: The role of state global education consortia in
expanding community college involvement in global education. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 138, 47-55.
Lansing Community College. (2011). Study abroad through Lansing Community College and
Michigan State University. Retrieved January 6, 2011, from
http://www.lcc.edu/aa/studyabroad/.
Leiderman, S., Furco, A., Zapf, J., & Goss, M. (2004). Building partnerships with college
campuses: Community perspectives. Washington, DC: Council of Independent Colleges.
Levin, J. S. (2000). The revised institution: The community college mission at the end of the
twentieth century. Community College Review, 28(2), 1-25.
Levin, J. S. (2002). Global culture and the community college. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 26, 121-145.
Lewin, T. (2009, May 3). Community colleges challenge hierarchy with 4-year degrees
[Electronic Version]. New York Times, A23. Retrieved June 10, 2010 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/education/03community.html.

137

Lim, G. C., Miller, M. F., Riley, R. W., McPherson, M. P., & Simon, L. A. K. (2003). Strategy
for a global university: Model international department experiment. East Lansing,
Michigan: International Studies and Programs, Michigan State University.
Loveland, E. (2010). A renewed commitment to international education. International Educator,
19, 18-21.
Magnan, S. S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during study abroad.
Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 43-61.
Massey, J., & Burrow, J. (2009). Student affairs - history and development of study abroad.
Retrieved October 23, 2009, from
http://www.queensu.ca/studentaffairs/assessment/current/exchange/history.html
Mayfield, L. (2001). Town and gown in America: Some historical and institutional issues of the
engaged university. Education for Health, 14(2), 231-240.
McKeown, J. S. (2009). The first time effect: The impact of study abroad on college student
intellectual development. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Mendoza, P., Basham, M. J., Campbell, D. F., O'Daniels, T. M., Malcolm, Z., Felton, S., et al.
(2009). Missions, values, and "flying monkeys": Critical issues for community colleges
today and in 2019. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(11), 866882.
Michigan State University. (2009). Study abroad objectives. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from
http://studyabroad.msu.edu/shared/objectives.html
Mohajeri Norris, E., & Gillespie, J. (2009). How study abroad shapes global careers: Evidence
from the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), 382-397.
Moltz, D. (2009). Who are community college trustees? [Electronic Version]. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved November 11, 2010 from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/focus/community_colleges/leadership/acct.
Moltz, D. (2010). Not just a foot in the door [Electronic Version]. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
November 11, 2010 from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/08/12/baccalaureate.
Moore, C., Shulock, N., & Jensen, C. (2009). Crafting a student-centered transfer process in
California: Lessons from other states. Sacramento, California: California State
University Sacramento Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy.
NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (1997). Basic facts on study abroad in the 21st
century. Washington, DC.

138

Obst, D., Bhandari, R., & Witherell, S. (2007). Meeting America's global education challenge:
Current trends in U.S. study abroad & the impact of strategic diversity initiatives. New
York: Institute of International Education.
Phillippe, K. A., & Patton, M. (2000). National profile of community colleges: Trends and
statistics. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Raby, R. L. (2008). Expanding education abroad at U.S. community colleges. New York:
Institute of International Education.
Raby, R. L., & Valeau, E. J. (2007). Community college international education: Looking back
to forecast the future. New Directions for Community Colleges, 138(Summer), 5-14.
Romano, R. M., & Dellow, D. A. (2009). Technological change, globalization, and the
community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 146(Summer), 11-19.
Schoorman, D. (2000). How is internationalization implemented? A framework for
organizational practice.
Siaya, L., & Hayward, F. M. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Thorndike, R. M. (2005). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Vaughan, G. B. & Weisman, I. M. (1997). Community college trustees: Leading on behalf of
their communities. Washington, DC: Association of Community College Trustees.
Weill, L. V. (2009). The president's role in cultivating positive town-gown relations. Planning
for Higher Education, 37(4), 37-42.

139