EXPLORING THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE EARLY CAREER VALUE OF STUDY
ABROAD FOR BACHELOR DEGREE GRADUATES OF AUSTRALIAN
UNIVERSITIES
By
Davina Potts

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education – Doctor of Philosophy
2014

ABSTRACT
EXPLORING THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE EARLY CAREER VALUE OF STUDY
ABROAD FOR BACHELOR DEGREE GRADUATES OF AUSTRALIAN
UNIVERSITIES
By
Davina Potts
European and U.S. institutions have promoted the value of a study abroad
experience for many years. As Australian higher education institutions have adopted
policies and strategies to increase participation in education abroad, with employability as
a central argument, it is important to study this claim. This dissertation examined the links
between a study abroad experience and early career outcomes for recent graduates from
Australian higher education, with a particular focus on the impact of the following factors:
country of study, duration, program type and foreign language acquisition. While the
study is set within the Australian higher education and graduate employment context, it
contributes to the growing body of literature on the value of study abroad to participants,
educational institutions, employers and society in general.
Becker’s (1993) human capital theory and McMahon and Oketch’s (2013)
expanded concepts of the private and social benefits of higher education provide the
conceptual framework for the study, informed by thinking on connections between higher
education and the world of work (Brennon, Kogan & Teichler, 1996). A survey of alumni
perceptions was based on the European Graduate Surveys (see Teichler, 2011; Teichler &
Janson, 2007). Personal background, study and employment information provided
important contextual frames through which the data were analyzed.

After working for an average of three years, respondents (N=226), the majority of
whom had studied abroad for a semester or more, perceived that study abroad was relevant
and beneficial to their early career experience. While respondents rated personal and
developmental benefits more highly, important career-related benefits including career
direction, securing their first job and long-term career prospects, were also identified.
General international skills and knowledge as a benefit of study abroad outweighed
country or region-specific knowledge or skills.
In terms of program parameters, respondents reported higher career benefits for
studying abroad in another language, studying abroad multiple times, and undertaking
study abroad as a compulsory component of a bachelor degree. This study revealed
previously unexplored patterns of international experience prior to university, indicating
that a small group of respondents had already developed significant international career
capital (Inkson & Arthur, 2001) through multiple international experiences. This finding is
of particular interest for policy discussions that prioritize career outcomes.
The findings of this paper have implications for policy and practice in the
development of employability skills, the education of employers on the benefits of study
abroad, access to study abroad, catering for students with diverse needs in terms of study
abroad programs and career goals, and balancing specific geographic policy priorities
against general participation goals. This study contributes to our understanding of study
abroad outcomes for Australian students and highlights the need for further research in this
area.

Copyright by
DAVINA POTTS
2014

For Tony

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Any journey the length of a doctoral degree involves many people. I feel so very
fortunate for the support of so many friends from all corners of the globe. You have all
contributed to this project through your friendship and I cannot possibly name you all in
the space of this page. Just know that I am thinking of you. To my cohort (s), I could not
have done this without such a smart and challenging group of classmates. I am a better
person for having studied with you.
To Michigan State University, to the talented and inspiring faculty of HALE, thank
you for doing what you do so well. I have truly learnt from the best, especially my
excellent committee, Ann, Jim, Brendan and John. To my colleagues in MSU Study
Abroad, thank you for your personal and financial support. My Australian colleagues also
supported me in a very substantial way through the painful data collection process – this
project simply would not have been possible without you and I hope you like the final
product.
My friends at Universita Cattolica gave me so much through this process and I owe
a piece of this dissertation to you. To my Melbourne family, my very important and
enduring support base, thank you for always listening, no matter how repetitive or boring
the conversation was. Your friendship means the world to me. Most relevant to the
completion of this project, I want to thank my content and editorial team, Deb, Melissa,
Brett, Dawn, Craig and most importantly Pauline, Jeongeun and my wonderful advisor
Ann, for the almost endless series of edits. I’m so glad we can stop now.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xvi
CHAPTER 1 .........................................................................................................................1
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
Relationship to Existing Literature.....................................................................................2
Rationale for the Study .......................................................................................................3
The Research Project ..........................................................................................................6
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................7
Research Questions ............................................................................................................8
Definitions of Key Terms ...................................................................................................9
Organization of this Dissertation ......................................................................................10
CHAPTER 2 .......................................................................................................................11
Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework...................................................11
Study Abroad Literature From Australia..........................................................................11
Personal and social development. .............................................................................12
Career development. .................................................................................................12
Employer perspectives on study abroad. ...................................................................13
Graduate employment. ..............................................................................................14
Study Abroad Literature From Other Regions and Countries ..........................................16
Research from the United States. ..................................................................................16
Personal and social development. .............................................................................16
Intercultural competence.. .........................................................................................16
Academic development. ............................................................................................17
Long-term impacts.. ..................................................................................................17
Research from Europe: Employment outcomes. ..........................................................18
Employer perceptions................................................................................................20
Implications For the Current Study ..................................................................................21
Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................22
CHAPTER 3 .......................................................................................................................31
Study Methodology ............................................................................................................31
Research Questions ..........................................................................................................31
Conceptual framework .....................................................................................................32
Population and Sample Selection .....................................................................................33
Data Collection .................................................................................................................34
Final Data Set ...................................................................................................................37
Survey Instrument ............................................................................................................37
Pilot Study ........................................................................................................................40
Analysis ............................................................................................................................40
Primary research question. ............................................................................................41

vii

Research sub-questions. ................................................................................................42
Limitations of the study ....................................................................................................45
CHAPTER 4 .......................................................................................................................48
Sample Profile.....................................................................................................................48
Profile of the Respondents: Background Information ..................................................48
Age, Gender, Indigenous Identity ....................................................................................48
Country of Residence, Citizenship, High School, Languages Spoken ............................49
Socio-economic Background ...........................................................................................52
Profile of the Respondents: Current Employment .........................................................54
Country of Work ..............................................................................................................56
Type of Position Held.......................................................................................................56
About Their Organizations ...............................................................................................58
Background of the Respondents: Study Information ....................................................60
Institution of Enrolment ...................................................................................................60
Mode of Study & Residency Status .................................................................................61
Major and Academic Achievement ..................................................................................62
Tuition Financing .............................................................................................................63
Graduate Study .................................................................................................................64
Profile of the Study Abroad Experience ..........................................................................65
Requirement to Study Abroad & Financing .....................................................................65
About the Study Abroad Experiences ..............................................................................66
Primary Study Abroad Experience ...................................................................................67
Duration, Study Mode and Language...............................................................................70
Subsequent Experiences Abroad ......................................................................................72
Trends and Connections ....................................................................................................75
International Experiences Prior to Higher Education ...................................................79
Further Analysis of the Connections ................................................................................79
CHAPTER 5 .......................................................................................................................84
Results .................................................................................................................................84
Recruitment ......................................................................................................................84
Work Experiences and Job Tasks .....................................................................................88
Overall Impact on Work and Life ....................................................................................94
Summary of the Research Question .................................................................................99
Sub-question One: Study Abroad Program Characteristics .......................................100
Destination of Study .......................................................................................................104
Duration ..........................................................................................................................106
Mode of Study ................................................................................................................107
Language of Study..........................................................................................................107
Multiple times abroad .....................................................................................................108
Summary of Sub-question 1 ...........................................................................................109
Sub-question Two: Background Characteristics, Study Characteristics and Context
of Current Employment ..................................................................................................110
Background Characteristics ............................................................................................111
Study Characteristics ......................................................................................................113
Context of Current Employment ....................................................................................116
viii

Summary of Sub-question 2 ...........................................................................................119
Exploratory regression model.........................................................................................120
CHAPTER 6 .....................................................................................................................123
Discussion and Implication .............................................................................................123
Context of the Study ........................................................................................................123
Overview of the Project ...................................................................................................125
Synopsis of the Sample ..................................................................................................128
Outline of study abroad experiences. ..........................................................................129
Highlights of the sample profile.. ...............................................................................130
Overview of the Findings .................................................................................................132
Benefits Perceived by the Respondents ..........................................................................132
1. General personal and developmental benefits ........................................................132
2. Career direction......................................................................................................134
3. Obtaining their first job..........................................................................................135
4. Long-term career prospects ...................................................................................136
5. General rather than country-specific international benefits ...................................136
Summary of perceived benefits.. ................................................................................138
Benefits and Study Abroad Program Structure ..............................................................140
Benefits and the Role of Background, Study and Employment Variables ....................142
Summary of sub-question findings. ............................................................................146
Discussion of Key Findings..............................................................................................147
Study Abroad as a Tool for the Development of Employability Skills..........................148
Policy Related to Structural Elements of Study Abroad ................................................151
Access to Study Abroad .................................................................................................154
Patterns of Return and the Development of Host Country Expertise.............................156
Segmentation of the Prospective Australian Study Abroad Audience ...........................159
Implications for Policy and Practice ..............................................................................162
Research Methodology and Limitations ........................................................................164
Recommendations for Further Research .......................................................................166
Concluding Thoughts .......................................................................................................168
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................169
Appendix A Survey Instrument .........................................................................................170
Appendix B Permission to Use Survey Instrument............................................................180
Appendix C Instructions To Institutions ............................................................................181
Appendix D List of Variables ............................................................................................186
Appendix E Descriptive Statistics......................................................................................200
Appendix F Crosstabs ........................................................................................................212
Appendix G Analysis of Data–PCA and Independent T-test Results ................................215
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................222

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Number of respondents by institution ..................................................................36
Table 3.2 Themes of the survey instrument .........................................................................39
Table 3.3 Variables used in statistical analysis for sub-questions 2 and 3 ..........................42
Table 3.4 Description of variables used in the exploratory multi-variable regression
model ....................................................................................................................................44
Table 4.1 Gender of study respondents ................................................................................49
Table 4.2 Country of current residence of study respondents ..............................................50
Table 4.3 Countries of citizenship represented in the sample..............................................50
Table 4.4 Country where high school education was completed by
respondents ...........................................................................................................................51
Table 4.5 Number of languages spoken by respondents ......................................................51
Table 4.6 Languages spoken by respondents in the sample.................................................52
Table 4.7 Highest education of mother, father of respondents ............................................52
Table 4.8 SES category of high school of respondents........................................................53
Table 4.9 Year of graduation of respondents .......................................................................55
Table 4.10 Number of employers of respondents since graduation .....................................55
Table 4.11 Current work mode of respondents ....................................................................56
Table 4.12 Type of position held by respondents ................................................................57
Table 4.13 Industry of employment of respondents ............................................................58
Table 4.14 Type of organizations employing respondents in the sample ............................59
Table 4.15 Scope of organizations employing respondents in the sample ..........................59
Table 4.16 Size of organizations employing respondents in the sample .............................59

x

Table 4.17 Sample by institution represented in the sample ................................................61
Table 4.18 Academic major of respondents .........................................................................63
Table 4.19 Tuition financing for bachelor degree of respondents .......................................64
Table 4.20 Number of respondents with an international study component as a requirement
of their degree ......................................................................................................................65
Table 4.21 Methods used to finance international study by respondents (more than one
option permitted) ..................................................................................................................66
Table 4.22 Number of times respondents studied abroad (maximum 3 reported) ...............67
Table 4.23 Region of study abroad (primary experience)....................................................67
Table 4.24 Country of study abroad (primary experience) ..................................................69
Table 4.25 Duration of study abroad (primary experience) .................................................70
Table 4.26 Main activity in study abroad program (primary experience) ...........................71
Table 4.27 Main language of the study abroad activity (primary experience) ....................72
Table 4.28 Region of study (experience 2) ..........................................................................73
Table 4.29 Mode of study (experience 2) ............................................................................73
Table 4.30 Duration of study (experience 2) .......................................................................74
Table 4.31 Language of study (experience 2) ......................................................................74
Table 4.32 Region of experience 1 and duration (number of participants) .........................75
Table 4.33 Percentage of participants by region of study for experiences 1, 2 & 3 ............76
Table 4.34 Region of primary experience and number of study abroad experiences (number
of participants) .....................................................................................................................76
Table 4.35 Patterns across regions for first and second experiences (number of
participants) ..........................................................................................................................78
Table 4.36 Chi square results: Region of study, study in a language other than English ....80
Table 4.37 SES and study in a language other than English (number and percentage of
respondents) .........................................................................................................................81

xi

Table 4.38 SES and studied abroad multiple times (number and percentage of
respondents) .........................................................................................................................81
Table 4.39 SES and destination of study (primary experience) (number and percentage of
respondents) .........................................................................................................................82
Table 5.1 Q1. What criteria were important to you when seeking employment? (Percent) 86
Table 5.2 Q2. How important, according to you, were the following aspects for your
employer in recruiting you? (Percent)..................................................................................87
Table 5.3 Q3. Have you had a professional international mobility experience since
graduation (multiple responses permitted) ...........................................................................88
Table 5.4 Q4. To what extent does the organization, institution or company with which you
are associated do business or have contact with other countries? (Percent) ........................89
Table 5.5 Q5. How important do you consider the following competencies for doing your
current work? (Percent) ........................................................................................................90
Table 5.6 Results of Q5 Competency communicating in foreign languages for
respondents/language of study abroad program (not English/English) (number of
responses) .............................................................................................................................91
Table 5.7 Q6. To what extent do the responsibilities of your work involve the following
(Percent): ..............................................................................................................................92
Table 5.8 Language (reading and writing)/language of study abroad program (Percent) ...93
Table 5.9 Language (orally)/language of study abroad program (Percent) .........................93
Table 5.10 Q7. What impact do you feel that your education abroad experience has had
with regard to your employment? (Percent).........................................................................95
Table 5.11 Q8. From your point of view today, to what extent do you consider your
education abroad experience worthwhile with regard to the following (Percent): ..............96
Table 5.12 Q9. Top three perceived benefits of study abroad as ranked by respondents ....97
Table 5.13 Q9. Perceived benefits of study abroad ranked by number of times selected by
respondents ...........................................................................................................................98
Table 5.14 Principle Component Analysis pattern matrix Question 8...............................103
Table 5.15 Post hoc test comparison of mean Host country aspects by Destination region
............................................................................................................................................105

xii

Table 5.16 Independent sample t-test mean scores for benefit variables and Asia and
UK/Ireland..........................................................................................................................106
Table 5.17 Post hoc test comparison of mean Host country aspects by Duration ............107
Table 5.18 Independent sample t-test mean scores for Career-related aspects and Host
country aspects and Language of instruction while abroad ...............................................108
Table 5.19 Independent sample t-test mean scores for Career-related aspects, Host country
aspects and Multiple study abroad programs .....................................................................109
Table 5.20 Background characteristic variables tested for significant differences from the
mean in each category ........................................................................................................111
Table 5.21 Independent sample t-test mean scores for Host country aspects and Speaks a
language other than English ...............................................................................................112
Table 5.22 Independent sample t-test mean scores for Host country aspects and Lived
abroad before higher education ..........................................................................................113
Table 5.23 Study characteristic variables tested for significant difference from the mean in
each category......................................................................................................................113
Table 5.24 Independent t-test results for institutional variable and benefit variables .......115
Table 5.25 Employment characteristic variables tested for significant difference from the
mean in each category ........................................................................................................116
Table 5.26 Post hoc test comparison of mean Employability skills and Organizational
type .....................................................................................................................................117
Table 5.27 Independent t-test results for Organization with an international scope and
benefit variables .................................................................................................................118
Table. 5.28 Logistic regression results of exploratory model ............................................122
Table 6.1 Summary of benefits as perceived by the respondents. .....................................132
Table 6.2 Analysis of patterns of international experiences from high school to university
to work following graduation .............................................................................................157
Table 6.3 Implications for policy and practice...................................................................163
Table D.1 List of variables .................................................................................................186
Table D.2 Questionnaire items...........................................................................................193

xiii

Table E.1 Age of participants.............................................................................................200
Table E.2 Country of current employment ........................................................................201
Table E.3 Self-rated academic achievement ......................................................................201
Table E.4 Interest in further study......................................................................................202
Table E.5 Region of study (experience 3)..........................................................................202
Table E.6 Mode of study (experience 3) ............................................................................202
Table E.7 Duration of study (experience 3) .......................................................................203
Table E.8 Language of study (experience 3) .....................................................................203
Table E.9 Studied in a language other than English (all experiences) ...............................203
Table E.10 Descriptive statistics all variables....................................................................204
Table E.11 Q1. What criteria were important to you when seeking employment? ...........207
Table E.12 Q2. How important, according to you, were the following aspects for your
employer in recruiting you? ...............................................................................................208
Table E.13 Q4. To what extent does the organization, institution or company with which
you are associated do business or have contact with other countries? ...............................208
Table E.14 Q5. How important do you consider the following competencies for doing your
current work? .....................................................................................................................209
Table E.15 Q6. To what extent do the responsibilities of your work involve the
following: ...........................................................................................................................209
Table E.16 Q7. What impact do you feel that your education abroad experience has had
with regard to your employment? ......................................................................................210
Table E.17 Q8. From your point of view today, to what extent do you consider your
education abroad experience worthwhile with regard to the following: ............................210
Table E.18 Q9. Of the areas rated in the previous question, in which areas do you believe
your education abroad experience has provided you with the greatest benefit? Please rank
your top 3 ...........................................................................................................................211
Table F.1 Region of experience 1 and activity ..................................................................212

xiv

Table F.2 Region experience 2 and activity .......................................................................212
Table F.3 Region experience 3 and activity .......................................................................213
Table F.4 Region of experience 2 and duration .................................................................213
Table F.5 Region of experience 3 and duration .................................................................213
Table F.6 Duration of experience by country of study – Experience 1 .............................214
Table G.1 Structure Matrix – PCA Question 8 ..................................................................215
Table G.2 Independent t-test results for program characteristics and benefit factors ........216
Table G.3 Independent t-test results for background characteristics and benefit factors ..218
Table G.4 Independent t-test results for study characteristics and benefit factors.............219
Table G.5 Independent t-test results for current employment context and benefit factors 221

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Elements contributing to a graduate profile and ultimately to employment and
early career success. ............................................................................................................27
Figure 3.1 Conceptual representation of factors considered in this study ..........................33
Figure 3.2 Stages of the sampling process and related response rate at each stage ...........35
Figure 6.1 Conceptual model of Australian study abroad participants and the development
of international human capital ...........................................................................................161
Figure A1 Screening Questions .........................................................................................172
Figure B1 Permission to use survey instrument .................................................................180

xvi

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Higher education systems around the world are becoming progressively more
international in nature as cross-border mobility of students is driven by economic growth
and increasing levels of international trade (British Council, 2012). The number of
students studying internationally has more than doubled since 2000 and was estimated to
be around 4.3 million in 2011 (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
2013). This total represents students enrolled for both an entire degree program, and shortterm study abroad students, those undertaking a component of their degree while
remaining enrolled at their home institution. The number of internationally mobile
students is likely to continue to grow as a result of demographic and economic drivers
(British Council, 2012).
This dissertation focuses on the case of Australia, a small country that is highly
dependent on international trade to support the domestic economy. The
internationalization of the Australian higher education system has been underway since the
1950s, when international students first enrolled at Australian universities under the
Colombo Plan (Meadows, 2011). One of the latest focuses of internationalization
strategies is the participation of Australian students in study abroad programs. Although
Australian universities have operated international exchange programs since the 1990s,
only in recent years have these programs become an important part of institutional strategy,
attracting significant resources and support from university leadership (Adams, Banks &
Olsen, 2011; Molony, 2012). Participation has grown rapidly and institutions are
introducing new study abroad programs to further stimulate demand. Study abroad

1

programs are widely supported for their capacity to develop career-relevant international
skills (Adams, Banks & Olsen, 2011) and promoted to students as “exciting, life changing
experiences that….can also give you the competitive edge you need in landing that dream
job” (RMIT University, 2012). However, such rhetoric is challenged by research. A
recent study of employer perspectives on Australian graduates with a study abroad
experience found that although overseas study experience is viewed positively by potential
employers, it is considered to be unimportant against other skills, attributes and
experiences when evaluating graduate candidates (Prospect Marketing, 2006). Further
contributions to our knowledge base in this area are urgently needed as policy-makers
commit to increasing funding allocations and implementing new programs at both national
and institutional levels.
This dissertation outlines a project that examined the connections between study
abroad experiences and the subsequent employment of graduates from Australian
universities from the perspective of the graduates themselves. In this chapter I will provide
an overview of the research problem, outline the literature that informed the study, set the
context and rationale for the study within the Australian higher education system, before
providing a short overview of the project, identifying the research questions and defining
of key terms.
Relationship to Existing Literature
This study was based on educational literature on the benefits of study abroad
programs for participants in the areas of personal, social, intercultural, academic and career
development (Braskamp, Braskamp & Merrill, 2009; Carlson, Burns, Useem &
Yackimowicz, 1991; Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Dolby, 2008; Dwyer, 2004; Edmonds,

2

2010; Engle & Engle, 2004; Forsey, Broomhall & Davis, 2011; Fry, Paige, Jon, Dillow &
Nam, 2009; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Lou & Bosley, 2008; Malmgren & Galvin, 2008;
Nunan, 2006; Paige, Cohen & Shively, 2004; Paige, Fry, Stallman, Josi & Jon, 2009;
Rundstrom, 2005; Sutton & Rubin, 2010; Thomas & McMahon, 1998; Vande Berg,
Connor-Litton & Paige, 2009). Also important is the literature exploring the connections
between study abroad experiences and employment and career outcomes for graduates
(Bracht, Engel, Janson, Over, Schomburg & Teichler, 2006; Jahr & Teichler, 2000; Jahr &
Teichler, 2007; Maiworm & Teichler, 1996; Teichler, 2011; Teichler, 2012; Teichler &
Janson, 2007). Studies in this area generally focus on the perception of the former study
abroad participant with regard to the transition to work, employment conditions and career
directions. A small body of literature has addressed the perception of employers of study
abroad programs and how international exposure may benefit graduates in the workplace
(Bracht, et. al., 2006; Crossman & Clarke, 2009; Prospect Marketing, 2006; Teichler,
2011). Several studies also explore long-term life benefits from the perspective of
participants in study abroad programs (Carlson, Burns, Useem & Yackimowicz, 1991;
Dwyer, 2004; Nunan, 2006; Paige, Fry, Stallman, Josi & Jon, 2009). This topic – alumni
perspectives of the benefits of study abroad – is an area of increasing interest for educators
and policy-makers as the number of internationally mobile students grows.
Rationale for the Study
Through a combination of government policy and institutional support,
participation in study abroad programs expanded quickly and has now reached 13% of the
graduating undergraduate class1, a number comparable to study abroad participation in the
1

measured by the number of undergraduates participating in international experiences in a given
year as a proportion of the total undergraduate graduating class for that year) (Olsen, 2013)
3

United States (Institute for International Education, 2013). From 2007 to 2010, university
and federal government funding for study abroad scholarships increased 70% to $28.1
million (Olsen, 2011). Additional institutional and national resources support the
operation of study abroad offices under the assumption that such investments deliver
returns in the form of graduates who are better equipped to support Australia’s position in
an increasingly competitive global economy (Adams, Banks & Olsen, 2011; Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2007). In addition to the extensive
public funding commitment in this area, participation in study abroad requires private
resources in the form of money, time and energy, usually invested by students and their
families.
The phenomenon is attracting high-level policy attention. In 2012, the Australian
Government launched a new scholarship program called Asiabound, in response to the
Asian Century White Paper (Office of the Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science,
Research and Tertiary Education, 2012), which called for investment in the development of
skills and knowledge of Asia (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012). Previously Australian
Government scholarships in this area had been expanded from a targeted Asia and the
Pacific focus to a global program supporting study in seventy-seven countries (DEEWR,
2011). A change of government in 2013 brought another major shift in funding for study
in Asia, with the promise of $AUD100 million over five years (Office of the Minister for
Foreign Affairs, 2013), up from $AUD7.9 million in 2012 (Olsen, 2013).
The federal policy focus on study abroad was preceded by an institutional focus.
As an example, many universities have set mobility targets for their student populations,
such as 25% participation at the University of Queensland (University of Queensland,

4

2011). Study abroad programs at Australian institutions focus on professional and
academic development, promoting the benefits of participation in terms of career outcomes
and knowledge of other countries that may help professionally in the future (Adams, Olsen
& Banks, 2011). This focus is influenced by the structure and curriculum of the national
higher education system. The Australian undergraduate degree is utilitarian in focus, and
universities express their role primarily in terms of human capital development for the
economic sector (Sidhu, 2006). With the exception of some Arts degrees and the newly
introduced Melbourne Model at the University of Melbourne, courses are focused on
professional preparation, and students commence their major in their first semester
(Australian Education International, 2008).
Although institutional policy-makers appear to have the best intentions when they
design study abroad programs, the assumptions that that such student experiences lead to
globally-minded graduates who are better prepared to manage modern workplace demands
while making a contribution to the international strategies of their organizations are largely
untested. Very little research explores study abroad outcomes in Australia, and although
extensive research exists in Europe, along with a growing body of knowledge on the
connections between higher education and work, it may not reflect the experiences of
Australian graduates because graduate outcomes in the labor market are likely to be highly
context-specific (Bracht, et. al., 2006; Messer & Wolter, 2007; Saarikallio-Trop & WiersJenssen, 2010; Wiers-Jenssen; 2008). In fact, very little is known about outcomes of study
abroad for Australian students and alumni.
The intended audience for this research is policy-makers at a national and
institutional level. By understanding the types of international experiences that are

5

perceived to make a difference to the early careers of graduates, policy-makers can make
better decisions about the development of study abroad programs, which will ultimately
benefit future generations of students through the alignment of graduate skills with an
increasingly international workplace environment in Australia. The purpose of this study
is to explore the nature of the benefits of participation in a study abroad program in relation
to the early career stage of graduates of Australian bachelor degree programs. As a new
area for empirical research in Australia, this study aims to develop recommendations for
future research on factors that may be important in enhancing the benefits of study abroad
programs to their participants, their employers, and their educational institutions. The
variables identified in this study may be used to create a model that could be examined
more fully in future research.
In this section I have situated the study within the Australian higher education
context and demonstrated that: (1) participation of Australian students in study abroad
programs is growing; (2) the area is a current policy focus, and as such, is attracting an
increasing amount of funding at both the institutional and national levels; (3) the general
rationale for undergraduate education and study abroad in Australia focuses on workplace
demands and Australia’s position in the global economy; and (4) very little is known about
actual outcomes of study abroad for Australian students and further research is urgently
needed. I will now outline the project and discuss the theoretical frames that will guide the
study.
The Research Project
Through a survey of graduate perspectives, this project investigated links between a
study abroad experience and early career outcomes, with a particular focus on

6

understanding how certain conditions of study abroad, such as country, duration, program
type and foreign language acquisition, were beneficial. A descriptive analysis of current
working positions and environments contextualize our understanding of employment
outcomes for this group. The respondents of the study were recent graduates who
participated in a study abroad program during their undergraduate degree. They had been
working for around three years at the time of the study. It was primarily a quantitative
investigation.
The research conceptualization and design was informed by extensive research
undertaken in Europe on the European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University
Students (ERASMUS), which explored the professional value of international study for
European graduates (see Bracht, et.al., 2006; Jahr & Teichler, 2000; Janson, Schomburg &
Teichler, 2009; Schomburg & Teichler, 2006; Teichler & Maiworm, 1994; Maiworm &
Teichler, 1996). Although the context of the European Union and the ERASMUS program
are unique to that region, the framework of the European graduate survey provided a
model that assisted in developing a study relevant to the Australian context.
Conceptual Framework
Two conceptual perspectives informed this dissertation project: firstly, human
capital theory (Becker, 1964; Becker,1993) frames the relationship between higher
education and work through a return on investment perspective. National investment in
education stimulates economic growth by increasing knowledge and productivity (Becker,
1993). Human capital also contributes social benefits such as democratization, civil rights,
political stability, reduced crime and lower welfare costs (McMahon & Oketch, 2013).
Study abroad is one component of higher education and therefore can be considered as a

7

component of human capital. Secondly, from a manpower requirements perspective, the
function of higher education is to prepare young people for employment. This utilitarian
approach to education focuses on structural and quantitative aspects that may impact upon
employment (Brennan, Kogan & Teichler, 1996; de Weert, 1996; Schomburg & Teichler,
2006). As a co-curricular element of higher education, study abroad has been found to
foster skills and knowledge that are valued by both graduates and employers in Europe
(Bracht, et. al., 2006). This conceptual framework will be further elaborated in Chapter 2.
The final section of this chapter outlines two key components of the study: the research
questions and the definitions of key terms.
Research Questions
This study addressed the primary question: What are the benefits, as perceived by
graduates, of a study abroad experience during a bachelor degree for their early career
experiences?
Two sub-questions were addressed:
a) What are the relationships between various characteristics of the program (i.e.,
country/region of study; duration of international experience; type of international
experience; language of experience) and the benefits as perceived by the graduate?
b) What are the relationships between background characteristics, study
characteristics and current employment context, and the benefits as perceived by
the graduates?

8

Definitions of Key Terms
For the purpose of this study, a study abroad program is an educational experience
where a student spends a period of time undertaking an academic activity in another
country while remaining formally enrolled in an academic program in the home country. It
is usually recognized as part of the home degree, either through transfer credit or through a
formal program requirement (for example, as part of a research project). It may vary from
a traditional one to two semester student exchange involving regular coursework at a
foreign university to an internship, volunteer experience, or research project. Study abroad
may also involve participation in an international leadership event or competition. In
Australia, the terms traditionally used are education abroad or outbound mobility while in
the U.S. it is called study abroad.
The term graduate will be used in this dissertation to signify one who has
completed a bachelor degree program at an Australian university. The term alumni may
also be used. Traditionally the Australian bachelor degree is undertaken directly following
high school. However, a small number of graduates may have entered through nontraditional pathways, such as via a college of vocational education and training.
Employment refers to a job role, including scope, structure and responsibility of a
graduate in the workforce (Brennan, Hogan & Teichler, 1996), while the term career
means the aggregate of employment positions or “the sequence of employment and work
tasks within the occupational lifespan” (Brennan, Hogan & Teichler, 1996, p. 6). Early
career refers to the initial years of employment following graduation.

9

Organization of this Dissertation
The second chapter of this dissertation reviews the existing literature on study
abroad outcomes for Australian students, and for study abroad participants in other
countries. As little research exists on the Australian context, research from other countries
informed the current study. A detailed conceptual framework will also be presented. The
third chapter describes the research methodology including a description of the sample and
data collection strategy, the survey instrument, and the analytical strategy. Chapters 4 and
5 present the results of the study, with detailed descriptive information providing important
contextual information to support the findings presented through the main research
questions. Further statistical analysis provides a framework for understanding the results.
In the final chapter, the results are discussed and the five-most important policy-related
findings are presented. This section includes implications for research, policy and practice.
Finally, the dissertation concludes with a brief note on the methodology and limitations of
the research project.

10

CHAPTER 2
Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework
This chapter will focus on how study abroad has been found to benefit participants.
I will also explore the connections between study abroad, employment and careers, as
presented by the literature in the area. In this chapter I will (1) review the knowledge in
the area of study abroad from the Australian context; (2) attempt to fill some of the
knowledge gaps with literature from the Unites States and Europe; and (3) outline the
conceptual framework that guided this study.
Study Abroad Literature From Australia
In seeking to understand the current state of knowledge in Australia, I surveyed the
relevant literature and will provide a short summary of the very few published studies.
The majority of papers provide an overview of participation statistics (Australian
Education International, 2011; Daly, 2011; Olsen, 2007; Olsen, 2008; Olsen, 2011; Olsen,
2012; Olsen, 2013). From this data, we can ascertain that the typical Australian participant
in a study abroad program is a Caucasian female, 20-21 years of age (Daly, 2011), enrolled
in a bachelor degree in Society and Culture, Management and Commerce, or Health
(Olsen, 2011). Almost 60% of participants went to Europe or the Americas, approximately
38% spent at least one semester abroad, and 27% undertook an internship or research
project abroad (Olsen, 2011). Many Australian participants have traveled abroad
previously and were motivated to go abroad to experience a different culture, to meet other
people and to broaden the mind (Forsey, Broomhall & Davis, 2011). In 2010, 34% of
participants were classified as coming from neighborhoods representing the lower 50% of
socio-economic status households (Olsen, 2011).

11

Personal and social development. Australian participants in a study on motivations
for participation and subsequent outcomes were found to become more self-confident,
particularly in communicating with other people, and to report a sense of intellectual
connection with the world (Forsey, Broomhall & Davis, 2011). In a study comparing the
Australian student experience to their American peers, Dolby (2008) found Australian
students abroad to be less restricted by issues of national identity and identity exploration,
which allows them to adapt easily to multiple contexts and to make more authentic human
connections along the way.
Career development. An alumni survey from the University of Melbourne
documented the impacts of study abroad 10 to 15 years after graduation (Nunan, 2006).
Although the strongest results in this study support the development of personal and social
aspects such as self-confidence, independence, world-view and cultural awareness, positive
support was also found in the area of career development. Eight-seven percent of
participants agreed that study abroad enhanced their overall employability, 73% agreed
that study abroad helped them develop a skill set that influenced their career path, and 61%
said that study abroad had contributed directly to current or past employment. Forty-five
percent reported that study abroad influenced them to work overseas and 19% formed
relationships that became professional contacts (Nunan, 2006). Although it is only one
study, it is important for the insight it provides for the current study. The majority
participants from the population of interest support a connection between study abroad and
their careers, and generally agreed that study abroad was beneficial to their personal, social
and career development.

12

Employer perspectives on study abroad. The final area of study abroad literature
from Australia has attempted to measure employer perspectives on graduates who
participated in a study abroad program (Crossman & Clarke, 2009; Prospect Marketing,
2006). Against other recruitment criteria such as a specialized degree, work experiences
and extracurricular activities, Australian employers rank study abroad as a low priority.
This partly reflects the desire not to disadvantage those who may not have been able to
study abroad (Prospect Marketing, 2006). Employers expressed a strong desire to hire
well-rounded employees, and when asked directly about how overseas study was viewed
on a resume, 61% indicated that it was viewed positively. The result was even higher,
almost 70%, for multinational firms. In response to the question “Do you think that
graduates with overseas studying or internship experience bring extra skills to a
company?” (Prospect Marketing, 2006 p. 25), 81% of respondents agreed. Employers
consider that study abroad enhanced well roundedness and was particularly attractive when
graduates could link their experiences to the operations and strategy of the company.
Foreign language skills were a highly salient graduate attribute, particularly Chinese and
South-East Asian languages. Results were strongest in the Mining and Finance industries.
Another Australian study found similar positive results; employers considered
graduates with a study abroad experience as highly desirable in an increasingly global
work environment (Crossman & Clarke, 2009). International experiences were seen as
contributing towards a candidate’s career capital, particularly with regards to the
acquisition of soft skills including cultural intelligence and intercultural communication.
Certain ways of thinking were highlighted as important for international business projects,

13

and study abroad experiences were perceived by employers to promote this aspect of
student development (Crossman & Clarke, 2009).
Prospect Marketing (2006) identified a group of companies that the researchers
labeled new generation employers, typically multinational companies, which sought out
graduates with study abroad experiences. Such organizations also had systems in place to
ensure that they could capitalize on the knowledge and experience of the graduates.
According to the researchers, government agencies that have traditionally targeted the
population of interest reported increased competition for the internationally experienced
talent pool over the last ten years (Prospect Marketing, 2006).
Graduate employment. The competitive nature of the graduate employment market
is also supported by Australian graduate employment statistics. A survey of graduate
recruiters in Australia indicated that although 8.6% of graduates were still seeking fulltime employment four months after graduation (Graduate Careers Australia, 2010),
graduate recruiters stated that their biggest concern was the recruitment of the right
graduates in a competitive market. Forty-two percent of employers indicated that they had
difficulty sourcing graduates, particularly in the fields of information technology and
engineering (Graduate Careers Australia, 2011). However, almost 27% of computer
science graduates and 23% of electrical/computer engineering graduates remained
unemployed four months after graduation (Graduate Careers Australia, 2010). An
apparent mismatch between supply and demand produced a very complex picture of the
local graduate recruitment market, indicating that while the economy was improving and
jobs were available, employers remained selective in their hiring practices, and a
bachelor’s degree did not guarantee satisfactory full-time employment.

14

The small but insightful literature pool from Australia provides some promising
knowledge to inform the current study. From this review I have established four important
points: (1) study abroad has a positive impact upon personal and social developmental
factors for Australian participants; (2) according to alumni participants, study abroad
positively supports career development and employability; (3) although study abroad is not
a recruitment criteria, it is viewed positively by Australian employers, particularly when
the characteristics of the experience relate directly to the needs of the organization; and (4)
there is competition for talent in the Australian graduate employment market and this
includes increasing competition for graduates with international skills and knowledge.
However, there are notable weaknesses in the existing literature. Several of the
studies relied on a sample from a single institution (Crossman & Clarke, 2009; Forsey,
Broomhall & Davis, 2011; Nunan, 2006), which may limit the applicability of the results
to other institutional contexts. Although two studies address career-related topics, the data
for these studies were taken from samples of employers (Crossman & Clarke, 2009;
Prospect Marketing, 2006) rather than from participants or graduates. Only one study
provides some insight on the phenomenon of interest from the population of interest;
Nunan (2006) included four questions in a total of 47 on career-related outcomes. A clear
gap remains in our understanding of early career experiences from the perspective of
Australian alumni. This topic – alumni perspectives of the benefits of study abroad – has
been explored in other countries and the next section will review current knowledge from
the United States and Europe.

15

Study Abroad Literature From Other Regions and Countries
Research from the United States. The normative concept in study abroad
research in the U.S. is to identify change or difference in participants. Study abroad may
be conceptualized as an educational intervention that produces change or growth in certain
directions, which are usually measured against program goals or broader educational
objectives, such as graduate attributes or general education requirements. The impact of
study abroad on participants has been measured across a variety of domains including
personal, social, intercultural and academic development.
Personal and social development. Some of the most significant results have been
found in the area of personal and social development (Braskamp, Braskamp & Merrill,
2009; Carlson, Burn, Useem and Yachimowicz, 1991; Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Dwyer,
2004; Edmonds, 2010). Such studies report change in skills, knowledge and attitude
related to travel, cultures, communications, awareness of own and other values, tolerance,
patience and understanding (Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Dwyer, 2004). Even programs of
only a few weeks in length can produce significant results in the personal and social
domains (Chaison, 2008; Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Dwyer, 2004; Edmonds, 2010).
Intercultural competence. Another area of research in the United States focuses on
the development of intercultural competence, which is often measured through the use of
pretest-intervention-post test design (Van de Vijver & Leung, 2009). Intercultural
competence has been found to improve in students in general study abroad programs
(Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Lou & Bosley, 2008; Vande Berg, Connor-Litton & Paige,
2009; Rundstrom, 2005), and in those undertaking a foreign language study abroad
program (Paige, Cohen & Shively, 2004; Engle & Engle, 2004; Vande Berg, Connor-

16

Litton & Paige, 2009). Long-term programs have been shown to produce more significant
results (Engle & Engle, 2004; Vande Berg, Connor-Litton & Paige, 2009).
Academic development. When considering academic outcomes, participants in a
study abroad experience have been found to be more likely to graduate in the standard
degree period (Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Malmgren & Galvin, 2008; Sutton & Rubin,
2010), although the studies did not control for important background characteristics such
as socio-economic status. Given that study abroad is a high-cost exercise, socio-economic
status may influence participation (Salisbury, Umbach, Paulsen & Pascarella, 2009), as
well as time to graduation (Terenzini, Cabrera & Bernal, 2001). Grade Point Average
(GPA) has also been used as a proxy for academic success, and although several studies
have found that participants graduate with a higher GPA than non-participants (Ingraham
& Peterson, 2004; Malmgren & Galvin, 2008; Sutton & Rubin, 2010; Thomas &
McMahon, 1998), it is difficult to attribute this difference to study abroad in isolation.
There is also evidence that academic development may differ depending on the destination
and duration of international study (Sutton & Rubin, 2010), and may be especially
beneficial for academically at-risk students, increasing their predicted probability of
graduation (Barclay Hamir, 2011).
Long-term impacts. Educational choices, occupational choices, lifestyles,
perspectives, behaviors, and personal and social skills are listed among the long-term
impacts of study abroad participation (Fry, et. al., 2009). Another study considered the
dimensions of civic engagement, knowledge production, philanthropy, social
entrepreneurship and voluntary simplicity, and found that study abroad was perceived to
have influenced over 50% of reported participant involvement in global engagement

17

activities following graduation. Additionally, 35.2% of respondents attributed study
abroad as helping their career to a large degree (Paige, et. al., 2009). Dwyer (2004) found
that the impact of study abroad may be sustained up to 50 years after graduation. Alumni
in this study indicated that study abroad had a significant long-term effect on their worldview. Additionally 77% reported that study abroad assisted them in acquiring a skill set
that influenced their career path.
Research from Europe: Employment outcomes. Compared to U.S. study abroad
research, European research tends to be more aligned with the current study, focusing less
on student development and more on employment-related outcomes. Twenty years of
graduate surveys based on the ERASMUS program have demonstrated significant support
for both the benefits of participation in study abroad and the connections to subsequent
employment and careers (Teichler & Janson, 2007; Teichler, 2012). Former ERASMUS
participants were convinced that their international study experience helped them secure
their first job (Teichler, 2012; Teichler & Janson, 2007). Seventy-one percent of
participants in the earliest study (Maiworm & Teichler, 1996) and 54% of participants in a
later study (Bracht, et. al., 2006) supported this claim. The researchers suggested that
ERASMUS seemed to have become a positive signal for employers during the job search
process (Bracht, et. al., 2006; Teichler, 2012).
Another area assessed concerns the perception of the graduates on the criteria used
by their employer when hiring them. The results remained relatively consistent over the
years with field of study (73%) and personality (78%) being rated as the most important
criteria. Experience abroad (51%) and foreign language proficiency (55%) were rated as
the fourth and fifth (of eleven options) in terms of the important and very important criteria

18

(Jahr & Teichler, 2000). One study linked the strength of this result to the host country,
with the U.K., Ireland and Germany providing the strongest result. This may have
reflected the strength of demand for English-speakers in the workplace. The researchers
linked the finding regarding Germany to the number of respondents who were
subsequently employed in Germany (Maiworm & Teichler, 1996), demonstrating a strong
link between study abroad and early career employment.
Former ERASMUS participants were more likely to work in the private sector
compared with non-mobile graduates (Jahr & Teichler, 2000; Jahr & Teichler, 2007). This
may have partially accounted for the reported salary premium of 18% for internationally
mobile graduates. The overall income premium was also partially the result of higher
reported salaries for graduates working abroad (Jahr & Teichler, 2007). There was some
indication that more ERASMUS participants were employed in managerial roles (Jahr &
Teichler, 2000) and were employed in large organizations (Bracht, et. al., 2006; Teichler,
2012). Respondents also reported that their work was “embedded into an international
context” (Bracht, et. al., 2006, p. 72). Termed as visible international competencies,
international work skills have become more important to ERASMUS graduates over time
(Teichler, 2012). Results varied by discipline of study, with science and engineering
graduates reporting less professional importance of international competencies than
humanities and social science graduates (Bracht, et. al., 2006).
One of the strongest outcomes of the ERASMUS program was the international
mobility of ERASMUS participants after graduation. Eighteen to twenty percent of
ERASMUS participants were employed in a different country to the country of graduation
for some time after graduation (Teichler & Janson, 2007). The researchers quoted a

19

comparison figure of 3% for highly qualified Europeans who were employed in another
country (Teichler & Janson, 2007). Additionally, almost half of ERASMUS graduates
considered working abroad after graduation (Bracht, et. al., 2006; Jahr &Teichler, 2000).
Teichler (2011) notes the importance of considering background characteristics in
study abroad research; in fact, participants in study abroad programs were more likely to
have at least one parent with a higher education degree. The ERASMUS research revealed
a multiplier effect in terms of international experiences. ERASMUS participants were
more likely to have spent time abroad before commencing university (for example, living
abroad with their family or with a high school exchange program), and participation in
ERASMUS meant that graduates were 2.7 times more likely to work abroad following
graduation (Jahr & Teichler, 2007). The finding supports Murphy-Lejeune’s (2002) theory
of mobility capital, which stated that international experience or intensive exposure to
diverse cultures could positively predispose young people for international experiences in
the future.
Employer perceptions. Employer perceptions research in Europe has tended to
confirm the results of the student surveys. In comparison to the Australian results
previously reported, employers in Europe were more likely to consider study or work
abroad to be very important in their recruitment criteria (Bracht, et. al., 2006; Teichler,
2011), and to actively seek graduates with international education experiences for all roles,
not just internationally focused positions (Molony, Sowter & Potts, 2011). Foreign
language competence was a very important factor (Bracht, et. al., 2006; Molony, Sowter &
Potts, 2011). In terms of other graduate competencies, employers ranked those with an
international study experience higher on the 19 areas assessed. While a higher rating on

20

international-related competencies such as foreign language acquisition and cross-cultural
skills was expected, substantial differences have also been found on a range of generic
skills, for example, adaptability (81% compared with 57%), initiative (79% compared with
62%), assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence (70% compared with 50%) and written
communication skills (70% compared with 59%) (Bracht, et. al., 2006).
Employer research has confirmed that the work assignments of ERASMUS
graduates were more engaged with international dimensions (Teichler & Janson, 2007). In
an attempt to clarify the question of a perceived salary differential, employers noted that
while there was not likely to be a difference upon hiring, within five years of employment,
study abroad participants could have expected a salary differential of around 27% over
non-participants. The authors noted that a study abroad experience could not be attributed
as the predominant reason for the differences between participants and non-participants.
Rather, other characteristics were likely to be important variables. In conclusion they
stated, “ERASMUS mobility was not viewed as a frequent access route to high-flying
careers but rather as a ‘door-opener’ into the labor market.” (Bracht, et. al., 2006, p. xix).
Implications For the Current Study
Although the research from the United States and Europe may not be fully
applicable in the Australian context, many of the findings in this section support the small
pool of literature from Australia and highlight important gaps in our knowledge.
Compared with the U.S., we have very little understanding of the personal, social,
intercultural and academic developmental factors and how study abroad affects these
domains in Australian students. This is one area where further research is needed.
Turning to the research from Europe, it is clear that although we have some understanding

21

of how Australian employers perceive study abroad, we know little about the graduate
experience in early career employment. This is the knowledge gap addressed by the
current study.
The research from Australia, the U.S. and Europe has indicated that certain
variables were important to consider in the current study because they have been found to
influence the experiences of participants. From Australia these included foreign language
skills and industry of employment; from the U.S. important variables included duration of
study abroad, foreign language skills, destination of study and socio-economic
background; from Europe important variables included destination, foreign language skills,
major, job role, organizational characteristics and background variables including parental
education and previous international mobility. The next section synthesizes this
knowledge as part of the conceptual framework.
Conceptual Framework
Research on the relationship between higher education and work has traditionally
been framed around the economic perspective of the return on investment for expenditure
on education (Brennan, Kogan & Teichler, 1996; Teichler, 2009). Through human capital
theory, economists have demonstrated that national investment in education has a causal
relationship with economic growth (Barro, 1991; Becker, 1993). Human capital affects
economic conditions by stimulating the expansion of knowledge to raise the productivity
of labor and other inputs (Becker, 1993). In other words, by investing in knowledge
creation, countries are sustaining economic growth in the future. Support for this structural
connection between education and work in Australia is demonstrated through the coupling
of these portfolios within one government department, namely the Department of

22

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, prior to the change of government in
late 2013.
On a microeconomic level, human capital theory concerns the return of investment
in education to an individual. This is the income premium obtained as a result of acquiring
education (Becker, 1964; Becker, 1993). There is general consensus, supported by
research, that investment in higher education in Australia is beneficial to the individual
(Corliss, Lewis & Daly, 2013). Although through taxation there are also societal benefits
from earning a higher income level, McMahon & Oketch (2013) state that the private rate
of return from investment in education is only relevant to private decision-making. So,
while the market return of education is important to individuals when making education
investment decisions, there is also a set of non-market returns that are highly relevant to
public policy (McMahon & Oketch, 2013).
More recent work on human capital has studied the non-market outcomes, or
social benefits of education (Grossman, 2005; McMahon, 2001; McMahon, 2009;
McMahon & Oketch, 2013). According to the authors of this body of work, the social
benefits of education include better health, greater longevity, reduced infant mortality,
reduced fertility rates, increased democratization, greater respect for human rights, political
stability, environmental quality, and the reduction of poverty, inequality and crime
(McMahon, 2001). Increased human capital can also contribute to household efficiency,
asset management and happiness (McMahon & Oketch, 2013).
While the original human capital theory (Becker, 1964) was applied to the
employment sector, the characteristics of human capital are embodied in the individual and
therefore also apply to non-work household and community activities (McMahon, 2009).

23

Similar to the expected increase in workplace productivity, human capital affects the use of
time outside of work, making both household and social activities more productive and
efficient. These non-market benefits and the social rate of return should be of interest to
public policy makers (McMahon & Oketch, 2013). This perspective is relevant to the
current study because of the difficulty in measuring direct return on investment from study
abroad and the nature of public policy in the area. It could be hypothesized that although it
may be difficult to detect an income premium from investment in study abroad (or a
market benefit), it may be possible to find evidence of non-market benefits of both a social
and private nature. Human capital development may be enhanced through study abroad,
leading to public and private benefits, including benefits during the early career period.
Similar to higher education in general, failure to recognize the full range of benefits may
cause a lack of information (McMahon & Oketch, 2013) and lead to decreased support for,
and participation in, study abroad programs.
A complementary perspective on the relationship between higher education and
work is the manpower requirements approach, which is concerned with the quantitative
and structural elements of the connection between higher education and work (Brennan,
Kogan & Teichler, 1996; de Weert, 1996; Teichler, 2007). The quantitative dimension
refers to the demand and supply of graduates in order to meet the needs of the economy.
While this relates to the topic of graduate employment in terms of the employment rates, it
is not the main focus of this project.
The structural elements of higher education have become increasingly relevant to
employment, and in trying to identify differences in employment prospects, researchers
have examined such factors as type of institution, type of degree program, fields of study,

24

student achievement and areas of specialization (Brennan, Kogan & Teichler, 1996).
Structural elements can also have important qualitative dimensions that may impact on
employment, such as curricular approaches (for example, theoretical verses vocational),
co-curricular options (for example, work practicums, study abroad) and extra-curricular
activities (for example, student associations, sports clubs). A large body of research
concerns the match between graduate attributes and employment roles (Brennan, Kogan &
Teichler, 1996; de Weert, 1996; Schomburg & Teichler, 2006). As evidenced by the
literature, in recent years there has been extensive research in Europe on the role of study
abroad, as one co-curricular component of the degree, in early career experiences of
graduates (Jahr & Teichler, 2007; Teichler, 2011). In Australia, as part of the government
funding requirements, universities must address employability skills as a generic graduate
attribute (Precision Consulting, 2007).
In seeking to fully understand the links between higher education and work, a
complex picture emerges. In addition to structural and qualitative elements of the
institution and the degree already identified, we must also consider the life of a student
outside of their studies, and such activities might include employment experiences,
interests and family care (Schomburg & Teichler, 2006). In addition, educational and
post-graduation employment success may be associated with background characteristics
such as socio-economic status and ability (Ott, 2011; Schomburg & Teichler, 2006;
Teichler, 2007; Useem & Karabel, 1986).
The final area of consideration, and perhaps the most difficult to measure, is how
students use educational opportunities to enhance their subsequent professional success
(Brennan, Kogan & Teichler, 1996; de Weert, 1996; Schomburg & Teichler, 2006). The

25

broader impact of college on students has been widely studied in the U.S., though it is not
well understood in other parts of the world. In the U.S., the impact of college on students
has been found to relate to where students live, with whom they are friends, how much
they study, and what learning experiences they are involved in (Astin, 1993). Many of
these factors depend upon the choices made by students during their college lives, and how
these choices are connected to their professional direction. Even though institutions offer a
wide range of activities, each student develops an individual profile through their choices.
Study abroad may be one of these choices. In summing up the complex question of the
impact of college on careers, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) concluded “the influence of
college on career probably dovetails into a broad matrix of indirect but enduring impacts
on the quality of life” (p. 495). This is consistent with McMahon’s (2009) expanded
conception of the benefits of human capital. Figure 2.1 illustrates the general framework
outlined in this section.

26

Figure 2.1
Elements contributing to a graduate profile and ultimately to employment and early career
success.

Gender
Ethnic
background
SES
Language
International
experiences

Graduate profile

Study
abroad

Background characteristics

Graduate employment and
early career success

Institution
& degree
structure

Curricular,
co-curricular
extracurricular

Work
experience,
interests,
family

How students
use their
education
choices

Institution
type
Major
Specialization
Grades
Study mode
Financing

Theoretical/vo
cational
Practicum
Study abroad
Student
association
Sports club

Work while
studying
Volunteering
Church choir
Theater
Childcare

Leadership
role in
student
association
connected
to career
interest

The phenomenon of interest in this study is narrowly defined as the study abroad
experience, and informed by the literature, it is considered against a variety of background
and institutional characteristics. This is not to say that the study abroad experience is the
most important or even the most popular co-curricular choice a student can make, or that it
makes the greatest contribution to the graduate profile. It has been chosen for this study

27

because of the lack of existing knowledge of the phenomenon in the Australian context,
and relevance to the current policy debate.
Turning now to the connection between human capital theory, the manpower
perspective and study abroad, we find a highly topical conceptual link to globalization. As
trade networks grow and economies converge, higher education institutions are under
pressure to prepare graduates for future roles in the global society (Crossman & Clarke,
2009; Jahr & Teichler, 2007; Norris & Gillespie, 2007; van der Wende, 2007; Wildavsky,
2010). By exposing students to other countries and cultures, study abroad is the most
direct way to engage students in active learning about the world (Brockington &
Wiedenhoeft, 2009; Nolan, 2009). In an international work environment, graduates may
be expected to communicate in foreign languages and to work with people from different
cultures (Bracht, et. al., 2006; Hudzik, 2011), and study abroad is one co-curricular
inclusion aimed at better preparing students for international careers (Adams, Banks&
Olsen, 2011; Teichler, 2011).
There are three key factors that support this connection. Firstly, through studying
in another country, students develop skills and knowledge (Bracht, et. al., 2006; Carlson,
et. al., 1991; Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Dwyer, 2004). Although there may be ways of
obtaining similar skills and knowledge without travelling abroad (Jones, 2013), study
abroad is generally acknowledged for fostering a first-hand understanding of other
countries. Secondly, international competencies have become more relevant to the
graduate workplace over time. European research provides a longitudinal picture of this
phenomenon (Schomburg & Teichler, 2006; Teichler, 2012), and it is likely to be true in
many developed societies. Finally, more organizations are competing for graduates with

28

international experience in Australia. Prospect Marketing (2006) found that while ten
years ago, government departments were the main recruiters of graduates with study
abroad experience and international competencies, increasingly they are competing for this
talent amongst a growing group of multinational organizations.
Study abroad is also directly connected to human capital development perspectives
in the European Union. The ERASMUS program is framed around the European Union’s
innovation agenda, which seeks to attain global competitiveness through research and
innovation, in order to create jobs and drive growth (European Commission, 2012).
Supported by an annual budget of over €450m (European Commission, 2012), ERASMUS
has been called the most successful policy initiative across the European Union (Jahr &
Teichler, 2007). A valuable aspect of human capital development in Europe is the
mobility of highly-skilled professionals and research has shown study abroad to be an
effective way to encourage professional mobility (Bracht, et. al., 2006; Jahr & Teichler,
2007; Teichler, 2011; Teichler & Janson, 2007).
While there is extensive support for this perspective in the literature, it is important
to acknowledge that there are objections to the human capital and manpower approaches to
higher education that also relate to the purpose of study abroad. Some may say that the
purpose of higher education is to develop citizens with a broad understanding of society
and the capacity for critical analysis (Nussbaum, 2010). Similarly, study abroad may be
valued for its contribution to the personal, social and identity development of young people
(Brockington & Wiedenhoeft, 2009). The purpose of this study was not to discredit these
perspectives, but rather to examine one phenomenon through a utilitarian approach that
matched the policy context in which it was embedded. Broader issues of social, personal

29

and citizenship development will be considered alongside career development and
employment benefits.
In this chapter I have summarized the main findings of the literature from
Australia, the United States and Europe, illustrating empirical results that show how study
abroad benefits participants, and how study abroad experiences are connected to
employment and career outcomes. I have also outlined the conceptual framework that
guided this study. In the next chapter I will explain the research methodology used in this
project.

30

CHAPTER 3
Study Methodology
This research project used an exploratory approach to examine the early career
experiences of graduates in the workforce, and how they perceived the benefit from
participation in study abroad at one specific stage in their work lives. A post-positivist
lens was applied to the study, which used cross-sectional survey design to draw a detailed
descriptive picture of phenomenon of interest. The most substantial components of the
study were based on the perceptions of the participants, and as such, these perceptions
were used to explore patterns and create a more comprehensive understanding of how
study abroad and early careers of graduates are linked through the experiences and work
profiles of participants. This study provides important, empirically grounded information
to policy-makers on study abroad models, which may more successfully achieve policy
objectives in the future.
This chapter provides an overview of the methodological approach to the study.
Firstly, I will recap the research questions and conceptual framework. Second, the
sampling and data collection strategy will be presented. Third, an outline of the survey
instrument is presented. Fourth, the analytical strategy will be summarized. Finally, the
limitations of the study will be discussed.
Research Questions
To recap, this study addressed the primary question, what are the benefits, as
perceived by graduates, of a study abroad experience during a bachelor degree for their
early career experiences?

31

Two sub-questions were addressed:
a) What are the relationships between various characteristics of the program (i.e.,
country/region of study; duration of international experience; type of international
experience; language of experience) and the benefits as perceived by the graduate?
b) What are the relationships between background characteristics, study
characteristics and current employment context and the benefits as perceived by the
graduates?
Conceptual framework
As outlined in Chapter 2, the perspectives I used in this study were human capital
theory (Becker, 1964; Becker, 1993; McMahon & Oketch, 2013) and a manpower
approach to the connection between higher education and work (Brennan, Kogan &
Teichler, 1996; de Weert, 1996; Teichler, 2007). Human capital theory concerns the
market and non-market return on investment to higher education. According to the
manpower requirements perspective, higher education fulfills a utilitarian function of
preparing graduates for future employment. Although there are many factors that
contribute to the development of a graduate, this study focused on study abroad as one cocurricular option of higher education that may provide benefits in the early career stages,
as well as general benefits to their lives and to society. As shown in Figure 3.1, this study
also considered the influence of background characteristics, employment context and study
characteristics on the links between study abroad and early career outcomes. As defined in
the literature, characteristics of study abroad programs that may be important are country
of study, duration of study, foreign language acquisition and type of study abroad program.

32

Figure 3.1
Conceptual representation of factors considered in this study

Characteristics of Study
Abroad
• Country of study
• Duration
• Foreign language
• Type of activity
(courses, internship,
research, volunteering,
other)

Study Abroad Outcomes
• Early career benefits
• General benefits

Control Variables
• Participant background characteristics
• Undergraduate study characteristics
• Employment context

Population and Sample Selection
The population of interest for the study was bachelor degree graduates of
Australian universities who participated in a study abroad experience between 2007 and
2009. Solid data on study abroad participation in Australia has not been a national priority
in the past and data collection is problematic. In part for the period of interest (specifically
2008) there was no national data collection on participation in study abroad, so it is not
possible to obtain the exact size of the population. However, I will attempt to deduce an
estimate. In 2007, 37 universities reported 10,718 study abroad participants (Olsen, 2007)
and in 2009, 36 universities reported 15,058 participants (Olsen, 2010). The breakdown

33

was not available for undergraduate students, but in 2013, undergraduates represented 65%
of the total known study abroad population (Olsen, 2013). Given the known population of
25,776 for 2007 and 2009, the estimated total population was around 38,000, and the
estimated undergraduate population was around 24,800.
The choice of the 2007-2009 study abroad participant cohort stems from the
temporal nature of the study. Participants would have been in the workforce for around
three years, aligning it with the timing of the European studies (see Teichler, 2011;
Teichler & Janson, 2007). After working for several years, it was anticipated that the
participants would have had enough time to critically reflect on their early career activities,
while also retaining recent memory of their college years and their study abroad
experience.
No national database of study abroad participation was available, so a form of
cluster sampling was used and participants were identified and contacted through their
institution of study. All Australian universities were invited to participate through an
email call from a professional association, the Australian Universities International
Directors Forum. Eleven universities agreed to participate, representing all 5 states (but
omitting the two territories). The sample can be considered as broadly representative of a
national sample.
Data Collection
In June 2013, institutions were asked to send the invitation to participate email (see
Appendix C) to participants of all types of study abroad programs between 2007 and 2009.
Either the Study Abroad or Alumni Office carried this out. Institutions reported a range of
issues in identifying the population of interest including limited records of participation

34

(for example, the study abroad office only retained records for centrally administered
adminis
programs, not faculty administered programs) and limited accurate alumni contact
information. Some institutions sent the email to their entire participant group with an
email record on file (regardless of the age of the record), while some were able to match
study abroad records with current alumni contact information. Finally it was reported that
the invitation was sent to 2729 email addresses.
All of these factors make it difficult to report the response rate as it is unknown
how many emails were delivered to current email addresses. From the data provided by
the institutions, I estimate that 15.1% of potential respondents clicked through, 11.2% met
the screening criteria and 9.2% completed the survey. Figure 3.2 outlines the sampling
process and summarizes the response rate by stage of the survey reached.
Figure 3.2
rocess and related response rate at each stage
Stages of the sampling process
Invitation
sent

• 2729
(100%)

Clicked
through to
survey

• 412
(15.1%)

Completed
screening
questions

• 399
(14.62%)

Started
survey

• 306
(11.21%)

Completed
survey

35

•250
(9.16%)

The response rate by institution is difficult to compare as some institutions had low
rates of participation in study abroad programs, some sent the invitation to all participants
on file, while others (with access to more sophisticated databases) pre-screened invitations
for graduation status, current email addresses and alumni communication preferences (for
example, some alumni databases contained an opt out of communication option). Final
institutional samples range from five to seventy as shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1
Number of respondents by institution
Rate (sent:
screening)
Institution alias

Sent

Screening

Completed

Institution 1

274

41

20

15%

Institution 2

502

65

36

13%

Institution 3

25

7

5

28%

Institution 4

79

10

9

13%

Institution 5

240

37

27

15%

Institution 6

148

38

18

26%

Institution 7

328

22

14

7%

Institution 8

387

15

12

4%

Institution 9

284

36

24

13%

Institution 10

386

106

70

27%

Institution 11

76

22

15

29%

2729

399

250

15%

Total

A screening mechanism in the survey instrument was designed to capture responses
from potential participants who met three conditions: 1. Participated in a study abroad
program, 2. Graduated from a bachelor degree, 3. Primary activity at the time of the survey

36

was employment. Therefore respondents were screened out if they had not participated in
a study abroad program (n=5), had not graduated (n=8), were not currently working at least
part-time (n=82, 53 of which were studying full-time), or had not completed their bachelor
degree before 2012 (n=15). A particular issue was identifiable in the number of
respondents studying full-time, and I believe this was connected to the use of university
email addresses as the primary contact address – prospective participants may have
graduated from their bachelor degree and have commenced full-time graduate studies,
making them ineligible for participation. This was particularly likely to have applied to
international students who must enroll in full-time study as a visa requirement.
Final Data Set
Twenty-four respondents were subsequently screened from the data set as they
graduated in 2012. As the main focus of the study is the early employment outcomes,
2012 graduates may only have been in the workplace for around six months, possibly a
time period too short to develop a good understanding of their new position and future
career prospects. The final data set was made up of 226 responses. Having provided an
overview of the sampling strategy and final sample size, I will now describe the
instrument, before presenting the analytical strategy.
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument was designed based on the European Graduate Surveys
(International Centre for Higher Education Research-Kassel, University of Kassel,
Germany), with permission from the lead researcher, Prof. Teichler (see Appendix B). This
survey, with minor modifications, has been used as the primary instrument for almost 20
years of ERASMAS evaluation studies (see Teichler, 2011; Teichler & Janson, 2007).

37

Eight key questions were taken directly from the European model. One question (Question
8) was amended to delete one item, income or salary level (considered inconsistent with
the developmental focus of other items), and include additional items taken from the
literature on desired employment characteristics as defined by employers. These items
included problem solving and analytical skills (Bracht, et. al., 2006; Gardner, Gross &
Steglitz, 2008; Graduate Careers Australia, 2011) (stated in the original survey as new
ways of thinking), teamwork/ability to work with others (Gardner, Gross & Steglitz, 2008;
Graduate Careers Australia, 2011; Prospect Marketing, 2006), interpersonal and
communication skills (Graduate Careers Australia, 2011; Prospect Marketing, 2006), and
motivation and passion for chosen career direction (Dwyer, 2004; Norris & Gillespie,
2007; Nunan, 2006). One question was been added (Question 9) to rank the items listed in
the previous question, in order to improve the interpretation of the data for the primary
research question.
I supplemented the European Graduate Survey questions with employment, study
and background information, guided by the original survey but tailored for the Australian
case and modeled on survey data routinely collected in Australia. The sources of these
questions were the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations and Graduate Careers Australia (the organization
that conducts annual graduate surveys). The socio-economic status questions were
informed by a discussion paper on SES measurement for higher education (DEEWR,
2009) and were appropriate to the Australian context. The themes of the survey instrument
are outlined in Figure 3.3.

38

Table 3.2
Themes of the survey instrument
Socio-biographic
background

Age, gender, citizenship, mobility prior to post-secondary study,
socio-economic indicators (parental education, funding for study,
high school), foreign languages spoken
Bachelor degree

International study experience
(s)

Course of study
(Institution, major, mode of
study, financing, academic
performance)

Transition

(Host country, duration,
program type, foreign language
acquisition)

Major activity after graduation, job search criteria, perception of
recruitment criteria

Employment
Current employment,
work, other
(Position, income, sector,
industry, career prospects)

International Dimensions of
work
(Scope of organization, types of
assignments, perception of
utilization of knowledge and
skills, international mobility,
perception of career value of
mobility)

Note: Adapted from Bracht, et al. (2006, p. 51).
The final survey instrument was comprised of 36 questions and was divided into
five sections, as outlined in Figure 3.3, with the addition of screening questions (listed in
the previous section). Most of the background, study and work information questions were
categorical, presented with drop-down menus. The early-career questions were measured
on a 5-point rating scale of importance, frequency, or value, along with one dichotomous
question (yes/no) and one ranked data question. While the survey was primarily
quantitative in design, free text boxes were provided for additional feedback or
clarification.

39

Pilot Study
A pilot study was undertaken in order to test and refine the instrument. Two
particular areas of concern were how the instrument would function within the limitations
of the software, and allow for complex data collection from diverse groups (for example,
international students). Two institutions participated in the pilot study, sending the draft
instrument to 30 prospective participants each. No major issues with the instrument were
reported, but one change was made – to move the institution of study question to the
screening question set – so I was able to track response rates by institution and report back
to institutional contacts. The sample responses were retained and used in the final data set.
Following a low response rate from one institution in the pilot, I decided to
introduce a prize draw to encourage responses during the main data collection period. This
incentive was included in a revised submission to the Institutional Review Board.
Invitation emails were also adjusted with feedback from the pilot institutions (see
Appendix C for examples).
Analysis
As an exploratory study, the descriptive results were an important element as it was
the first time many of these variables had been systematically examined. Initial descriptive
analysis resulted in some variables being transformed to provide more substantive sample
sizes for analysis. For example, destination countries of study were categorized by region
and recoded. A full list of variables is provided in the Appendix D. The descriptive
analysis formed the first component of the results and provided a detailed framework for
understanding the findings. I also used Chi-square tests, to detect significant connections

40

between variables and further expand the complex picture created through the descriptive
analysis.
In deriving answers to the sub-questions, ANOVA and independent t-tests were
used to identify variations from the mean on key variables of interest. Finally, an
exploratory logistic regression was performed to test selected variables and inform future
research. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 21, and Stata 13 was used to undertake the logistic regression.
The core concept of the research question, Benefit, was central to the analytical
strategy, and this was the main outcome used in the study. Benefits or perceived impacts
were operationalized through specific questions, primarily Questions 7, 8 and 9, where
participants were asked to rate the benefit or perceived impact on a scale. A benefit or
impact was evidenced by a very high or high response on issues around employment,
careers and broad developmental aspects. As a general principle, where participants rated
an item highly, it was accepted on face value of indicating support in a positive direction.
Participants were also asked to rank the top three benefits from their perspective (Question
9), to provide a weighting to the list and guide interpretation of the scaled results.
Primary research question. To answer this research question, descriptive analysis
of the 9 main survey questions was used. The most direct findings were derived from
Questions 7 to 9, which were the summative questions asking directly about career benefits
and comparing these benefits with more general developmental benefits. Data from
remaining six main survey questions were used to support the direct findings. Several
themes were identified in the direct findings from Questions 7 to 9, which were confirmed
and reinforced through the other questions.

41

Research sub-questions. As the first step in the analysis, in order to use statistical
analysis to identify specific relationships between benefits and independent variables, it
was necessary to reduce the number of outcome variables. To do this, I used a Principle
Component Analysis (PCA) of items in Question 8, using oblique rotation due to
correlation between the variables. The resulting 3 factors (Employability skills, Careerrelated benefits, Host-country aspects) conceptually grouped the perceived benefits
identified by the participants.
Employing ANOVAs and independent t-tests, I tested the significance of group
mean differences in the three benefit factor scores. The null hypothesis for each test was
that the means of the subgroups were equal. The alternative hypothesis for each test was
that the means of the subgroups were significantly different using a 95% confidence
interval. All relevant variables from the study abroad program characteristics (sub-question
1) and background, student and employment context sections of the survey (sub-question
2) were analyzed using the test appropriate to the variable type. Table 3.2 provides a visual
representation of the variables used in the analysis.
Table 3.3
Variables used in statistical analysis for sub-questions 2 and 3
Outcome variables (Benefits)

Independent variables

Factor 1: Employability skills

Country of study abroad

Factor 2: Career-related benefits

Duration

Factor 3: Host-country aspects

Language of activity
Activity (of study abroad)
Background characteristics
Study characteristics
Employment characteristics

42

To take the results one step further, multi-variable analysis was used to assess to
what extent, if any, variables in the model predicted a proposed policy outcome. Based on
a review of the literature and the conceptual framework of the study, the proposed policy
outcome chosen was working for an international organization (this proposed policy
outcome is discussed further in Chapter 5). Logistic regression was an appropriate method
of analysis because the outcome variable was dichotomous (1=works for an international
organization, 0=otherwise).
Six possible predictor variables selected from programmatic, background and study
variables completed the exploratory regression model (see Table 3.3 for a list and
description of the variables). Two programmatic variables, multiple study abroad
experiences and studying abroad in a foreign language were chosen as the most influential
programmatic variables identified through other statistical tests. Another possible variable
in this category, compulsory study abroad, had a low sample size (n=13) and was therefore
omitted from the regression. Study in Asia was also included in the programmatic
variables because of the link to current policy directions. Gender represented a basic
personal characteristic that returned a significant result in other tests, and the individual
measure related to socio-economic status, first-generation university graduate, was
included to consider some degree of socio-economic influence in the model. Finally, type
of major, professional or other, was included to account for possible differences in
educational training and career path.
In order to account for concerns about failure to meet regression assumptions, I
estimated the standard errors using the Huber-White sandwich estimators (robust standard
errors). The data were heteroscedastic on some variables, and the limited sample size on

43

subgroups of the variables may have caused problems with assumptions of normality.
Since the failure to meet these assumptions can lead to biased estimates of the standard
errors, a robust regression was used to increase the accuracy of the results.
Table 3.4
Description of variables used in the exploratory multi-variable regression model
Description

Scale

Respondent identified as

0 = does not work for an

working for an organization

organization with an

with an international scope

international scope

Outcome variable
International Organization

1 = works for an
organization with an
international scope
Predictor variables
Programmatic variables
Study abroad multiple

Respondent studied abroad

0 = Did not study abroad

multiple times

multiple times
1 = studied abroad multiple
times

Study abroad foreign

Respondent studied abroad

0 = Did not study abroad in

language

in a language other than

a language other than

English

English
1 = Studied abroad in a
language other than English

Study abroad Asia

Respondent studied abroad

0 = Did not study abroad in

in Asia

Asia
1 = Studied abroad in Asia

Background variables

44

Table 3.4 (cont’d)
Gender

Gender of the respondent

0 = Male
1 = Female

First-generation

Respondent was a first-

0 = Not a first-generation

generation university

university graduate

graduate

1 = First-generation
university graduate

Study variable
Professional major

Respondent studied a

0 = Did not study a

professional major at

professional major

university (including

1 = studied a professional

architecture, engineering,

major

education, health,
management & commerce)

Limitations of the study
The final section of this chapter concerns limitations. It is important to clarify what
this study was designed to measure and what was beyond the scope. There are six
limitations that will be noted in this section. First, there was no comparison group. This
means that the results cannot be generalized to compare the population that participate in
study abroad programs against that which does not; the results will be specific to the
participant population. Although comparison group methodology is preferred by some,
Astin (1993) notes that the passage of time brings changes to all groups, and so a nonparticipant may also have changed in unidentifiable ways, further confounding the results.
Second, in a related limitation, the current research study may have a self-selection
bias. This is a traditional weakness of study abroad research (Twombley, Salisbury,
Tumanut & Klut, 2012). Given the sample size and the quest for meaningful sub-group

45

data, random selection was impractical. This means that the results should be interpreted
as a positive picture of the outcomes, which may omit the perspectives of graduates who
had a less positive outlook on their study abroad experience and therefore declined
participation.
Third, this was a perception study. The results are not objective measures and this
necessarily frames the outcomes. Although self-assessment type measures in higher
education are sometimes criticized, they should also be acknowledged for the value they
provide in understanding how participants perceive experiences. Objective data can lead
to inappropriate interpretation of graduate employment statistics, such as the use of income
as a proxy for success (Teichler, 2009).
The fourth limitation concerns sample size. Although adequate overall, samples in
some categories were too small to yield a meaningful statistical analysis. In some cases, it
was possible to group variables, in order to provide some analysis of areas of interest. In
other areas, it will be necessary to undertake further research to fill the gaps, such as career
benefits of international internships or short-term study abroad, or study abroad outcomes
concerning world regions not covered in this study.
As a fifth limitation, the timing of this study may not be ideal for identifying the
phenomenon of interest, that is, the connection between study abroad and careers. It is
foreseeable that a worker may not be tasked with international strategic work or an
overseas posting until later in their employment experience. Although it is unfortunate and
it may dampen the results, there are other reasons for choosing the early career stages of
the career, related to the proximity of the university experience to the employment

46

experience (Teichler, 2009). Until further longitudinal research is undertaken, we will not
fully understand this phenomenon.
Finally, this study did not account for latent variables that may be important when
discussing education and career outcomes. Other researchers have identified personality as
a variable in the decision to employ or not to employ a graduate (Messer & Wolter, 2007).
At the same time, the personality of the interviewers may influence whether a graduate
accepts a position at firm A or firm B. Motivation, intelligence and savvy should also be
added to this list, and there are possibly other variables that prove difficult to capture in
data or compensate for through method. This means that research may never fully isolate
the value of study abroad to a student or graduate.

47

CHAPTER 4
Sample Profile
One of the purposes of this study was to provide a better understanding of the
Australian participants of study abroad programs, their background and their early career
choices. As an exploratory study, an extensive amount of descriptive data were collected.
This chapter presents these descriptive results and attempts to draw together key pieces of
respondent profiles in order to assist in framing the answers to the research questions.
Profile information presented in this chapter includes personal background information, an
overview of current employment, university study patterns, international study program
information, and international experiences prior to higher education.
Profile of the Respondents: Background Information
Age, Gender, Indigenous Identity
The age range of participants was 22 to 39 years. The average was 26 years and the
mode was 25 years (results are provided in Table E.1 in the Appendices). Consistent with
national participation data on gender for both higher education (DEEWR, 2008) and study
abroad (Olsen, 2010), there were more female respondents than male. Females represented
66.5% (149) of respondents (see Table 4.1), slightly higher than the corresponding national
figure of 59% for 2009 (Olsen, 2010). No participants in the study identified as Aboriginal
or Torres Strait Islander. Indigenous enrolment at Australian universities represented 0.9%
at around this time (DEEWR, 2008).

48

Table 4.1
Gender of study respondents
Gender

Frequency

Percent

Male

75

33.5

Female

149

66.5

Total

224

100%

Country of Residence, Citizenship, High School, Languages Spoken
As a result of the multicultural nature of the Australian population and the high
enrolment levels of international students in higher education, there was a notable level of
diversity across the sample. Eighteen percent of respondents lived abroad (at the time of
the survey) in 15 different countries (see Table 4.2). Although similar in total, this group
did not completely overlap with citizenship, indicating that some Australian citizens were
residing abroad. Overall, 93.9% of respondents held Australian citizenship, and 23% of
respondents (n=52) held dual citizenship, including Australian citizenship in every case.
Twenty-six percent of Australian citizens held dual citizenship. Overall, respondents in
the sample held citizenship in 23 countries (see Table 4.3).

49

Table 4.2
Country of current residence of study respondents
Country

Frequency

Percent

Australia

185

81.9

Japan

6

2.7

UK

6

2.7

USA

6

2.7

Canada

4

1.8

Singapore

3

1.3

China

2

0.9

Germany

2

0.9

South Korea

2

0.9

Vietnam

2

0.9

Colombia

1

0.4

France

1

0.4

Italy

1

0.4

Norway

1

0.4

Taiwan

1

0.4

Tanzania

1

0.4

Total

224

100%

Table 4.3
Countries of citizenship represented in the sample
Australia

France

Italy

Singapore

USA

Brazil

Germany

Malaysia

Sweden

Zimbabwe

Canada

Hong Kong

New Zealand

Switzerland

Venezuela

China

India

Pakistan

Taiwan

Czech Republic

Indonesia

Peru

UK

n=214, n=54(dual citizenship)

50

Respondents were asked where they completed high school. Ninety-three percent
completed high school in Australia while 6.7% completed high school abroad. Eleven
countries were represented in this group, which was similar, though not identical, to the
citizenship of respondents (see Table 4.4). Of particular relevance to this study, 52% of
respondents identified as speaking a language other than English and four respondents
identified as speaking four languages other than English (see Table 4.5). The main
languages represented were French, Japanese, Spanish, Mandarin, German and Italian (see
Table 4.6)
Table 4.4
Country where high school education was completed by respondents
Australia (208)

Hong Kong

Norway

Brazil

Indonesia

Singapore (4)

China (2)

South Korea

Taiwan

France

Malaysia

Zimbabwe

n=223

Table 4.5
Number of languages spoken by respondents
Languages spoken

Frequency

Percent

Only English

108

48.4%

Two language

115

51.6%

Three languages

35

15.5%

Four languages

13

5.8%

Five Languages

4

1.8%

n=223

51

Table 4.6
Languages spoken by respondents in the sample
Arabic

Greek

Malay

Serbian

Urdu

Cantonese

Hungarian

Mandarin

Shona

Vietnamese

Danish

Indonesian

Marathi

Spanish

Dutch

Italian

Norwegian

Swedish

French

Japanese

Persian

Telugu

German

Korean

Portuguese

Thai

n=223 (26 Languages)
Socio-economic Background
To ascertain the socioeconomic background of the respondents, two indicators were
collected. Firstly, respondents were asked to report the level of education attained by their
mother and father. Educational attainment is a generally accepted indicator of social
background (Centre for the Study of Higher Education, 2008; James, 2002). Taken
together, results indicated that 34% of respondents were first-generation university
graduates. Table 4.7 displays the results by education level.
Table 4.7
Highest education of mother, father of respondents
Level of Education

Mother

Mother

Father

Father

frequency

percent

frequency

percent

10 years or less

33

15.1

43

19.8

11-12 years (Senior Secondary)

78

35.8

51

23.5

Bachelor degree

78

35.8

81

37.3

Graduate degree

29

13.3

42

19.4

Total

218

100%

217

100%

Second, the department responsible for tertiary education in Australia (DIISRTE)
uses an SES index to measure the enrolment of low SES students in Australian

52

universities. The index uses the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Socio-economic
Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Index of Occupation and Education (IOE) as well as the
number of students receiving government income support to classify postcodes by low,
medium and high SES. The low and high categories represent the 25% most
disadvantaged and advantaged neighborhoods respectively (DIISRTE, 2013a). For this
project, the index based on the 2006 census data was used.
It was not feasible to ask respondents for their home address during high school, or
parental address, as used by the Australian Government. As a proxy high school data were
collected and matched to postcodes, and the corresponding SES designation was assigned
based on the DIISRTE classification. Although this is not precisely the same method used
by the Australian Government, it is a reasonable estimate for understanding the
socioeconomic position of a school when individual data are not available (Marks,
McMillan, Jones &Ainsley, 2000). Accordingly, 11.7% of respondents were classified as
low, and 88.3% were classified as medium or high (see Table 4.8), in terms of the high
school they attended. Against the national statistics, students from low SES high schools
are underrepresented in this study. Low SES enrolment in Australian universities has
remained steady at around 15% for the last two decades (DEEWR, 2009).
Table 4.8
SES category of high school of respondents
SES Category

Frequency

Percent

Low

22

11.7

Medium

69

36.7

High

97

51.6

Total

188^

100
^ International high schools were not included

53

To summarize, the sample group was around 26 years of age and more female than
male. Although there were no indigenous respondents, there was a notable amount of
international diversity represented. Respondents held multiple citizenships, went to school
in other countries and worked abroad at the time of data collection. More than half of the
sample identified as speaking a language other than English, consistent with language
study during education and a high migrant population in Australia: 27% of 18-34 year old
Australians were born overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). Socioeconomic
indicators suggested that respondents from medium and high socioeconomic groups were
over-represented. This is consistent with study abroad research in other countries, and
considering the cost of international study, this is not a surprising result. In the next
section, I will provide an overview of the employment profile of the respondents.
Profile of the Respondents: Current Employment
The survey asked a series of questions about current employment. The most
typical study pattern for Australian students is to complete study at the end of the calendar
year (late November or early December). However, students may also finish studies in
June. On average, the respondents in the sample had been in the workplace for three years
(M=3.03). The range was between 5.5 and 1.5 years, depending on the semester of
graduation. Table 4.9 provides a breakdown of the sample by graduation year.

54

Table 4.9
Year of graduation of respondents
Year

Frequency

Percent

2007

11

4.9

2008

35

15.5

2009

62

27.4

2010

74

32.7

2011

44

19.5

Total

226

100%

The sample displayed a high degree of turnover in employment positions,
considering the average time in the workplace. As shown in Table 4.10, 63.3% changed
jobs at least once since graduation.
Table 4.10
Number of employers of respondents since graduation
Number

Frequency

Percent

One employer

83

36.7

Two employers

78

34.5

Three employers

45

20.0

Four employers

8

3.5

Five or more employers

12

5.3

Total

226

100%

As part of the screening process, respondents were asked their current activity.
Respondents who did not include at least part-time employment were screened out.
Therefore most of the sample, 89.8% (n =203) worked full-time or were self-employed.
Table 4.11 provides the sample breakdown.

55

Table 4.11
Current work mode of respondents
Work mode

Frequency

Percent

Full-time employed

189

83.6

Self-employed

14

6.2

Part-time employed

23

10.2

Total

226

100%

Country of Work
Thirty-eight respondents (16.9%) worked overseas (at the time of the survey) in 16
countries (data is presented in Table E.2 the Appendices). This list was similar to the
country of residence but not identical. A few respondents appeared to be posted overseas
on a temporary basis while retaining residence in Australia. Three international students
had returned home, while one worked in Australia and one worked in a third country.
Fourteen of these 38 respondents (37%) were working in a country in which they
previously studied abroad. Japan was the country with the highest number of returnees
(n=3).
Type of Position Held
The type of position was classified according the categories used by the Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The typical position held by respondents in the sample was
Professional (70.8%). As shown in Table 4.12, few respondents identified as community
or personal services workers or technician and trade workers.

56

Table 4.12
Type of position held by respondents
Position

Frequency

Percent

Professional

160

70.8

Other type of position

26

11.5

Manager

20

8.8

Clerical or administrative

11

4.9

5

2.2

Technician or trade

4

1.8

Total

226

100%

Community or personal
services

As shown in Table 4.13, the service sector was the largest area of employment for
respondents (32.9%). This was followed by Education and training (24.1%) and
Healthcare and social assistance (7.5%). No respondents indicated employment in the
following areas:
•

Agriculture, forestry & fishing

•

Electricity, gas, water supply

•

Wholesale trade

•

Accommodation & food services

•

Transport, postal & warehousing

•

Rental, hiring & real estate services

57

Table 4.13
Industry of employment of respondents
Industry

Frequency

Percent

Other services

70

32.8

Education & training

30

14.1

Healthcare & social assistance

16

7.5

Public administration & safety

14

6.6

Mining

13

6.1

Information, media & telecommunications

13

6.1

Financial & insurance services

13

6.1

Arts & recreation services

13

6.1

Manufacturing

11

5.2

Construction

10

4.7

Retail trade

10

4.7

Total

213

100

About Their Organizations
The majority of respondents (61.5%) worked in the private sector, and the largest
group of respondents worked for an organization with an international scope (41.6%). In
terms of organization size, respondents were more likely to work for an organization with
more than 101 employees (61.5%). These statistics broadly reflected the profile of
graduate employment in Australia (Graduate Careers Australia, 2010) though national data
did not capture organization scope. The breakdowns are shown in tables 4.14, 4.15 and
4.16.

58

Table 4.14
Type of organizations employing respondents in the sample
Sector

Frequency

Percent

Private

139

61.5

Public

65

28.8

Non-profit

22

9.7

Total

226

100%

Table 4.15
Scope of organizations employing respondents in the sample
Category

Frequency

Percent

Local

32

14.2

Regional

51

22.5

National

49

21.7

International

94

41.6

Total

226

100%

Table 4.16
Size of organizations employing respondents in the sample
Number of employees

Frequency

Percent

1-19

53

23.5

20-100

34

15.0

101-500

44

19.5

More than 500

95

42.0

Total

226

100%

To summarize, the average respondent had been working for around three years,
had more than one employer during this time, and held a full-time role as a professional in
Australia. Most respondents worked for a large, private-sector organization with an
international scope. The top three sectors of employment were Other services, Education

59

and training and Healthcare and social assistance. The profile of study for the
respondents will be outlined in the next section.
Background of the Respondents: Study Information
Institution of Enrolment
As mentioned in the description of the sample in the previous chapter, 11
institutions were represented in the study. All 11 were research universities, but the
institutions represented a variety of institutional contexts including metropolitan, regional,
traditional, technological and newer institutions2, though metropolitan universities may be
over-represented. Participating universities were located in five states (Queensland, New
South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia), spanning the largest
population centers in the country. The adjusted sample size per institution (removing 2012
graduates) is shown in Table 4.17.

2

1 Group of Eight, 4 Australian Technology Network, 4 1960s-70s universities and 2 post 1988.
60

Table 4.17
Sample by institution represented in the sample
Institution alias

Frequency

Percent

Institution 1

15

6.6

Institution 2

35

15.5

Institution 3

5

2.2

Institution 4

8

3.6

Institution 5

24

10.6

Institution 6

15

6.6

Institution 7

13

5.8

Institution 8

12

5.3

Institution 9

21

9.3

Institution 10

67

29.6

Institution 11

11

4.9

Total

226

100%

Mode of Study & Residency Status
During their bachelor degree, most of the respondents in the sample studied fulltime. Only 1.8% (n=4) indicated that they studied part-time, while 6.7% (n=15) studied a
combination of full-time and part-time. Only 11 (4.9%) respondents were international
students, however this may have been a sampling issue. As mentioned previously,
respondents who indicated that they are currently studying full-time were screened out of
the survey, which may have inadvertently reduced the number of international students
participating. Part-time and international students may be under-represented in the sample.
In 2008, 22.1% of undergraduate students were enrolled part-time and international
students made up 23.7% of the undergraduate university population (DIISRTE, 2013b).

61

Major and Academic Achievement
All majors, as classified in the Australian higher education statistics, were captured
in the sample except for Agriculture, Environment and Related Studies. Consistent with
national statistics (DEEWR, 2008; Olsen, 2010), Management and Commerce and Society
and Culture were the most popular majors for undergraduate enrolment and for study
abroad participants. However, unlike national trends that list Health as the third most
common major for study abroad (Olsen, 2010), Creative Arts was the third-most
represented major in this study (see Table 4.18). Management and Commerce majors were
proportional to overall enrollment trends. Creative Arts majors were over-represented
while all other majors may be under-represented (DEEWR, 2008).
Many Australian students study more than one major, often through the completion
of two concurrent bachelor degrees. Fifty respondents indicated that they had more than
one major concentration, though whether these were double degrees is unknown. The
most popular majors for those undertaking more than one major were Society and Culture
(n=34), Management and Commerce (n=22), Engineering (n=14), Creative Arts (n=14)
and Natural Science (n=12).
Respondents were asked to rate their own academic achievement during their
degree. More than half of respondents rated their academic achievement as “very good”
(data are presented in Table E.3 in the Appendices). These data were negatively skewed
and this was likely to reflect an academic requirement to participate in a study abroad
program rather than the general student population.

62

Table 4.18
Academic major of respondents
Major

Frequency

Percent

More than one major

50

22.7

Management & commerce

50

22.7

Society & culture

42

19.1

Creative arts

23

10.5

Engineering

16

7.3

Natural and physical sciences

13

5.9

Architecture & building

11

5.0

Health

8

3.6

Education

4

1.8

Information Technology

3

1.4

Total

220

100%

Tuition Financing
The most common method of financing a bachelor degree in Australia is through
the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) deferred payment system, which
allows students to defer payment of tuition until they are earning over a set income
threshold. Seventy-one percent (n=159) of respondents indicated that their major form of
tuition finance was HECS deferred. At the other end of the spectrum, 17 (7.6%)
participants indicated that they were Australian full fee-paying students. Only three
institutions were represented in this group, and the figure was much higher than the
population statistic of 2.1% (DEEWR, 2008), even though this mode of tuition financing
was phased out in 2009. Table 4.19 provides a breakdown of tuition financing methods.

63

Table 4.19
Tuition financing for bachelor degree of respondents
Method of finance

Frequency

Percent

HECS deferred

159

71.3

HECS upfront

30

13.5

International fee-paying

10

4.5

Australian fee-paying

17

7.6

Scholarship/other

7

3.1

Total

223

100%

Graduate Study
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were interested in graduate study.
Almost half, 44.6% (n=98) were either already enrolled or planning to enroll in a graduate
program (data is presented in Table E.4 in the Appendices). This proportion may not be
representative of the larger population because several institutions reported using
university email addresses to contact potential participants. Those who are not studying
are less likely to maintain a university email address, so they may be under-represented in
the sample.
To summarize, the study profile can be characterized as mostly Australian domestic
students who were undertaking bachelor degrees at Australian research universities
between 2005 and 2011. International and part-time students may be under-represented in
the sample. The respondents perceived themselves to be high academic achievers who
were most likely to have completed degrees in Management and Commerce, Society and
Culture or Creative Arts. Almost 23% completed a double major or a double degree.
Tuition data confirmed that students from a high SES group may be over-represented in

64

the sample. Almost half of the respondents had commenced or were planning to undertake
graduate study.
Profile of the Study Abroad Experience
Central to this study is the international study experience and the parameters
surrounding this. In this section, I will provide an overview of the descriptive statistics of
respondents in this area, and will also identify some patterns and connections within the
data.
Requirement to Study Abroad & Financing
First, as study abroad is a degree requirement for some bachelor degrees,
respondents were asked if this condition applied to them. As reported in Table 4.20, for
the majority of respondents, study abroad was not a degree requirement.
Table 4.20
Number of respondents with an international study component as a requirement of their
degree
Category

Frequency

Percent

Yes – requirement

14

8.1

No

159

91.9

Total

173

100%

Study abroad can be an expensive undertaking, and so respondents were asked to
give an indication of the methods of financing used in order to go abroad. As shown in
Table 4.21, most respondents used personal funds or savings. More than half were
recipients of funding from their institution, and almost 16% received Australian
government funding. Thirty-four percent financed some of their expenses by taking on
debt in the form of OS-HELP, a government higher education loan, or a bank loan. In the

65

Other category, respondents listed the Australian Government youth allowance, JASSO
(Japanese Government) scholarships, receiving institution scholarships and home
institution loans.
Against national statistics, more respondents in this sample received an Australian
Government scholarship (15.9% compared to 6%) or took an OS HELP loan (27.4%
compared with 21%). Slightly less received institutional funding (56.6% against 61%)
(Olsen, 2011).
Table 4.21
Methods used to finance international study by respondents (more than one option
permitted)
Method of finance

Frequency

Percent (N=226)

Personal funds/savings

180

79.6

Institutional grant or scholarship

128

56.6

Family support

92

40.7

OS Help

62

27.4

Australian Government Scholarship

36

15.9

Bank loan

15

6.6

Foundation grant or scholarship

14

6.2

Other

25

11.1

About the Study Abroad Experiences
Respondents were able to provide information on up to three study abroad
experiences. Fifty-four (23.9%) respondents studied abroad more than once. The
proportion of respondents with one, two and three study abroad experiences is shown in
Table 4.22.

66

Table 4.22
Number of times respondents studied abroad (maximum 3 reported)
Number of times abroad

Frequency

Percent

Only once

172

76.1

Twice

41

18.1

Three times

13

5.8

Primary Study Abroad Experience
For the purpose of analysis, countries were coded into six world regions, with UK
and Ireland coded separately from Europe, as shown in Table 4.23. This recognizes
Australia’s traditional connections to the UK and allowed for a clearer analysis of student
mobility to Continental Europe, which often includes a language component. Put together,
48% of students studied in UK, Ireland and Continental Europe, consistent with national
data that lists Europe as the number one study destination for Australian students (Olsen,
2010, 2012). Nationally, 32% of students went to Asia in 2009 (Olsen, 2010), which
means that Asia may be under-represented in this sample.
Table 4.23
Region of study abroad (primary experience)
Region

Frequency

Percent

Asia

44

19.6

Continental Europe

67

29.8

North America

68

30.2

UK & Ireland

41

18.2

South America

4

1.8

Eastern Europe

1

0.4

Total

225

100%

67

Overall, 27 countries were represented in the sample and the top five study
destinations were UK (n=44), USA (n=40), Canada (n=20), Japan (n=18), and China
(n=13). No respondents studied abroad in Africa or the Middle East. The full list of
destination countries is shown in Table 4.24.

68

Table 4.24
Country of study abroad (primary experience)
Country

Frequency

Percent

Argentina

1

0.4

Austria

6

2.7

Canada

20

8.9

Chile

1

0.4

China

13

5.8

Denmark

9

4.0

Ecuador

2

0.9

France

9

4.0

Germany

9

4.0

Hong Kong

2

0.9

India

1

0.4

Italy

10

4.4

Japan

18

8.0

Korea, South

1

0.4

Malaysia

3

1.3

Malta

1

0.4

Mexico

5

2.2

The Netherlands

4

1.8

Norway

2

0.9

The Philippines

2

0.9

Singapore

4

1.8

Slovenia

1

0.4

Spain

5

2.2

Sweden

11

4.9

Switzerland

1

0.4

UK

40

17.9

USA

44

19.7

Total

225

100%

69

Duration, Study Mode and Language
As shown in Table 4.25, the majority of respondents, 92.9% (n=209), studied
overseas for more than four months. Short-term programs for Australian students were a
relatively new phenomenon and so this may explain the dominance of semester and
yearlong study abroad programs in this sample. However, it is likely that they were underrepresented with 2009 national data indicating that 29.5% of study abroad experiences at
all levels (undergraduate and graduate) were short-term (Olsen, 2010).
Table 4.25
Duration of study abroad (primary experience)
Duration

Frequency

Percent

One month or less

3

1.3

2-3 months

13

5.8

4-6 months

135

60.0

7-12 months

68

30.2

More than 12 months

6

2.7

Total

225

100%

The main activity abroad also reflected the tradition of semester and year exchange
programs at Australian universities, where students enroll directly in a foreign partner
university for one or two semesters. Only 8% (n=18) of participants did not undertake a
traditional exchange program. The breakdown is provided in Table 4.26. Again, national
data indicate that non-traditional programs were significantly under-represented in the
sample. Olsen (2010) reported that in 2009, around 67% of international study experiences
were non-traditional programs such as short-term programs, placements or practical
training, and research. This is likely to be a sampling issue as centralized study abroad

70

offices were less likely to collect participant data on programs managed by academic
departments.
Table 4.26
Main activity in study abroad program (primary experience)
Activity

Frequency

Percent

207

91.6

7

3.1

7

3.1

Double/joint degree

3

1.3

Other

2

0.9

Total

226

100%

Academic courses taught at
an overseas institution
Study tour facilitated or led
by home institution
Internship, practicum,
clinical placement

Almost three quarters of participants used English as the main language or
language of instruction during their study abroad program (though they may have been
studying in a country where English is not the dominant language). Participants (n=61)
studied in 11 languages other than English (see Table 4.27).

71

Table 4.27
Main language of the study abroad activity (primary experience)
Language

Frequency

Percent

English

164

72.9

Japanese

14

6.2

Mandarin

11

4.9

Spanish

11

4.9

French

9

4.0

Germany

5

2.3

Italian

5

2.3

Swedish

2

0.9

Dutch

1

0.4

Hindi

1

0.4

Korean

1

0.4

Norwegian

1

0.4

Total

225

100%

Subsequent Experiences Abroad
As mentioned previously, almost 24% (n=54) of respondents studied abroad more
than once. The trends for the second experience were different from the first. For the
second time abroad, participants were more likely to undertake study modes different from
the traditional exchange model. They were also more likely to go to Asia, were more
likely to study for a short duration, and were more likely to study in a language other than
English. Tables 4.28, 4.29, 4.30 and 4.31 provide the breakdown of region, duration, study
mode and language for the second study abroad experience.

72

Table 4.28
Region of study (experience 2)
Region

Frequency

Percent

Asia

20

37.0

Continental Europe

12

22.2

North America

7

13.0

UK & Ireland

11

20.4

South America

2

3.7

Eastern Europe

2

3.7

Total

54

100%

Frequency

Percent

30

55.6

11

20.4

6

11

3

5.6

Research

2

3.7

Other

2

3.7

Total

54

100%

Table 4.29
Mode of study (experience 2)
Activity
Academic courses taught at
an overseas institution
Study tour facilitated or led
by home institution
Internship, practicum,
clinical placement
Volunteering/community
service

73

Table 4.30
Duration of study (experience 2)
Duration

Frequency

Percent

One month or less

16

32.0

2-3 months

6

12.0

4-6 months

17

34.0

7-12 months

8

16.0

More than 12 months

3

6.0

Total

50

100%

Table 4.31
Language of study (experience 2)
Language

Frequency

Percent

English

30

63.8

Spanish

4

8.5

German

3

6.4

Japanese

3

6.4

French

2

4.3

Korean

2

4.3

Italian

1

2.1

Mandarin

1

2.1

Thai

1

2.1

Total

47

100%

For experience three (n=13), respondents were much more likely to be undertaking
international study experiences different from the first experience (data tables are
presented in Appendix D). They were most likely to be studying in Asia (61.5%), for a
short time (58.3%), undertaking an internship, study tour, or volunteering (66.7%). They
were likely to be using English as their main language.

74

Trends and Connections
While the tables of descriptive data are informative, they do not tell the full story of
this sample. In this section I will draw together some trends across the variables and
connect variables to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the international
experiences of this group.
Firstly, there were some notable trends around study in Asia. The reported study
experiences in Asia were more likely to be short-term (1-3 months) than study in any other
region (see Figure 4.1). Twenty-three percent of experiences in Asia (for the primary
study experience) were short-term, compared to 5% in Continental Europe, the next
highest region for short-term study. The trend continued for experience two and three. As
shown in Table 4.32, Asia was also much more likely to be chosen as a destination for the
second or third experience abroad.
Table 4.32
Region of experience 1 and duration (number of participants)

Region of
experience
1

Total

Asia
Cont. Europe
North
America
South
America
UK & Ireland
Eastern
Europe

Duration experience 1
Short
Medium
Long
10
17
17
4
36
27
2
46
20

Total
44
67
68

0

3

1

4

0
0

32
1

9
0

41
1

16

135

74

225

75

Table 4.33
Percentage of participants by region of study for experiences 1, 2 & 3
Region

Primary experience (%)

Experience 2 (%)

Experience 3 (%)

Asia

19.6

37.0

61.5

Continental Europe

29.8

22.2

15.4

North America

30.2

13.0

15.4

UK & Ireland

18.2

20.4

7.7

South America

1.8

3.7

0

Eastern Europe

0.4

3.7

0

n=223

n=54

n=13

Slightly more students who chose to study in Asia for the first experience studied
abroad again compared to those who chose to study in other regions for the first experience
(see Figure 4.2). Thirty-six percent of those who studied in Asia in their primary
experience studied abroad multiple times compared with 29% for Continental Europe.
Whether this relates to the short-term nature of the average Asia experience, Asia as a
destination or other factors is unknown.
Table 4.34
Region of primary experience and number of study abroad experiences (number of
participants)

Region of
experience 1

Total

Asia
Cont. Europe
North
America
South
America
UK & Ireland

Number of times studied abroad
Once
twice
three times
28
12
4
47
13
7
60
8
0

Total
44
67
68

2

1

0

3

34
171

5
39

2
13

41
223

76

International study experiences undertaken the second or third time were more
likely to be in modes other than traditional academic classes at a foreign university, that is,
study tours, internships, practicums, volunteering, community service or research (data are
presented in Tables F.1, F.2 and F.3 in the Appendices). As such, experiences in Asia
were also more likely to be undertaken in a non-traditional mode. Even for the first
experience, almost 23% of Asia participants, compared with 7.5% of Continental Europe
participants studied in a non-traditional mode (data are presented in Table F.1 in the
Appendices). By experience three, most students were undertaking non-traditional study
in Asia. Accordingly, study experiences in Asian countries may have been substantially
different from experiences in other regions/countries, beyond national and cultural
differences.
Second, across all regions, the second and third experiences were more likely to be
short-term, compared with the primary experience (data is presented in Tables F.4 and F.5
in the Appendices). The use of a language other than English for the activity abroad was
associated with the region/country of study (this will be discussed further in the analysis
section). The second experience was slightly more likely to be in a language other than
English. Following the connection to destination, English-speaking destinations (North
America, UK& Ireland) dropped in popularity after the first experience. Across all three
experiences, 30% of respondents (n=68) studied in a language other than English (data are
presented in Table E.9 the Appendices).
Third, institutional factors may also have been acting upon study patterns. More
than 50% of the sample group at one institution studied abroad more than once. At the
other end of the spectrum, the entire sample for one institution only studied abroad once.

77

There are also notable patterns in study duration based on the destination country. Study
in China (for the primary experience) was more likely to be short-term, while study in
Canada, UK or USA was likely to be medium-term (4-6 months). Long-term study
destinations included Japan, Spain and France. Italy was the only study destination that
was dispersed almost evenly across the short, medium and long-term study categories (see
Table F.6 in the Appendices for the country/duration breakdown).
Finally, 16 of 54 (30%) respondents who studied abroad more than once returned to
the same destination for the second experience. For the third experience, 6 of 13 (46%)
respondents had previously studied in that destination. Only one respondent chose the
same destination for three experiences. The UK (n=5) attracted the most repeat
participants, followed by Japan (n=3), USA (n=2) and China (n=2). These patterns,
illustrated in Figure 4.3, will be expanded in the next section.
Table 4.35
Patterns across regions for first and second experiences (number of participants)

Asia
Asia
Cont. Europe
North
America
Region of
South
experience
America
1
UK &
Ireland
Eastern
Europe
Total

10
6
3

Region of experience 2
Cont.
North
South
UK & Eastern
Europe America America Ireland Europe
4
1
0
0
1
6
3
1
3
1
1
2
0
2
0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

20

12

7

2

11

2

78

International Experiences Prior to Higher Education
Respondents were asked about previous experiences studying, living and working
abroad. Thirty-one percent of respondents (n=69) reported an affirmative response to this
question. Forty-one (21%) studied abroad before university and 23 (10%) worked abroad.
While 41 also responded to living abroad, in many cases this appears to be the same
experience as either the study or work experience so those categories are the focus of this
analysis. In the free-text box, a few respondents reported more experiences than captured
by the survey questions, demonstrating complex patterns of living, working and studying
abroad in some cases. Experiences included multiple school trips, interning, volunteering,
working as a camp counselor (USA), and as an au pair.
In connecting prior international experiences to study abroad during university,
more patterns emerged. Nineteen of 41 (46%) respondents who studied abroad before
higher education returned to their earlier study destination while at university. An
additional three respondents were international students who studied in Australia before
university, returned to Australia for their bachelor degree and subsequently studied abroad
in another country. In connecting university study abroad to prior study abroad, Japan was
the most popular return destination (n=4), followed by France (n=2), Germany (n=2) and
USA (n=2).
Further Analysis of the Connections
To investigate the connections further and assist with answering the research
questions in the next chapter, chi-square analysis was used to demonstrate the relationships
between certain background variables. Firstly, study in a foreign language was
significantly associated with region of study for all major regions (see Table 4.33),

79

meaning that the probability of choosing a certain region was not the same for a student
who studied in a foreign language and those who did not.
Table 4.36
Chi square results: Region of study, study in a language other than English
‫ݔ‬ଶ

Region

d.f.

‫݁ݑ݈ܽݒ_݌‬

Asia

25.36

1

.000

Central Europe

13.875

1

.000

North America

17.102

1

.000

UK & Ireland

11.139

1

.000

The association between Asian study in the first experience and short-term duration
was significant (‫ ݔ‬ଶ ሺ1ሻ ൌ 15.369, ‫ ݌‬൏ .000ሻ. A student studying in Asia was 6.63 times
more likely to be studying short-term than studying medium-long term (OR = 6.63). There
was a significant association between studying abroad multiple times and studying in a
language other than English (‫ ݔ‬ଶ ሺ1ሻ ൌ 18.334, ‫ ݌‬൏ .000ሻ. The odds of studying in
another language were 3.90 times higher if the respondent studied abroad multiple times.
Individuals who studied abroad before university tended to study abroad multiple times
during undergraduate education (‫ ݔ‬ଶ ሺ1ሻ ൌ 21.318, ‫ ݌‬൏ .000, OR =5.35).
There were important connections between SES and international study. A
significant association was found between study abroad before university and high
socioeconomic status (‫ ݔ‬ଶ ሺ1ሻ ൌ 4.298, ‫ ݌‬൏ .038, OR =2.29). Students from a high SES
high school were at least two times more likely to study abroad before university than
those from medium-or-low- SES groups. While there also appeared to be a connection
between studying abroad in a foreign language and SES (see Figure 4.4), the sample size in
the low SES group who studied in a foreign language was too low for analysis. The same

80

applied to the number of times a respondent studied abroad (see Figure 4.5); while there
appeared to be a trend, the data were insufficient to provide a meaningful statistical
analysis.
Table 4.37
SES and study in a language other than English (number and percentage of respondents)
Studied in a language
other than English
Yes
Low
High
Medium
school SES
High
Total

Count

Total

No
3

19

22

13.6%

86.4%

100.0%

27

41

68

39.7%

60.3%

100.0%

29

68

97

% within High school SES
Count

29.9%
59

70.1%
128

100.0%
187

% within High school SES

31.6%

68.4%

100.0%

% within High school SES
Count
% within High school SES
Count

Table 4.38
SES and studied abroad multiple times (number and percentage of respondents)
Studied abroad more
than once
Yes
Low
High
Medium
school SES
High
Total

Count

Total

No
2

20

22

9.1%

90.9%

100.0%

17

52

69

24.6%

75.4%

100.0%

27

70

97

% within High school SES
Count

27.8%
46

72.2%
142

100.0%
188

% within High school SES

24.5%

75.5%

100.0%

% within High school SES
Count
% within High school SES
Count

There may also have been some interesting variation across SES groups for
destination of study. As shown in Figure 4.6, medium and high SES students preferred

81

Continental Europe and North America, while low SES students preferred UK & Ireland,
North America and Asia.
Table 4.39
SES and destination of study (primary experience) (number and percentage of respondents)
Asia
Count
% within High
school SES
Count
Medium % within High
school SES
Count
High
% within High
school SES
Count
% within High
school SES
Low
High
school
SES

Total

5
22.7%

Region of study experience 1
Cont.
North
South
Europe
America America
4
6
0
18.2%
27.3%
0.0%

UK &
Ireland
7
31.8%

15
21.7%

24
34.8%

24
34.8%

0
0.0%

6
8.7%

17
17.5%

29
29.9%

26
26.8%

2
2.1%

22
22.7%

37
19.7%

57
30.3%

56
29.8%

2
1.1%

35
18.6%

In terms of employment, working for an organization with an international scope
was not independent of one’s SES. High SES participants were 1.92 times more likely to
work for an international organization ሺ‫ ݔ‬ଶ ሺ1ሻ ൌ 4.737, ‫ ݌‬൏ .030,OR=1.92). There was
also a significant association between studying abroad in a foreign language and working
for an international organization ሺ‫ ݔ‬ଶ ሺ1ሻ ൌ 3.838, ‫ ݌‬൏ .05,OR = 1.77). Being required to
undertake study abroad as part of the bachelor degree was also significantly associated
with working for an organization with an international scope ሺ‫ ݔ‬ଶ ሺ1ሻ ൌ 8.439, ‫ ݌‬൏
.004, ܱܴ ൌ 5.83ሻ. Therefore, there was a 5.83 times greater likelihood of a graduate
working for an international organization if they chose a bachelor degree with a
compulsory study abroad requirement.

82

As presented in previous sections, study abroad appeared to have a sticky effect
(Parey & Waldinger, 2008); not only were those who studied abroad before university
more likely to study abroad again, but they were likely to return to the same destination for
study, or they were likely to work in their study abroad destination after graduation. Fortyseven percent of those who studied abroad before university returned to their host country
for study abroad while at university. Additionally, 38% of those working abroad at the
time of the survey were working in a country in which they studied abroad. In the sample,
Japan and UK appeared to be the stickiest countries for Australian students.
Overall, the sample was a very well-travelled group of young people. Across the
respondent group, 30.9% lived abroad before university, 23.9% studied abroad more than
once and 16.8% worked abroad at the time of the survey. Of the 82 respondents who fell
into one or more of these categories, 34 had multiple experiences with the same country,
indicating that they were developing a strong relationship with that country. The next
chapter will explore the research questions and connect these respondent profiles to the
main findings of the study.

83

CHAPTER 5
Results
The purpose of this chapter is to present the answers to the research questions posed in
this study: What are the benefits, as perceived by graduates, of a study abroad experience
during a bachelor degree for their early career experiences?
a) What are the relationships between various characteristics of the program (i.e.,
country/region of study; duration of international experience; type of international
experience; language of experience) and the benefits as perceived by the
graduates?
b) What are the relationships between background characteristics, study
characteristics and current employment context, and the benefits as perceived by
the graduates?
Firstly, to explore the early career benefits, as perceived and reported by the respondents,
the analysis will be divided into three key components: 1) recruitment, 2) work
experiences and job tasks, and 3) overall impact on work and life.
Recruitment
Two survey questions addressed the topic of recruitment. First, respondents were
asked their criteria when seeking employment. Second, respondents were asked their
perception of the recruitment criteria used by their employer when they were hired. Both
questions interrogated areas connected to the international study experience, and in the
case of the second question, asked directly about the relevance of study abroad.
For the criteria of the respondents, compared to other criteria including personal
development, life balance and professional status, the internationally focused criteria such

84

as working abroad and using foreign language skills were ranked at the bottom of the list.
Overall the group appeared to be concerned with self-development and fulfillment ahead of
the type of organization or scope of the position. As shown in Table 5.1, just over 46% of
respondents considered working for an international organization important or very
important, but at the same time, it was not important to almost one third of the sample. In
fact, 41.6% of the sample reported working for an organization with an international scope
or their organization, while classified as local, regional or national, has some dealings
beyond national borders, indicating that some respondents were unable to meet this
criterion with their current position.
Working abroad and using foreign language skills were a very high priority for
only a small segment of the sample. The low result for the foreign language criterion may
relate to the low proportion of the sample that studied in a foreign language while abroad.
However with more than half of the sample identifying as having foreign language skills,
further use of these skills appeared not to form a major part of their early career goals.

85

Table 5.1
Q1. What criteria were important to you when seeking employment? (Percent)
Unimportant/

Very

Of little

Moderately important/

Criteria

importance

important

Important

Possibility of personal development

0.9

7.5

91.6

Accomplishing worthwhile professional

1.3

8.0

90.7

6.2

19.9

73.9

Applying knowledge and skills acquired while 6.2

20.8

73

activities
Enough spare time for other activities (life
balance)

studying
Possibility to explore own ideas

7.1

23.0

69.9

Well recognized professional status

7.5

25.7

66.8

High employment security

16.4

28.0

55.6

High income

12.8

40.7

46.5

Working for an organization with an

32.9

20.9

46.2

Working in a foreign country

40.4

26.2

33.4

Applying foreign language skills

69.0

12.9

18.1

international scope

According to the respondents, their personality was definitively the most important
aspect in recruitment for their employer. As reported in Table 5.2, less than 1% of the
group disagreed on this. Field of study, references and work experience were also
perceived as important to more than half of the sample. Their study abroad experience was
noted as important or very important by almost 44% of respondents. However, similar to
the previous question, just over a quarter of the sample reported their study abroad
experience as of little importance or unimportant to their employer. The specific country
or region of their experience and foreign language skills were at the bottom of the list, with

86

less than one quarter of respondents indicating that their country or region of study was
important to their employer when they were recruited.
Table 5.2
Q2. How important, according to you, were the following aspects for your employer in
recruiting you? (Percent)
Unimportant/

Very

Of little

Moderately important/

Aspects

importance

important

Important

Your personality

0.9

8.5

90.6

Field of study

9.0

16.6

74.4

References or recommendations

14.7

24.0

61.3

Work experience acquired during course of

16.5

26.8

56.7

Your experience/s abroad

25.4

30.8

43.8

Grades

27.1

29.8

43.1

Reputation of the Australian university you

37.3

33.8

28.9

Country/region of experience/s abroad

49.1

26.3

24.6

Foreign language proficiency

73.7

12.0

14.3

study

attended

To summarize, for 43% of respondents, having an international experience was
perceived as important to their future employer, however in only a small number of cases,
this related to the country/region of the study abroad experience or the foreign languages
spoken. Although 46% of respondents reported it was important or very important to work
for an international organization, other criteria relating to their personal and professional
development were more important when the respondents were looking for their first job.
Foreign language usage and proficiency were considered of low importance for most
respondents and their employers. So while the general study abroad experience was

87

considered at least moderately important for employers in around 74% of cases, specific
country and language skills were perceived to be much less salient.
Work Experiences and Job Tasks
Turning now to what the respondents were actually doing in their professional roles
and how this connected to international skills and experience, respondents were asked
about seeking employment abroad or actually working abroad since graduation. Although
a majority of the sample (63.7%) had considered working abroad, only around one quarter
followed through to actually seeking a job abroad (see Table 5.3). Most of this group,
almost 75%, had been successful in securing a job in another country, and all except one
appeared to have accepted that job. A further 11.5% of the sample had traveled abroad for
work since graduation. In total, around 29% of respondents had been engaged in work
tasks across physical borders since completing their bachelor degree studies.
Table 5.3
Q3. Have you had a professional international mobility experience since graduation
(multiple responses permitted)
Category

Frequency

Percent

I have considered working abroad

144

63.7

I have sought employment abroad

55

24.3

41

18.1

40

17.7

26

11.5

I have actually received an offer to work
abroad
I have actually had regular employment
abroad since graduation
I have actually been sent abroad by my
employer on work assignments

In the previous section, I reported that although 46.2% of respondents rated it
important to work for an organization with an international scope, only 41.6% of

88

respondents reported working for an international organization. In response to the next
question, a higher proportion of the sample, 54 %, indicated that their organization had
contact with other countries (refer to Table 5.4). In less than half of these cases, the
respondents’ organizations were in contact with, or doing business with, the country in
which the respondent studied. Slightly more employing organizations worked with the
destination region. Overall, the employing organizations of more than half of the
respondents in the study had no contact with, or business with, the countries or regions in
which these employees studied.
Table 5.4
Q4. To what extent does the organization, institution or company with which you are
associated do business or have contact with other countries? (Percent)
Frequently/
Rarely/

Occasionall

Very

Contact with other countries

Not at all

y

frequently

With other countries in general

27.0

19.0

54.0

With the host region of your study abroad

50.7

18.2

31.1

With the host country of your study abroad

52.2

21.9

25.9

The respondents were next asked about their perception of the importance of
certain internationally related competencies for their current work. As reported in Table
5.5, it is clear that most respondents perceived that the skills to Work with people from
different cultural backgrounds were professionally important. Only around 6% regarded
this competency of low importance. More than half of respondents also rated as important
or very important Knowledge of differences in culture and society. Similar to previous
questions, perceptions of specific country knowledge and foreign language abilities were

89

rated lower, with only 21% of the sample rating Communication in foreign languages as
important or very important.
Table 5.5
Q5. How important do you consider the following competencies for doing your current
work? (Percent)
Unimportan

Competency
Working with people from different cultural
backgrounds

Important/

t/ Of little

Moderately

Very

importance

important

important

6.6

19.1

74.3

20.4

27.8

51.8

31.9

29.6

38.5

64.2

14.6

21.2

Knowledge/understanding of international
differences in culture and society, modes of
behavior in culture and society, lifestyle etc.
Knowledge of other countries (E.g. Economy,
society, legal knowledge)
Communicating in foreign languages

A high standard deviation on the result for Communicating in foreign languages
(SD=1.336, see Table E.14 in the Appendices) suggested wide variation across the sample.
In the last chapter I reported that 30% of the sample studied in a language other than
English for at least one experience. Splitting the responses into two groups by language of
study, English and not English, yielded a different result. Figure 5.1 shows that those who
studied in a language other than English perceived communicating in a foreign language to
be more important than those who studied in English. Thirty percent (compared with
16.6%) of the non-English language group rated it as important or very important, 22%
(compared with 9.6%) rated it as moderately important, and 42.6% (compared with 73.7%)
rated it as unimportant/of little importance. Clearly, having studied in another language

90

while abroad was related to the perception of the importance of foreign language skills in
the workplace.
Table 5.6
Results of Q5 competency communicating in foreign languages for respondents divided by
language of study abroad program (Not English/English) (number of responses)
Communicating in foreign languages

Total

Unimport Of little Moderately Important
Very
ant
importanc important
importan
e
t
Studied in a
language
other than
English
Total

Yes

12

17

18

9

12

68

67

48

15

14

12

156

79

65

33

23

24

224

No

The final aspects of work experiences and job tasks explored were the tasks that
were actually being performed by respondents as part of their daily responsibilities. As
shown in Table 5.6, at this point in their careers, less than 20% of respondents were
frequently using direct knowledge, of a general or a professional nature, of their host
country in their work responsibilities. More than 60% of the sample used direct country
knowledge rarely or not at all. Just over 15% used their language skills (reading, writing
and speaking) at work. Finally, almost 18% of respondents had occasionally, frequently or
very frequently travelled to the host country of their international study experience as part
of their work tasks.

91

Table 5.7
Q6. To what extent do the responsibilities of your work involve the following (Percent):
Frequently/

Work tasks
Using firsthand general knowledge of my host
country culture/society
Using firsthand professional knowledge of my
host country

Not at all/

Occasionall

Very

rarely

y

frequently

61.9

19.5

18.6

63.1

18.5

18.4

78.4

5.8

15.7

78.2

5.9

15.9

82.4

4.3

13.3

Using the language of my host country in
reading and writing (where language is not
English)
Using the language of my host country orally
(where language is not English)
Professional travel to my host country

Similar to the previous question, the Using the language of my host country results
changed when the group was divided by the language of study while abroad. Figures 5.2
and 5.3 show that more than 20% of the respondents who studied abroad in a foreign
language were using that language frequently or very frequently, for reading and writing,
and orally. At the other end of the spectrum, around two thirds of the language group
reported that they used their foreign language skills rarely or not at all.

92

Table 5.8
Language (reading and writing) divided by language of study abroad program (Percent)
Using the language of my host country in reading and writing
(where language is not English)
Not At
All
Studied in a
language
other than
English
Total

Yes

Rarely

Occasionall Frequently
y

Total

Very
frequently

42.9%

25.4%

6.3%

7.9%

17.5% 100.0%

70.6%

13.5%

4.8%

6.3%

4.8% 100.0%

61.4%

17.5%

5.3%

6.9%

9.0% 100.0%

No

Table 5.9
Language (orally) divided by language of study abroad program (Percent)
Using the language of my host country orally (where language
is not English)
Not At All
Studied in Yes
a language
other than No
English
Total

Rarely

Occasionall Frequently
y

Total

Very
frequently

41.9%

24.2%

11.3%

4.8%

17.7% 100.0%

72.0%

12.8%

3.2%

7.2%

4.8% 100.0%

62.0%

16.6%

5.9%

6.4%

9.1% 100.0%

To summarize benefits to work experiences and job tasks, the pattern that emerged
in the recruitment section was reinforced. That is, although it was perceived as at least
moderately important by 83% of the sample that they had the skills to work with people
from different cultural backgrounds, and they were using general knowledge of other
countries in their work, specific skills and knowledge relating to their country of study
were being utilized much less frequently. And while more than half of the sample that
studied abroad in a language other than English perceived communicating in foreign
languages as important, few had frequent use of their language skills in the workplace.

93

The work of 54% of the sample spanned national borders on a daily basis, and most
of those who actively looked for work abroad were successful in attaining a position.
Additionally, the multicultural environment of the Australian workplace possibly explains
the importance placed by most of the respondents on the competencies needed to work
with people from different cultural backgrounds. It can be concluded that their study
abroad experience has been beneficial to the graduates for these work aspects, however, in
terms of specific country and language skills and knowledge, the benefits are much more
muted.
Overall Impact on Work and Life
The final section of the survey focused more directly on the perception of benefit
held by the young graduates. Firstly the impact on employment was rated. Many
respondents reported both a short-term and a long-term benefit. Two thirds indicated that
their study abroad experience had a positive or very positive impact on Obtaining their
first job. As reported in Table 5.7, only a small number reported a negative impact on this
category. A majority of respondents, 63.3%, also believed that that their study abroad
experience had positively or very positively impacted their Long-term career prospects.
Reinforcing data from the previous section, only 35% of respondents perceived a
positive impact on Type of work tasks. Conversely, only 7% believe that their study abroad
experience had a negative impact on work tasks. Almost 60% indicated a moderate
impact. When asked about Income level, 80% of the sample reported moderate, neutral or
negative impact. On the positive side, just over 20% of respondents believed that studying
abroad had a positive impact on their income level. Most respondents sat in the middle on
this issue, suggesting either a small-perceived benefit or a neutral impression.

94

Table 5.10
Q7. What impact do you feel that your education abroad experience has had with regard to
your employment? (Percent)
Very negative

Positive

impact/

impact/ Very

Somewhat

Moderate

positive

Category

negative impact

impact

impact

Obtaining your first job

4.4

29.6

66.0

Long-term career prospects

5.3

31.4

63.3

Type of work tasks

7.1

58.0

34.9

Income level

8.8

69.9

21.3

Turning now to a more general view of the benefits of international study,
respondents were asked their opinion on the impact on 11 areas of personal development,
knowledge, skills and career value. The results are presented in Table 5.8. Overall, the
responses were positive indicating that most participants believed their study abroad
experience was worthwhile across most areas. Almost all respondents (98.7%) rated the
areas of Maturity and personal development and Interpersonal and communication skills to
be worthwhile or very worthwhile.
Career-related aspects rate slightly lower and around 70% rated the impact on such
aspects as Career prospects, Enhancement of academic and professional knowledge and
Increasing motivation and passion for your career direction as worthwhile or very
worthwhile. Around three quarters of the sample indicated that in terms of relevance to
their job, study abroad was at least moderately worthwhile.
Consistent with results presented above, many participants indicated that they did
not find studying abroad worthwhile for their foreign language skills. However, 125
respondents (55.8%) rated it as moderately worthwhile, worthwhile or very worthwhile, a
95

much greater number than those who reported to have studied in a foreign language while
abroad (n =68). So, while foreign language proficiency was rated lowest against the other
categories, it could be viewed as a positive result considering the context of the
background characteristics of the respondents and their international study experiences.

Table 5.11
Q8. From your point of view today, to what extent do you consider your education abroad
experience worthwhile with regard to the following (Percent):
Not
Worthwhile

worthwhile/
Somewhat

Moderately / Very

Category

worthwhile

worthwhile worthwhile

Maturity and personal development

1.3

4.5

94.2

Interpersonal & communication skills

1.3

12.0

86.7

New perspectives of your home country

4.4

15.0

80.6

6.2

13.4

80.4

10.2

15.0

74.8

10.2

21.2

68.6

Teamwork/ability to work with others

9.7

22.6

67.7

Career prospects

14.2

18.1

67.7

Problem solving & analytical skills

12.0

24.4

63.6

Relevance to your job/occupation

24.0

24.4

51.6

Foreign language proficiency

44.2

16.5

39.3

Knowledge and understanding of my host
country
Enhancement of academic & professional
knowledge
Increasing your motivation & passion for your
career direction

The final survey question asked respondents to rank the top three areas of benefit of
their study abroad experience. Consistent with the previous responses, almost 78% (n

96

=174) rated Maturity and personal development as a top-three benefit. Interpersonal and
communications skills came in a distant second, but it consistently appeared as a top-three
preference (reported in Table 5.10). Increasing motivation and passion for your career
direction, the only career-related aspect in the top 3, was first-ranked by a small group of
respondents. As presented in Table 5.9, New perspectives on home country was the final
benefit ranked in the top 3. Foreign language proficiency, although not ranked in the top
3, ranked 6 overall for the number of top-three votes (see Table 5.10). Twenty-two
respondents ranked Foreign language proficiency as their most important benefit.
Table 5.12
Q9. Top three perceived benefits of study abroad as ranked by respondents
Rank 1
Maturity & personal
development
Interpersonal &
communication skills

n
91

36

Rank 2

n

Interpersonal &
communication skills
Maturity & personal
development

44

42

Rank 3
Maturity & personal
development
Interpersonal &
communication skills

n
41

34

Increasing your
motivation & passion
for your career

30

New perspectives on
home country

direction

97

25

New perspectives on
home country

34

Table 5.13
Q9. Perceived benefits of study abroad ranked by number of times selected by respondents
Rank

Benefit

Top-three votes

1

Maturity and personal development

174

2

Interpersonal & communication skills

114

3

Increasing your motivation & passion for your career

76

direction
4

New perspectives of your home country

63

5

Enhancement of academic & professional knowledge

49

6

Foreign language proficiency

45

7

Knowledge and understanding of my host country

42

=8

Problem solving & analytical skills

33

=8

Career prospects

33

10

Teamwork/ability to work with others

29

11

Relevance to your job/occupation

20

In this section we have seen that the sample group perceived their study abroad
experience to have been worthwhile, more strongly for general skills and development
factors, but also for their professional experience. Reinforcing the results of the earlier
questions, respondents perceived moderate to low benefits in terms of direct work tasks.
Additionally, only a small group reported an impact on their income level. However, they
perceived a benefit when they competed for their first job, and for their long-term career.
They also believed that their international experience increased their motivation and
passion for their career direction, a more indirect, but still a very important career-related
benefit. The next section will summarize the results presented in this chapter so far.

98

Summary of the Research Question
In response to the questions, What are the benefits, as perceived by graduates, of a
study abroad experience during a bachelor degree for their early career experiences?, this
study has found that the participants held a positive view of the benefits of their study
abroad experience on their lives. With the exception of foreign language proficiency,
which was relevant for a small proportion of the group, only a low number of respondents
rated the study abroad experience as somewhat worthwhile or not worthwhile at all on any
criteria. However, from the final section of the survey, it was clear that the general skills,
knowledge and personal development benefits were more strongly regarded than the early
career benefits, from the perspective of this group.
Although the statistics in the previous chapter tell us that 41.6% of respondents
worked for an international organization, 54% reported that their daily tasks frequently
included working with other countries. Most respondents perceived their international
study experience to have benefited them in terms of their interpersonal and communication
skills, their teamwork and ability to work with others, and their problem solving and
analytical skills, all areas that supported the ability to work with diverse others across a
range of different environments. Even in cases where respondents were working in more
local roles, it was likely that they were able to utilize these skills within the multicultural
Australian workplace.
The results indicated that at this point in their careers, most of the sample were not
frequently drawing on the skills and knowledge specific to their study abroad destination
country. But while very few were using these skills at work, they valued the benefit
provided by their time abroad to learn about their host country and to improve their

99

language skills, where this was applicable. While foreign language skills were rated as a
low benefit overall, these skills appeared to be highly valued by those who had the
opportunity to live in a foreign language environment.
Many respondents perceived that study abroad was beneficial to them in securing
their first job. The fact that this result doesn’t quite match with the perception of the
employer criteria when they were hired indicated that the perceived benefit may be less
direct, perhaps relating to their gains in maturity and personal development and their
improved interpersonal and communication skills. A similar gap existed in the area of
future career prospects. Although many respondents were not actually using their
international competencies or engaged in international work, they had a positive perception
of the benefits that their international study experience would bring in the long-term. The
next section will explore these results further as they relate to the structure of their study
abroad programs, their background characteristics and their employment profiles.
Sub-question One: Study Abroad Program Characteristics
This section will answer the first sub-question of the study, What are the
relationships between various characteristics of the program (i.e., country/region of study;
duration of international experience; type of international experience; language of
experience) and the benefits as perceived by the graduate?
To answer this question, I focused on the final section of the survey reported above,
specifically the data provided in the summative survey Question 8, as it provided the most
specific answers to the research question. The first step of the analysis was to reduce the
eleven items listed in the question into more manageable thematic categories. A principal
component analysis (PCA) was conducted using oblique rotation (oblimin) because of

100

correlation between the variables. An analysis of the missing data (n=219) indicated that
missing data would not be a problem in the analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure
verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .864, and eight KMO values for
individual items were > .5, which is the normal acceptable limit (Field, 2009). Three items
ranged between .45 and .5 (Problem solving and analytical skills, Teamwork/ability to
work with others, Career prospects) but the decision was made to retain them in the
analysis because of the overall high value of the KMO and the exploratory nature of the
study. Bartlett’s test of sphericity ‫ ݔ‬ଶ ሺ55ሻ ൌ 973.635, ‫ ݌‬൏ .000, indicated that
correlations between items were sufficiently large for PCA.
An initial component analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in
the data. Three components resulted, all with eigenvalues over the criterion of 0.9 and in
combination explained 65.25% of the variance. Visual inspection of the scree plot showed
that three components were appropriate and provided for clear interpretation of the model.
Table 5.11 shows the factor loadings after rotation. All items had a value >.5 and were
retained.
The items loaded on the components suggested that the first component, which
represented personal and developmental aspects, was labeled Employability skills, because
it aligned with the Australian Government’s Employability Skills Framework (Department
of Education Science and Training, 2002). Four of the items making up component one
(communication skills, teamwork skills, problem-solving skills and maturity and personal
development, which is conceptually similar to self-management skills) were listed as part
of the eight components defined in the Employability Skills Framework (DEST, 2002).
The remaining component item, New perspectives on home country, can be aligned with

101

citizenship development, a goal that is often listed in university graduate attribute
statements (Rigby et al., 2009) (a detailed theoretical and conceptual analysis of
employability skills will be presented in the next chapter).
Component two was labeled Career-related aspects, and included career relevance,
knowledge and motivation, and component three, which included host country knowledge
and language, was labeled Host country aspects. The structure matrix illustrating the
relationships between the factors is provided in Table G.1 in the Appendices.

102

Table 5.14
Principle Component Analysis pattern matrix Question 8

Related factor loading
Item
New perspectives on your home
country

Employability

Career-related

Host country

skills

aspects

aspects

.803

Maturity & personal development

.831

Problem solving & analytical skills

.724

Teamwork/ability to work with
others
Interpersonal & communication
skills

.687

.628

Relevance to your job/occupation

.859

Career prospects

.813

Enhancement of academic &

.664

professional knowledge
Increasing your motivation &

.786

passion for your career direction
Knowledge & understanding of

.550

host country
Foreign language proficiency

.929

Eigenvalues

4.871

1.327

.980

Percentage of variance

44.279%

12.064%

8.910%

The second step in the analysis was to test for mean differences on these three
factors, or benefits, against destination of study, duration, mode of study and language.

103

Destination of Study
ANOVA on destination region was the first analysis undertaken. The two small
regions (Latin America and Eastern Europe) were removed from the analysis to comply
with the requirement of a minimum sample size of five for ANOVA. All remaining regions
produced significant mean differences on the benefit variable Host country aspects
(‫ ܨ‬ሺ3, 209ሻ ൌ 23.237, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .000 ), with Asia being high, North America and Continental
Europe in the middle and UK/Ireland low. Respondents who studied in Asia reported a
significantly higher level of benefits in terms of host country aspects, while respondents
who studied in UK/Ireland reported a significantly lower level of benefits. Respondents
who studied in North America and Continental Europe, while reporting a different level of
benefit for host country aspects, were placed in the middle of the sample. The results of the
ANOVA post-hoc test are shown in Figure 5.4.

104

Table 5.15
Post-hoc test comparison of mean Host country aspects by Destination region
Tukey HSD
(I) Region of (J) Region of
study
study experience
experience 1 1
Cont. Europe
Asia

North America

UK & Ireland
Asia
Cont. Europe North America
UK & Ireland
Asia
North
Cont. Europe
America
UK & Ireland
Asia
UK &
Cont. Europe
Ireland
North America

Mean
Differenc
e (I-J)

Std.
Error

Sig.

95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound

Upper
Bound

.4931*

.1704

.022

.0518

.9344

*

.1725

.000

.4859

1.3794

*

1.5015
-.4931*
.4395*
1.0084*
-.9326*
-.4395*
.5689*
-1.5015*

.1916
.1704
.1530
.1742
.1725
.1530
.1763
.1916

.000
.022
.023
.000
.000
.023
.008
.000

1.0054
-.9344
.0431
.5571
-1.3794
-.8358
.1123
-1.9976

1.9976
-.0518
.8358
1.4597
-.4859
-.0431
1.0255
-1.0054

-1.0084*

.1742

.000

-1.4597

-.5571

*

.1763

.008

-1.0255

-.1123

.9326

-.5689

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Due to the policy significances of region of study, particularly in the current
Australian policy environment, I also tested each region against the entire sample using
independent t-tests. Variables were recoded into dichotomous variables representing
whether a respondent studied in a particular region or not, across all three experiences
(e.g., 1=Asia, 0=otherwise). Independent t-tests were comparing whether each benefit
outcome differed between graduates who studied in a respective region versus graduates
who studied in all other regions.
Asia and UK/Ireland produced significant mean differences on some of the benefit
variables (see Table 5.12, full results are shown in Table G.2 in the Appendices).
Respondents who studied in Asia reported a significantly higher level of benefit on
105

Career-related aspects (‫ݐ‬ሺ217ሻ ൌ 2.653, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .009ሻ and Host country aspects (‫ݐ‬ሺ217ሻ ൌ
4.991, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .000ሻ (consistent with the result of the ANOVA). On the other hand,
respondents who studied in the UK reported a significantly lower level of benefit on both
Employability skills (‫ݐ‬ሺ215ሻ ൌ െ2.178, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .030ሻ and Host country aspects (‫ݐ‬ሺ80.157ሻ ൌ
െ6.361, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .000ሻ. The conclusion is that programs in this region are perceived to provide
less overall benefits than programs in other destinations. The other two regions tested,
North America and Continental Europe, did not produce significantly different mean
scores at ‫ ݌‬൏ .05 in either of these areas.
Table 5.16
Independent sample t-test mean scores for benefit variables and Asia and UK/Ireland
Benefit

Asia

Not Asia

UK/Ireland

Not UK/Ireland

Employability

-

-

-.291

.072

(SD=1.016)

(SD=.987)

-

-

skills
Career-related

.278

-.093

aspects

(SD=.851)

(SD=1.030)

Host country

.553

-.185

-.715

.184

aspects

(SD=.853)

(SD=.979)

(SD=.809)

(SD=.967)

Duration
The duration variable tested in this category was recoded to short (3 months or
less), medium (4-6 months) and long (7 months or more) values. One-way ANOVA
showed a significant mean difference in one area, Host country aspects, between medium
study abroad programs and long duration programs (‫ ܨ‬ሺ2, 215ሻ ൌ 10.403, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .000).
Although the mean for short experiences was higher than for medium programs, indicating
that participants of short duration programs also indicated a higher degree of benefit for
Host country aspects, the result was not significant. The small sample size (n =16) may
106

have affected the significance of the result (results of the post hoc test are shown in Figure
5.5). From this we can conclude that respondents who participated in study abroad
programs of a duration of seven months or more perceived a significantly greater benefit in
terms of Host country aspects than participants of programs of shorter duration.
Table 5.17
Post-hoc test comparison of mean Host country aspects by Duration
Tukey HSD
(I) Duration (J) Duration
Mean
Std. Error
exp 1
exp 1
Difference (I-J)
Medium

Short
Medium
Long

Long
Short
Long
Short
Medium

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval
Lower
Bound

Upper
Bound

.5382

.2547

.090

-.0629

1.1394

-.0804
-.5382
-.6187*
.0804

.2657
.2547
.1412
.2657

.951
.090
.000
.951

-.7075
-1.1394
-.9520
-.5467

.5467
.0629
-.2853
.7075

.6187*

.1412

.000

.2853

.9520

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Mode of Study
Independent t-tests confirmed that at the . 05 level, there were no significant mean
differences based on whether the respondents participated in traditional academic classes at
a local institution or other activities such as a study tour, internship, practicum or research
placement. As the sample was heavily dominated by the traditional mode of study, this
result may relate to sample sizes (n =18 for Other study modes).
Language of Study
Independent t-tests were used to test for mean differences based on the language of
instruction while abroad (Not English, English, as shown in Table 5.12). Significant

107

differences were found in two areas, Career-related aspects (‫ݐ‬ሺ145.409ሻ ൌ 2.150, ‫ ݌‬ൌ
.033) and Host country aspects (‫ݐ‬ሺ156.592ሻ ൌ 8.790, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .000). Studying abroad in a
language other than English resulted in a perception of a higher level of benefit towards the
careers of respondents. It also led to a perceived benefit in acquiring host country skills and
knowledge compared to those who studied in English. Given that foreign language
proficiency made up half of the host country factor, this result was not unexpected.
Table 5.18
Independent sample t-test mean scores for Career-related aspects and Host country aspects
and Language of instruction while abroad
Language

Career-related aspects

Host country aspects

Foreign language

English

.207

-.091

(SD=.896)

(SD=1.04)

.725

-.322

(SD=.748)

(SD=.935)

Multiple times abroad
The final area tested in this section was whether or not respondents had participated
in more than one study abroad program. Firstly, studying abroad multiple times made a
positive contribution to the perception of Career-related aspects (‫ݐ‬ሺ217ሻ ൌ 2.993, ‫ ݌‬ൌ
.003). This may have been connected to other program characteristics associated with the
second and third study abroad experiences such as the greater likelihood that the program
was taught in a foreign language, and that the program was located in Asia. It may also
have been due to a selection bias, with students who believed study abroad would help
them in their careers choosing to participate in additional study abroad programs. In any
case, studying abroad more than once was perceived by participants to provide additional
108

career-related benefits.
Host country aspects were also perceived at a higher level of benefit by those who
studied abroad more than once (‫ݐ‬ሺ217ሻ ൌ 2.593, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .010). This may be related to
patterns of return of those who participated in multiple international study programs and
increasing knowledge and confidence levels which possibly result from greater familiarity
with a country. Where foreign language was concerned, increased exposure to the target
language in-country was likely to result in a higher level of proficiency. Table 5.14
summarizes the significant results of t-tests in this area.

Table 5.19
Independent sample t-test mean scores for Career-related aspects, Host country aspects and
Multiple study abroad programs
Multiple study abroad

Career-related aspects

Host country

Multiple

Not multiple

.356

-.111

SD=.941

SD=.994

.310

-.097

SD=.912

SD=1.010

Summary of Sub-question 1
To review the results presented in this section, in answering the first sub-question,
What are the relationships between various characteristics of the program (i.e.,
country/region of study; duration of international experience; type of international
experience; language of experience) and the benefits as perceived by the graduate?,
differences in the study abroad program structure affected the perception of the benefits
reported by the respondents during their early career stage. Firstly, Asia was perceived to

109

provide stronger benefits in the career and host country domains than other world regions.
On the other hand, participants of programs in the UK and Ireland perceived lower benefits
connected to their study abroad experience, in both the employability skills area and in
host country benefits. Long-term study abroad, programs of more than seven months,
were perceived to provide greater benefits to respondents in the area of host country skills
and knowledge. Studying in a language other than English while abroad was perceived to
be very beneficial to career aspects and host country skills and knowledge. Finally,
studying abroad more than once was reported to provide significantly higher benefit to
participants, specifically in the areas of career-related benefits and host country aspects.
This result may have been associated with program characteristics related to the second
and third study abroad experiences, such as foreign language and Asia as a study
destination indicating that a variety of international study experiences were perceived to
provide a compounding benefit to the early career experience across multiple dimensions.
These associations were not causal, however, and may be related to factors considered in
the next section, or outside of the scope of this study. In the next section, I will present the
results of the second sub-question and consider how the perceived benefits may be
connected to background characteristic, study characteristics and current employment
context.
Sub-question Two: Background Characteristics, Study Characteristics and Context
of Current Employment
This section will answer the second sub-question of the study, What are the
relationships between background characteristics, study characteristics and current
employment context, and the benefits as perceived by the graduates? Consistent with the

110

previous research question, the three factors obtained through PCA of Question 8 were
used again in this section.
Background Characteristics
The survey captured a broad range of background characteristics in order to
understand factors that may be influential in the education, international exposure and the
early career period. Variables tested in this section are summarized in Table 5.15. Test
results for all independent t-tests are provided in the Appendix G.
Table 5.20
Background characteristic variables tested for significant differences from the mean in
each category
Variable

Statistical test

Result*

Gender

Independent t-test

Significant

Age

One-way ANOVA

Not significant

Speaks a language other

Independent t-test

Significant

Independent t-test

Not significant

Independent t-test

Significant

Independent t-test

Not significant

One-way ANOVA

Not significant

than English
Holding more than one
citizenship
Lived abroad before higher
education
First-generation university
graduate
High school SES

*Indicates significance at the ‫< ݌‬.05 level

Independent t-tests for gender found significant difference between the responses
for females and males on the factor Employability skills (‫ݐ‬ሺ215ሻ ൌ 2.293, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .023). In
this area, the mean for females (M=.103 SD=.942) was significantly higher than males
(M=-.227 SD=1.090) indicating that females perceived a greater benefit from studying
111

abroad in such areas as maturity and personal development, interpersonal skills, analytical
skills, teamwork skills and knowledge of home country.
Speaking a language other than English was significant for the item Host country
aspects on the independent t-test (‫ݐ‬ሺ213.473ሻ ൌ 5.929, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .000). As shown in Table
5.16, respondents who identified as speaking more than one language reported greater
perceived benefits from studying abroad to their skills and knowledge of the host country
than respondents who did not speak a second language. This reflects the result reported in
the previous section for undertaking a study abroad program in a foreign language and is
likely to be highly correlated. The survey did not establish if respondents were able to
speak a second language before university so it is highly likely that study abroad assisted
the further development of their existing language skills, or in learning an additional
language, adding to the perception of benefit to host country aspects.
Table 5.21
Independent sample t-test mean scores for Host country aspects and Speaks a language
other than English
Speaks a language other than English

Host country aspects

Yes

No

.357

-.396

SD=.962

SD=.904

An independent t-test also found significance for Living abroad before higher
education and Host country aspects (‫ݐ‬ሺ214ሻ ൌ 3.395, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .001ሻ (see Table 5.17).
Respondents who had previous experience living, studying or working abroad perceived
that their study abroad experience benefited the development of their host country skills
and knowledge more than those who had not lived abroad before higher education. Many

112

of the respondents in this category studied abroad while in high school, and as presented in
the previous chapter, showed a tendency to study abroad again in the same host country.
The high result in this area may be the result of increased familiarity with the same home
country and host language.
Table 5.22
Independent sample t-test mean scores for Host country aspects and Lived abroad before
higher education
Lived abroad before higher education

Host country aspects

Yes

No

.336

-.153

SD=.991

SD=.979

Study Characteristics
For this area, all study variables were tested against the benefits variables from
Question 8 for significant mean differences using one-way ANOVA or independent t-tests.
The tests undertaken are summarized in Table 5.18.
Table 5.23
Study characteristic variables tested for significant difference from the mean in each
category
Variable

Statistical test

Result*

Institution

One-way ANOVA

Not significant

Institution

Independent t-test

Significant

Academic major

One-way ANOVA

Not significant

Academic achievement

One-way ANOVA

Not significant

Postgraduate study

One-way ANOVA

Not significant

Year of graduation

One-way ANOVA

Not significant

Compulsory study abroad

Independent t-test

Significant

*Indicates significance at the ‫< ݌‬.05 level

113

As stated in Table 5.18, the result of the institutional ANOVA was not significant.
In order to retest for possible institutional differences and to compensate for an unbalanced
representation of respondents from each institution, I created a dichotomous variable for
each institution with a sample size greater than 10, the threshold for independent t-tests
(Agresti & Finlay, 2004), and used this variable in an independent t-test to look for
institutional mean difference against the group mean. With the use of repeated
independent t-tests, it is necessary to be mindful of the increased likelihood of Type I
errors (Shavelson, 1996).
The t-test revealed some institutional variation, indicating that there were some
differences in respondent perceptions of the benefits of study abroad based on institutional
factors (see Table 5.19 for a summary of the significant results). This result may be
meaningful for institutional policy, where a significant result has been identified. For
example, the respondents of Institution 6 indicated that they perceive there to be a strong
career benefit from study abroad with a significantly higher mean than the rest of the
sample (‫ݐ‬ሺ217ሻ ൌ 2.008, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .037) on this item. This raises the question of whether
Institution 6 has more career-oriented study abroad programs, more career-oriented degree
programs, or more career-oriented students. The small sample size for this institution
(n=13) indicates that this result should be confirmed with further research.
In the case of Institution 10 (n =46), its respondents perceived lower benefits in the
employability skills domain than the rest of the sample (‫ݐ‬ሺ217ሻ ൌ െ2.084, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .038).
Again, this result may be associated with a variety of institutional and individual factors.
The remaining significant institutional mean difference, Institution 2 (n =24), was in the
area of host country aspects, indicating that respondents from this institution report a

114

higher perceived benefit from study abroad in the development of their foreign language
skills and host country knowledge (‫ݐ‬ሺ217ሻ ൌ 2.012, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .045). A range of factors could
have influenced this result including the nature of their study abroad programs, links to
curriculum and the backgrounds of participants.
Table 5.24
Independent t-test results for institutional variable and benefit variables
Variable

Institution

Mean, SD

Career-related aspects

Institution 6

Inst.6 M=.536 SD=.807
Group M=-.034 SD=1.003

Employability skills

Institution 10

Inst.10 M=-.217 SD=.990
Group M=.090 SD=.993

Host country aspects

Institution 2

Inst.2 M=.320 SD=.952
Group M=-.057 SD=.999

The final variable tested in study characteristics was Compulsory study abroad. An
independent t-test was conducted with the benefit variables and significance was found in
two areas, Career-related aspects (‫ݐ‬ሺ217ሻ ൌ 2.993, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .003) and Host country aspects
(‫ݐ‬ሺ217ሻ ൌ 2.593, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .010). Respondents who were required to study abroad as part of
their bachelor degree (M=.356 SD=.941) perceived a higher level of career benefit from
their study abroad experience than those who were not required to study abroad (M=-.111
SD=994). At the same time, respondents who were required to study abroad (M=.310
SD=.912) perceived a higher level of benefit in terms of host country skills and knowledge
than those who were not required to study abroad (M=-.097 SD=1.009).
It was likely that compulsory study abroad experiences were somewhat integrated
into the academic program of the students, possibly involving a foreign language
requirement. The perceived benefit, then, may also be related to structural factors such as

115

duration, destination and studying in a foreign language. It may also indicate that such
respondents were more positively predisposed to an international study experience from
the outset. In any case, it is an important result as it indicates that graduates of academic
programs with a compulsory study abroad requirement perceived higher early career and
host country benefits from their study abroad experience.
Context of Current Employment
The final area of analysis for this research question concerns the current
employment context of the respondents. Once again, all variables in this section of the
survey were tested for significant mean differences against the benefit variables. The
variables and tests are summarized in Table 5.20.
Table 5.25
Employment characteristic variables tested for significant difference from the mean in each
category
Variable

Statistical test

Result*

Type of organization

One-way ANOVA

Significant

Industry

One-way ANOVA

Not significant

Size of organization

One-way ANOVA

Not significant

Scope of organization

One-way ANOVA

Not significant

Works for an international

Independent t-test

Significant

Independent t-test

Not significant

Independent t-test

Not significant

Independent t-test

Not significant

Independent t-test

Not significant

organization
Works for a national
organization
Works for a regional
organization
Works for a local
organization
Currently works abroad

116

First, the type of organization (categorized as private, public or non-profit) was
tested. Results from the one-way ANOVA (݂ ሺ2, 216ሻ ൌ 4.309, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .015ሻ indicated that
respondents who worked for a non-profit organization (M=.012 SD=.956) considered a
higher level of benefit from study abroad in the area of Employability skills than
respondents who worked for public organizations (M=-.198 SD=1.087) (see Figure 5.6 for
the results of the post hoc test). This is an interesting result as one may expect a greater
difference in the work lives of those who work in the private sector compared to the nonprofit sector, or a contrast between public and private. In any case, respondents who
worked in non-profit organizations perceived that study abroad contributed significantly to
the development of their personal maturity and other soft skills, compared to their public
sector peers.
Table 5.26
Post-hoc test comparison of mean Employability skills and Organization type
Tukey HSD
(I) What type
of
organization
do you
currently
work for?

(J) What type of
organization do
you currently
work for?

Mean
Std. Error
Difference
(I-J)

Sig.

95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound

Upper
Bound

Public sector

.2098

.1497

.342

-.1434

.5631

Non-profit
Private sector
Public sector
Non-profit
Private sector
Non-profit
Public sector

-.5153
-.2098
-.7251*
.5154

.2312
.1497
.2478
.2312

.069
.342
.011
.069

-1.0610
-.5631
-1.3099
-.0303

.0303
.1434
-.1405
1.0610

.7252*

.2478

.011

.1405

1.3099

Private sector

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

117

An unbalanced representation in the sample across the variable Organization scope
and unequal variances resulted in a Levine’s test showing a violation of the assumption of
homogeneity of variances. Therefore I created a dichotomous variable for each category of
data (for example, international organization, not international organization; national
organization, not national organization) and used the new variables in independent t-tests.
Highly significant differences in the areas of Career related aspects (‫ݐ‬ሺ214.319ሻ ൌ
4.207, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .000) and Host country aspects (‫ݐ‬ሺ216ሻ ൌ 2.994, ‫ ݌‬ൌ .003) were found for
those who worked in an organization with an international scope. As shown in Table 5.21,
respondents who did not work for an organization with an international scope had
significantly lower means on these benefits than those who worked for an international
organization. As presented in Chapter 4, working for an international organization was
significantly associated with being from a high SES background, foreign language study
while abroad and undertaking a degree with a compulsory study abroad component. So
while this result is important, the interpretation is complex.
Table 5.27
Independent t-test results for Organization with an international scope and benefit variables
Organization – international scope

Career-related aspects

Host country aspects

Yes

No

.310

-.225

SD=.814

SD=1.062

.241

-.163

SD=.967

SD=.994

118

Summary of Sub-question 2
In answering this research question, What are the relationships between
background characteristics, study characteristics and current employment context, and the
benefits as perceived by the graduates?, connections were made between background
characteristics, study characteristics and current employment of respondents and the
benefits they perceived from studying abroad. First, in the area of background
characteristics, females perceived greater benefit in the employability skills area than
males. Those who lived abroad before higher education perceived at a higher level that
study abroad provided a benefit in terms of host country skills and knowledge. In the area
of career-related benefits, respondents who identified as speaking a second language
perceived a higher level of benefit from study abroad than those respondents who only
spoke English.
Second, in the area of study characteristics, very few significant connections were
found. Respondents from three institutions were found to have significantly different mean
results in various areas including employability skills, career-related benefits, and host
country aspects. This may be the result of a range of institutional policy factors, differences
in curriculum focus, or individual differences in participating students. Requiring study
abroad as part of the undergraduate degree made a difference in terms of the perceived
career-related benefit of study abroad. Respondents who were required to study abroad
reported significantly higher levels of career-related benefit than those who participated in
study abroad as an elective part of their undergraduate education. They also reported a
higher perceived level of benefit in the area of host country skills and knowledge.
Third, some employment characteristics resulted in different perceived benefits.

119

Compared to respondents who worked in the public sector, those who worked for nonprofit organizations reported a significantly higher level of benefit from study abroad in
relation to their employability skills. Respondents who worked in an international
organization perceived significantly greater benefits connected to study abroad in the areas
of career-related aspects and host country aspects. This result may have been related to
elements of the study abroad program, such as language of study or region of study, or
personal background characteristics such as SES background or previous experiences
living abroad.
Exploratory regression model
The results presented in this chapter demonstrate the complexity of the questions
examined in this study and the difficulty of establishing a connection between study abroad
experiences and perceived career benefits. In order to build on the results so far and inform
future research studies, I undertook an exploratory regression analysis to test key variables
in an alternative model.
Firstly, I redefined the outcome variable as working for an organization with an
international scope (Current employment, Question 6). When considering policy goals
around study abroad, working for an international organization is frequently stated or
assumed to demonstrate success. Information provided to support the New Colombo Plan
states that international internships have the “aim of ensuring students are work ready,
have professional connections in the region and can link their study experience directly to
career opportunities” (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2014). Deakin
University’s Undergraduate Course Guide states that “studying overseas will help you
prepare for the global employment market” (Deakin University, 2014, p. 2). At RMIT,

120

future students are told that “You could undertake study exchange to over 31 countries.
RMIT ensures graduates are globally employable. RMIT graduates are employed in more
than 100 countries around the world” (RMIT, 2014, p. 2).
Given the focus of this dissertation on the programmatic elements that affect career
benefits and the focus of Australian Government study abroad policy on Asia, three study
abroad program variables were tested in the model: (a) studying abroad multiple times; (b)
studying abroad in a foreign language; and (c) studying abroad in Asia. Finally, three
background variables were used as control variables: (a) gender; (b) first-generation status;
and (c) major (professional or other). Note that the first-generation variable was used in
this model as an individual indicator of educational advantage/disadvantage, because the
SES variable collected was a geographic indicator, not an individual indicator.
The results of this analysis, presented in Table 5.22, showed that studying abroad
multiple times was a positive predictor of working for an organization with an international
scope after graduation, holding constant gender, first-generation status and type of major
(professional/other) (see Table 5.22). The results indicate that when other factors were held
constant, the predicted probability of working for an organization with an international
scope for a participant of multiple study abroad programs increased 17.14%. Considering
the effects in relation to background variables, females were 14.54% less likely to work for
an organization with an international scope, while first-generation university students were
20% less likely. The marginal effect of studying abroad in Asia was very small and nonsignificant. Study abroad in a foreign language had a larger marginal effect, but was also
not statistically significant.

121

Table. 5.28
Logistic regression results of exploratory model
Variable

Odds ratio

Robust Std.

z

P

95% CI

Err.
Study abroad

2.18

0.77

2.21

0.027

[1.09, 4.37]

1.74

0.60

1.62

0.106

[0.89, 3.41]

Study abroad Asia

1.05

0.38

0.15

0.884

[0.52, 2.16]

Gender (female)

0.41

0.14

-2.70

0.007

[0.21, 0.78]

First-generation

0.515

0.16

-2.14

0.032

[0.28, 0.94]

Professional major

1.52

0.48

1.34

0.181

[0.82, 2.81]

Constant

0.89

0.30

-0.33

0.738

[0.46, 1.72]

multiple
Study abroad foreign
language

Model χ2= 19.12 (p=0.004)
Pseudo R2 = 0.08
N=213

Having presented the results of the study in detail, in the next chapter, I will recap
the study rationale, context, methodology and results, discuss the outcomes and
implications for policy and practice, comment on methodological issues and limitations,
and conclude this dissertation with suggestions for further research.

122

CHAPTER 6
Discussion and Implication
This dissertation was designed to explore the early career outcomes for participants
of study abroad programs in the Australian context. In particular, the project aimed to
provide an understanding of how graduates perceived the benefits of international study in
relation to their current jobs and the early development of their careers. The purpose of
this chapter is to present:
1.

The context for the study;

2.

An outline of the study, including the research questions and a synopsis
of the sample;

3.

An overview of the findings;

4.

A discussion of the five key contributions of this study;

5.

Implications for policy and practice;

6.

Methodological considerations that may inform future research design;
and

7.

Recommendations for further research.
Context of the Study

This is the first time a project of this nature has been undertaken in Australia, and
as such, the project was conceptualized to be deeply descriptive, exploring the
backgrounds of respondents, study patterns, current employment profiles, and patterns of
international mobility before, during and after attainment of their bachelor degree. The
project assessed the benefits, as perceived by the graduates, through a quantitative survey
exploring their early employment experiences. Although the focus of the study was on

123

employment, careers and the utility of the study abroad experience in this context, some
aspects of personal development were included. Personal development and life aspects,
such as self-learning and maturity, have been highlighted in the literature as key learning
outcomes of participants in study abroad (Dwyer, 2004; Nunan, 2006).
Although participation in study abroad programs for Australian students in 2012
reached 13% of the graduating undergraduate class (Olsen, 2013), a number comparable to
the study abroad participation rate in the United States (Institute for International
Education, 2013), very little is known about this population beyond macro-level statistics
which have only recently been reported on an annual basis. In terms of outcomes from
study abroad programs for Australian students, this is a new area of research, and one that
is urgently needed to inform national policy, institutional policy and practice, as well as the
individual decisions of students and their families.
Compared to the US and Europe, where research on study abroad has played an
increasingly important role in informing policy and practice over the last twenty years, the
body of knowledge on study abroad in Australia consists of only a few studies, which
mostly focused on participation data and analysis. One area of research has explored
employer perceptions of study abroad (Crossman & Clarke, 2009; Prospect Marketing,
2006), and established that although study abroad was rarely a recruitment criteria,
Australian employers viewed it positively, particularly when characteristics of the
experience related directly to the employment context (Prospect Marketing, 2006). These
research studies informed the current project, which further develops a foundation of
knowledge on the connections between a study abroad experience during bachelor degree
studies and graduate employment outcomes.

124

As the project was being conducted, the policy direction in Australia changed and
study abroad emerged as an important part of the new Federal Government’s public
diplomacy program in Asia. Under the New Colombo Plan, one hundred million AUD
($95m USD) over five years was allocated to support study abroad in Asia with the goal of
creating an Asia-literate future workforce (Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs,
2013). Little research underpinned this policy and although the focus of this dissertation
was not Asia as a study destination, the project resulted in some policy-relevant data.
However it is necessary to acknowledge at the outset that this project was exploratory in
nature, not focused on any particular geographic destinations, and further research is
needed in order to make fully informed policy decisions focusing on specific destinations
in the future.
Overview of the Project
The aim of this study was to make a contribution towards the empirical knowledge
base on study abroad outcomes in Australia through one primary research question and two
sub-questions:
What are the benefits, as perceived by graduates, of a study abroad experience during a
bachelor degree for their early career experiences?
•

What are the relationships between various characteristics of the program (i.e.,
country/region of study; duration of international experience; type of international
experience; language of experience) and the benefits as perceived by the graduate?

•

What are the relationships between background characteristics, study
characteristics and current employment context, and the benefits as perceived by
the graduates?

125

The primary audience for this study is institutional policy-makers, although the
results may be useful to a broad range of stakeholders including government, faculty,
program administrators, program providers, sponsors, employers, parents and students.
While the main intention was to inform institutional decision-makers in the areas of
funding and program design, the descriptive nature of the results makes the outcomes
accessible to a more general audience including prospective participants themselves, who
may make better informed study abroad program choices as a result of this project.
As outlined in Chapter 2, this study was informed by a conceptual framework
developed from human capital theory (Becker, 1964; Becker, 1993; McMahon & Oketch,
2013) and the manpower requirements perspective concerning the connection between
higher education and work (Brennan, Kogan & Teichler, 1996; de Weert, 1996; Teichler,
2007). At the macroeconomic level, higher education is connected to economic growth
(Barro, 1991; Becker, 1993) through the expansion of knowledge and the increased
productivity of labor (Becker, 1993). Using public policy and investment in knowledge
creation, countries support future economic growth. Small investment in the development
of cognitive skills in the labor force can positively impact future well-being (Hanushek &
Woessmann, 2010). There are also important non-market, social benefits from higher
education such as better health, greater longevity, reduced infant mortality, reduced
fertility rates, increased democratization, greater respect for human rights, political
stability, environmental quality, and the reduction of poverty, inequality and crime
(McMahon, 2001).
At an individual level, higher education provides an income premium as a return on
investment (Becker, 1964; Becker, 1993). The return on investment also has a non-market

126

element as the human capital benefits are embodied in the individual and generally impact
upon non-work, leisure and household hours as well as work hours (McMahon & Oketch,
2013). Study abroad, through the enhancement of human capital, may increase the private
and social benefits of higher education.
The manpower requirements approach is concerned with the quantitative and
structural elements of the connection between higher education and work such as type of
institution, field of study, curricular approaches and co-curricular options. Extensive
research in Europe has considered the match between graduate attributes, including study
abroad experiences, and employment roles (Brennan, Kogan & Teichler, 1996; de Weert,
1996; Teichler, 2007). Study abroad, as one component of higher education, was central to
the current study, and both human capital theory and the manpower requirements
perspective framed the design of the project.
Before proceeding, here is a brief outline of how the data were collected (a full
description can be found in Chapter 3). The study was conducted through an on-line
survey, based on the European Graduate Survey (International Centre for Higher Education
Research-Kassel, University of Kassel, Germany), an instrument that has been used
extensively in Europe to evaluate the success of the ERASMUS exchange program (for a
summary, see Jahr and Teichler, 2007). The survey contained nine employment and
career-related questions from the European survey that were adjusted for the Australian
audience. Three additional sections of the survey covered respondent background
information, study information, and current employment details (a copy of the instrument
is provided in Appendix A). The survey was administered through 11 participating
Australian universities, located in all 5 states (but omitting the 2 territories), meaning that

127

it can be considered a national study. All university types were represented in the
respondent group, though urban universities may be overrepresented. The next section
will provide an overview of the sample including key descriptive information that will
frame the findings of this study.
Synopsis of the Sample
On average, respondents (N=226) were 26 years old and had been working for three
years. Sixty-seven percent were female, reflecting the national trend towards higher
female participation in study abroad programs (Olsen, 2010). At the time of the survey,
18% of respondents lived abroad in 15 countries. Ninety-four percent held Australian
citizenship, and 23% held dual citizenship. Approximately seven percent of respondents
completed high school abroad, and 31% had lived abroad before university. A further
demonstration of the diverse profile of this group is that more than half of respondents,
52%, identified as speaking at least one other language.
Two measures of socio-economic status were collected in the data so it was
possible to determine that 34% of respondents were first-generation university graduates.
According to the Australian Department of Education SES index, 88% attended a high
school with a medium or high SES classification. It is therefore highly likely that
graduates from medium and high SES backgrounds were overrepresented in the sample.
This possibly reflects the high cost (actual or perceived) of international travel and
participating in a study abroad program.
In terms of their employment profile, at the time of the study the respondent group
broadly reflected the national profile of graduate employment in Australia (Graduate
Careers Australia, 2010). Just over 70% of respondents held a professional position and

128

33% were engaged in the service sector. A further 24% worked in education and training,
16% in healthcare, 14% in public administration, and the remainder worked across a range
of other industries. Almost 62% worked in the private sector, and overall they were highly
likely (62%) to work for an organization with more than 101 employees. Forty-two
percent reported working for an international organization, though from other survey
information provided it is evident that a higher percentage had international connections in
their work. A majority of respondents, 84%, worked full-time, and 64% had changed jobs
at least once since graduation.
Most of the sample studied full-time while undertaking their bachelor degree. Only
five percent were international students, and there were no indigenous students in the
sample. These groups were underrepresented and in the case of international students, this
was likely to be a sampling issue. The most common majors in the sample were
Management and Commerce, Society and Culture and Creative Arts. Almost 45% of
respondents were either already enrolled or planning to enroll in graduate study.
Around 72% of respondents paid tuition through the HECS deferred system (the
Australian higher education loan scheme), while almost eight percent were Australian full
fee-paying students, meaning that the latter group were overrepresented in the sample, and
providing further evidence that the respondent group reflected a higher socio-economic
population. However, these respondents came from only three institutions, indicating
some variation in the student populations at the participating universities.
Outline of study abroad experiences. Central to the research questions, data were
collected in order to profile the kinds of study abroad experiences undertaken by the
sample. Participants of traditional semester and year exchange programs dominated the

129

group (93%). This meant that data on other durations and modes of study (for example
short-term study tours, internships, research projects) was very small. Although more
recent data show that Australian students are now choosing programs of greater diversity
in terms of duration, destination and mode of study, and this is an area of policy interest, it
is most accurate to portray this study as representative of the traditional exchange model of
study abroad, where a student enrolls in a regular semester or year of classes at a host
university. Only eight percent of respondents in this study participated in other types of
programs.
In terms of host regions, around 30% studied in North America, and the same
proportion studied in Continental Europe. Around 20% studied in Asia, 18% in UK and
Ireland, and only 2% studied in South America or Eastern Europe. Africa and the Middle
East were not represented in the sample. Almost three quarters of respondents used
English as the main language of instruction.
Highlights of the sample profile. A surprising finding of the study was that
around 24% of the sample studied abroad more than once. This statistic has never been
collected in Australia, and is somewhat contrary to the traditional belief that Australian
students do not consider study abroad favorably (McInnis, Coates, Jensz, Hooper & Vu,
2004). An alternative interpretation is that among those who do choose to study abroad,
some find it very useful and choose to study abroad again, or some were positively
predisposed to gaining international experiences, and this may have influenced both study
abroad participation and career decisions. Although this study does not address career
goals at the start of the higher education process, career outcomes will be considered in the
results section of this chapter.

130

Trends for the second and third experience were different from the first. For the
second time abroad (n=54), participants were more likely to undertake study modes
different from the traditional exchange model. They were also more likely to go to Asia,
were more likely to study for a short duration, and were more likely to study in a language
other than English. For the third experience (n=13), respondents were most likely to have
studied in Asia, for a short time, undertaking an internship, study tour, research or
volunteering. They were likely to have been using English as their main language (more
details on the study abroad program characteristics of the respondents is provided in
Chapter 4).
The patterns and connections between overseas study experiences is also a unique
finding of this study. Forty-six percent of those who studied abroad before university (for
example, while at high school) returned to their former host country. Fifteen percent of
respondents had multiple experiences with the same country, including work experience
after graduation, indicating that a small group had already established higher level skills,
knowledge and networks centered on their host country. Foreign language was
significantly connected to destination region. Asia as a study destination was significantly
connected to short-term study abroad. There was also a significant association between
studying abroad multiple times and studying in a language other than English.
Respondents who studied abroad before university were more likely to study abroad
multiple times during their bachelor’s degree, and were also more likely to have attended a
high school with a high SES designation. All associations were confirmed through Chisquare tests (see Chapter 4 for the full results).

131

Overview of the Findings
Benefits Perceived by the Respondents
The focus of the primary research question was the perception of the benefits of
study abroad from the perspective of the graduates. The final three questions of the survey
explored these benefits, firstly rating only career-related benefits (Question 7), then
comparing career-related benefits to other possible benefits (Questions 8 and 9). In these
findings I will highlight five benefits that best demonstrate the perspectives of the
respondents in relation to the research question, and use respondent comments to illustrate
individual examples. Four findings are taken directly from the survey questions, while the
fifth finding is the major theme that emerged across the survey questions. Table 6.1
provides a summary of the benefits that will be presented in this section.
Table 6.1
Summary of benefits as perceived by the respondents.
Benefit

Agreement (high and
very high)

1. General personal and developmental benefits (Question 8)

80-94%

2. Career direction (Question 8)

69%

3. Obtaining first job (Question 7)

66%

4. Long-term career prospects (Question 7)

63%

5. General rather than country-specific international benefits

Multiple measures

1. General personal and developmental benefits
“As a means of personal development (maturity) and honing problem solving and
communication skills I found that my study abroad has greatly improved these aspects of
my self.”
Survey respondent

132

When comparing career benefits with general personal and developmental benefits,
the respondents placed the highest value on the Maturity and personal development, and
the Interpersonal and communication skills benefits they received through studying
abroad. Only one percent of respondents disagreed with this assessment in both cases, and
these two items were preferred in the ranking of benefits, setting them apart from other
aspects assessed. New perspectives on home country also featured in the top three benefits
identified (Question 9), with 81% rating study abroad as worthwhile or very worthwhile on
this item.
Career benefits appeared lower in the list with 69% of respondents reporting that
study abroad was worthwhile or very worthwhile for Increasing motivation and passion
for their chosen career direction. On other career aspects, 68% and 52% of respondents
rated study abroad worthwhile or very worthwhile for their Career prospects and
Relevance to their job respectively. These career-related results are not unimportant; only
10%, 14% and 24% respectively disagreed (the full results are presented in Chapter 5).
However it is a notable finding of this study that personal developmental aspects were
rated more beneficial in connection to study abroad. This finding is similar to those
described by Nunan (2006): although participants connected study abroad to their overall
employability, the strongest results were reported in the areas of personal and social
development. However, it should be noted in these findings that overall, respondents were
very positive about the benefits of study abroad.

133

2. Career direction
“Whilst I would someday love to work abroad, either as an employee of an organization
based abroad or as a locally employed person who has been sent abroad on assignment, I
am, at this stage in my career, focused on building up my experience, skill set, contacts
and have no intention of working abroad in the short term.”
Survey respondent
Against all other benefits, the only career-related benefit ranked in the top three
was increasing motivation and passion for their chosen career direction (see survey
Question 9 in Chapter 5). The most obvious interpretation of this result is that respondents
who were considering an international career were able to clarify this career direction
through their experience abroad. In this way, study abroad may be providing students with
a space to experiment with opportunities not available at home. However it may also relate
to other research findings, which indicate that study abroad participants become more
focused upon their return (Hadis, 2005; Teichler & Jahr, 2001), motivating them to pursue
new or existing career directions with renewed energy.
This finding is important because, according to Bridgestock (2009), career
management skills are not sufficiently addressed at most Australian universities, and the
uncertainty related to career outcomes may affect university attrition rates and employment
outcomes. The possible contribution of study abroad to career development and career
management skills, as indicated by the findings of this study, suggest that a new line of
enquiry should be explored to investigate how study abroad contributes to career
development for Australian students. If, as Bridgestock (2009) suggests, career
management skills can lead to greater economic benefits for society, then there may be
even stronger rationale to support national policy promoting study abroad participation by
a greater proportion of the student population.

134

3. Obtaining their first job
“I have received very positive comments about my completing an exchange program from
employers (both before and after completing my degree).”
Survey respondent
When assessing only career-related benefits, the most highly rated benefit
connected to study abroad reported by respondents was Obtaining their first job (see
survey Question 7 in Chapter 5). Sixty-six percent of respondents indicated that studying
abroad had a positive or very positive impact on the graduate recruitment process. This
finding supports the assertions being made by universities in this area, that is, studying
abroad may make graduates more competitive in the job search arena. Once again, I want
to reiterate that this is not an objective fact; it is the perception of the respondents.
However, I believe it shows a level of confidence from the respondents that demonstrates a
direct career benefit in their view.
Although Prospect Marketing (2006) found that Australian employers do not
include study abroad as a recruitment criterion, the findings of the current study may show
a more indirect influence of study abroad on the recruitment process. For example,
improved communication and interpersonal skills and increased maturity of graduates who
studied internationally may lead them to perform better in a job interview. Further
research could explore this relationship to establish how the graduates know that there was
a connection between their study abroad experience and being hired.

135

4. Long-term career prospects
“With an Australian manufacturing company I work with, lots of work is sourced from
China and Asia. I think my culture knowledge towards this area from studying abroad in
Malaysia would differently help in more senior management positions but not in my
technical position.”
Survey respondent
This study has found that a majority of respondents (63%) believed that their
international study experience had a positive or very positive impact on their Long-term
career prospects (see survey Question 7 in Chapter 5). With this response, the graduates in
this study may be indicating that, although their study aboard experience was only having a
moderate impact on their current work tasks (as reported by 58% of the sample), in the
long run, study abroad was expected to have a greater impact.
Previous research has indicated that skills developed through studying abroad,
when applied to highly competitive business environments, may lead to faster career
progression (Prospect Marketing, 2006). Although the researchers in this study were not
able to confirm a direct connection to long-term career prospects, Crossman and Clarke
(2009) also found that international experience may be beneficial to promotional
opportunities. The current study adds further evidence to the connection between study
abroad and long-term career benefits. From this finding, it is clear that more research is
needed to overcome some of the temporal limitations of this study and examine the longterm impacts of study abroad in the Australian context. Further research directions will be
discussed later in this chapter.
5. General rather than country-specific international benefits
“In my role it is important to be able to work with CaLD [culturally and linguistically
diverse] clients - my study abroad experience assisted me with this, even though my host
country, Canada, could be considered to have a very similar culture to Australia. While

136

abroad, most of the friends I made were also exchange students, so I was able to get to
know people from a wide variety of places.”
Survey respondent
“…the environment which I work in is multi-cultural so having that experience abroad
gives me a better insight in understanding and communicating with fellow work
colleagues.”
Survey respondent

The survey explored a range of areas related to obtaining a graduate position, the
early work experiences and the perceptions of the relevance of their study abroad
experience to the participants’ careers so far and in the future. Across all areas, a
consistent theme was presented: respondents perceived greater benefits related to general
international aspects compared with a specific focus on their country or region of study. In
this section I will highlight some of the supporting data and present my analysis.
Respondents were asked about the criteria used by their employer when they were
hired. Seventy-four percent ranked their experience abroad as at least moderately
important. The country of study and foreign language proficiency (at 51% and 26%
respectively) were perceived to be the least-important factors when they were chosen for
their jobs.
When asked about competencies important to their work, respondents reported
higher importance of general international competencies rather than country-specific
knowledge and skills. Working with people from different cultural backgrounds was
important or very important to 74% of the sample. Fifty-two percent rated general
knowledge and understanding of international differences as important or very important,
while only 38% and 21% respectively rated knowledge of other countries and
communicating in foreign languages as important or very important.

137

Considering the actual work tasks of the respondents, this trend was reinforced.
Furthermore, 54% of respondents reported that their organization had frequent contact with
other countries in general, while only 26% reported frequent contact with the host country
of their study abroad. Across a range of indicators including Using general and
professional knowledge of my host country, and Using language in reading, writing and
speaking, the frequent use of these skills and knowledge was reported to be low, ranging
from 16% to 19%. Only 13% of respondents had undertaken frequent professional travel
to their host country.
In interpreting these results, temporal factors should be considered. On average,
the respondents had been working for only three years. This was a short time period to be
reporting on, compared to the expected length of their future careers. It may be the case
that as junior employees, they will have increasingly international work roles in the future,
and may even travel to their study abroad host country, further developing their skills and
expertise in a specific national context. However at the early career stage it can be
concluded that general international skills and knowledge were perceived to be of higher
benefit to the respondents than skills and knowledge specific to their host country.
Summary of perceived benefits. From the perspective of graduates, study abroad
was relevant and beneficial to their early career experiences on both direct and indirect
measures. While personal and developmental benefits were rated more highly by
respondents, important career-related benefits including career direction, securing their
first job and long-term career prospects were found in this study. A consistent theme
across the results indicated that the respondents perceived greater benefits related to

138

general international skills and knowledge rather than aspects specifically connected to
their country or region of study.
In relation to the conceptual framework, the results support the finding that study
abroad may provide additional human capital benefits of both an individual and societal
nature. A small number of participants, 21.3%, reported a perceived direct income benefit,
which they attributed to study abroad. Additionally, the impact of support for obtaining
their first job may have resulted in a monetary benefit from a reduced job-search time
period. While it is difficult to quantify the actual financial or market gains of providing
career direction or enhancing long-term career prospects, it is possible to connect such
factors to both non-market private and social benefits, as proposed by McMahon & Oketch
(2013). For example, it is foreseeable that more clarity in the areas of career direction and
career prospects may lead to enhanced job satisfaction and job performance, both on a
short-term (early career) and long-term basis. The benefit of possessing general
international skills and knowledge may contribute towards such social benefits as
citizenship, democracy and human rights. It may also enhance general life satisfaction for
the individual through a greater enjoyment of travel or involvement in international affairs,
such as cultural activities in the community.
Without a comparison group of graduates who did not study abroad, it is not
possible to conclusively state that study abroad enhances the relevance of a bachelor’s
degree to employment. However, from the perspective of participants in this study, there
appears to be positive and relevant benefits, which they have applied to their early career
experiences, including enhanced personal skills, career direction, and general international
skills and knowledge. It is also reasonable to speculate that such benefits contributed to

139

positive early employment outcomes for their employing organizations. Further
connections to the conceptual framework of this study will be explored in the discussion
section of this chapter. In the next section I will present the findings related to the two
research sub-questions addressing the structural elements of study abroad and background
characteristics.
Benefits and Study Abroad Program Structure
One goal of this study was to identify specific elements of study abroad programs
that made a difference to the reported career benefits of graduates. This was done through
statistical analysis, and in this area I considered the variables that can be influenced
through policy settings: destination (region of study), duration, program mode (academic
classes, internship, study tour, research, volunteering) and language of the activity (foreign
language or English), against benefit variables derived through Principle Component
Analysis on benefits rated in Question 8 of the survey. They were subsequently
categorized as Employability skills, Career-related aspects and Host country aspects (see
Chapter 5 for a description of this process). Compulsory study abroad and participation in
multiple study abroad programs were also considered as structural elements, though they
were not included in the original conceptual framework of the study.
The most important variables in the overall statistical analysis (ANOVA,
independent t-tests and chi square) were language, compulsory study abroad and multiple
study abroad programs. These variables were significant across both career-related aspects
and host country aspects and were the only variables (with the exception of studying
abroad in Asia, which will be discussed in greater detail) significant in the career benefits
category (see Chapter 5 for a full presentation of this analysis). Other significant

140

background variables, such as studying abroad before university and speaking more than
one language were connected to these core variables, so these three variables can be
considered as the most significant programmatic findings of the study. To summarize this
finding, a higher level of reported career benefit associated with study abroad was related
to studying abroad in another language, studying abroad multiple times, and undertaking
study abroad as a compulsory component of a bachelor degree.
Other programmatic findings of significant variables are important, but further
research should be undertaken to clarify and confirm these results. Asia as a destination
provided both career-related benefits and host-country benefits at a higher level than other
destination regions. It is conceivable that this result was connected to both study in a
foreign language and participation in multiple study abroad programs because of the
patterns observed around Asian study abroad. On the other hand, study in UK and Ireland
returned a negative outcome on employability skills and host country aspects (see Chapter
5). Once again, this may have been related to the importance of foreign language study
and multiple study abroad programs as significant variables in the overall model, and the
fact that programs in the UK and Ireland were unlikely to fall into either of these
categories.
Analysis of the duration of study should also be retested on a sample with a larger
variety of program durations represented. In this study, participants of programs of
medium duration, that is, programs of four to six months, reported lower perceived
benefits on host country aspects than those who undertook short or long programs (see
Chapter 5). This was likely to relate to the region of study and patterns in this regard, as
the UK and Ireland, and North America, represented 60% of participants of medium-length

141

programs. Neither of these destination regions was likely to have a foreign language
component, nor were they likely to be chosen as a second or third study destination (the
descriptive analysis in Chapter 4 provides a full breakdown of statistics relating to the
programmatic variables). Alternatively, programs of medium duration may have had
different objectives to programs of shorter or longer duration. Again, further research is
needed to provide clarity in this area.
Benefits and the Role of Background, Study and Employment Variables
A range of background, study and employment variables were included in the
instrument in order to consider the impact of other factors on the primary variables of
interest. The inclusion of these variables was also important in order to consider models
for testing in the future. However, few variables returned significant results. One issue
may have been sample size, which although adequate overall, broke down into groups too
small to provide meaningful analysis in some categories. A study with a larger overall
number of respondents may mitigate this problem and provide more meaningful results.
Having noted this limitation, I will present the most important findings.
Firstly, women reported a significantly higher level of benefit in the area of
employability skills, compared with men. This is a difficult result to interpret and I can
only speculate that the female respondents may have been more self-aware of such
variables as maturity and personal development and problem solving skills. Alternatively
they may have been more likely to report development in these areas than their male peers.
Research on Australian senior high school students’ aspirations for higher education found
important differences between females and males. Female students were more interested
in doing well at school, learning about the world and contributing to society. Male

142

students were more instrumental in their approach to education, seeking direct connections
to employment and earning money (James, 2000). How such findings can apply to study
abroad is a topic for further research.
Research in the US has suggested that gender differences in study abroad may
relate to how young people are socialized before higher education with regard to
expectations of educational activities that will enhance the academic experience (Salisbury,
Umbach, Paulsen & Pascarella, 2009). In particular, a major study found that Asian
American men were less likely to intend to study abroad. While it is unclear how these
findings relate to the Australian context, they indicate that differences in participation and
outcomes across genders may need to be considered in policy settings and at a practical
level.
Speaking multiple languages and living abroad before attending university
(including study abroad before high school) returned a significant result for host-country
factors. This was likely to be connected to foreign language proficiency and patterns of
return, with those who studied abroad before university being likely to return to the same
country for study abroad while at university. Repeated exposure to the same country is
likely to increase knowledge and skills related to the local language and culture, so this
outcome is somewhat logical as a result of increasing levels of expertise. Patterns of return
will be discussed further in the next section.
Finally, respondents who worked for an international organization reported
significantly higher benefits on both career-related benefits and host country aspects. This
result appeared to be a rational connection between international study experience and
career outcomes, particularly with regard to the application of country-specific skills in the

143

workplace. The same variables were significant for studying abroad in a foreign language
and studying abroad multiple times, suggesting that the accumulation of international
competencies was beneficial in securing a position with an organization with an
international scope.
However a confounding consideration was the significant association between high
SES and working for an international organization. This association raises the question as
to whether respondents from an educationally advantaged background would have
successfully pursued employment in an international organization regardless of whether or
not they studied abroad. Did study abroad actually play a mediating role in these cases, or
was it an enjoyable co-curricular activity with only loose connections to career outcomes?
Or did the parents of respondents from educationally and/or financially advantaged
backgrounds encourage participation in study abroad more than parents of respondents
from other educational and financial backgrounds? The answer is likely to be somewhat
more nuanced, but remains unresolved from the findings of this study. The results also
suggested connections between SES and language study, and SES and region of study that
may be fully investigated in future research.
Bringing all of these factors together, exploratory logistic regression results
confirmed that studying abroad multiple times was a positive predictor of working for an
organization with an international scope, holding constant gender, first-generation status
and type academic major of the bachelor degree (professional or other). Holding other
factors constant, the predicted probability of working for an organization with an
international scope for a participant of multiple study abroad programs increased 17.14%.
The results also confirmed that first-generation university students and females

144

respectively were 19.17% and 14.54% less likely to work for an international organization.
Non-significant variables included study abroad in a language other than English, study in
Asia, and major of study (professional or other).
As an exploratory study, the model used in this analysis was informed primarily by
data from this study and should be tested through additional research. In any case, it
provides a basis for further considering the implications of the results within the context of
this study sample. If working for an organization with an international scope is an implicit
or explicit signal of success for graduates who participated in study abroad programs, then
studying abroad multiple times may be a more effective strategy to achieve this outcome.
The negative result for first-generation university students, along with other indicators that
SES may play a role in the type of organization graduates work for, may suggest that social
disadvantage carried into the higher education system continues into the graduate
employment market, even with the addition of an international study experience to the
graduate profile.
Recent research on gender-based salary differentials in Australia indicates that
some graduate employment differences between men and women relate to the discipline of
study, with higher percentages of women choosing disciplines with lower graduate salary
outcomes. Even within the same broad occupational categories, young women may be
undertaking different roles as compared to young men (Lindsay, 2014). It is difficult to
speculate how these indicators connect to the finding that females are less likely to work
for an international organization, except to say that there appear to be some unexplored
gender-based variations in graduate employment outcomes. Multiple international
experiences may assist females and economically and educationally disadvantaged

145

students to catch up to their male peers and/or those from more advantaged backgrounds,
in terms of their likely success in obtaining a position with an international organization.
Some of the implications of these findings will be further explored in the next section.
Summary of sub-question findings. An important purpose of this study was to
identify program, background and employment characteristics that influenced early career
outcomes of study abroad programs. Two approaches were used to explore this complex
issue. Firstly, in terms of perceived career benefits, studying abroad in a foreign language,
compulsory study abroad and participation in multiple study abroad programs were
significant variables. Participants who studied in Asia reported a higher level of career
benefit and host country benefits than those who studied in other regions. Those who went
abroad for long periods perceived higher host country benefits from their study experience
abroad than those who studied abroad for a medium duration. Women reported higher
perceived benefits in the area of employability skills, and speaking multiple languages or
living abroad before higher education returned significant results for host country factors.
Finally, respondents who were working for an international organization reported higher
perceived benefits on both career-related benefits and host country aspects.
To clarify these results, an exploratory analysis was undertaken using employment
in an organization with an international scope as the outcome variable. Although this was
not the original focus of the study, the tested outcome reflects policy goals in study abroad
and can potentially provide a more objective measure of success than graduate perceptions
of benefits. Through logistic regression, the results showed studying abroad multiple times
as the only significant programmatic variable, increasing the likelihood of working for an
international organization by 17%. Two background variables decreased the likelihood of

146

working for an international organization: being female, and being a first-generation
university graduate. These results should be considered as a very preliminary model, which
should be further investigated in the future.
The graduates surveyed for this study perceived that study abroad benefited their
early career, with some variation on the type of benefit across programmatic, background
and employment characteristics. For those who studied abroad multiple times, as the most
distinctive variable in the data set, it is possible that the market and non-market return on
investment was higher than for those who studied abroad once. The negative result for
females and first-generation university graduates is difficult to explain without reference to
a control group of graduates who did not study abroad. For full consideration of long-term
access and equity issues, more research is urgently needed. The implications of these
findings will be further explored in the next section.
Discussion of Key Findings
As an exploratory study, this project has many findings, each of which could be
explored in more detail. The purpose of this section is to outline what I view as the five
most important contributions of this study and discuss some implications for policy and
practice. These areas include:
•

Study abroad as a tool for the development of employability skills;

•

Policy related to structural elements of study abroad including study
destination;

•

Access to study abroad;

•

Patterns of return and the development of host country expertise; and

•

Segmentation of the prospective Australian study abroad audience.

147

Study Abroad as a Tool for the Development of Employability Skills
For more than 15 years, the Australian Government, as part of its funding package
for higher education institutions, has required each institution to develop and publish a set
of generic graduate attributes that every graduate should have upon graduation. This stems
from a 1992 quality review stating that Australia should have a “description of the
attributes that graduates should acquire if exposed to a high quality education system”
(Higher Education Council, 1992, p.19). As part of its support for the sector, research was
undertaken and an Employability Skills Framework was developed by the Australian
Government to provide guidance to institutions on the graduate attributes most desired by
the employment sector (DEST, 2002). Employability skills were defined as:
• Communication skills that contribute to productive and harmonious relations
between employees and customers;
• Teamwork skills that contribute to productive working relationships and
outcomes;
• Problem solving skills that contribute to productive outcomes;
• Self-management skills that contribute to employee satisfaction and growth;
• Planning and organizing skills that contribute to long-term and short-term
strategic planning;
• Technology skills that contribute to effective execution of tasks;
• Life-long learning skills that contribute to ongoing improvement and expansion
in employee and company operations and outcomes; and
• Initiative and enterprise skills that contribute to innovative outcomes (DEST,

148

2002).
A 2007 review of university policy statements on graduate attributes, also called
employability skills and generic skills, stated that “most of the eight employability skills
are implicitly or explicitly addressed by each university’s graduate attributes.” (Precision
Consulting, 2007, p. 12). The graduate attribute statements of many universities include
additional items such as global citizenship, social justice and an appreciation for cultural
diversity (Precision Consulting, 2007).
Although it was not the intention of this project to map study abroad outcomes
against defined employability skills, one of the most important findings of this study is the
potential capacity of study abroad to contribute to the mission of the higher education
sector to develop high-level employability skills in all graduates. It is helpful to consider
the original intention in the development of core generic skills (as the term used in the first
policy statement). “These are skills, personal attributes, and values which should be
acquired by all graduates regardless of their discipline or field of study. In other words,
they should represent the central achievements of higher education as a process” (Higher
Education Council, 1992). A key finding in this study is that, from the perspective of
former participants, study abroad contributes to the development of at least four areas
included in the employability skills framework, (i.e., communication skills, teamwork
skills, problem-solving skills and self-management skills, conceptualized in this study as
similar to maturity and personal development). This finding indicates that study abroad
may play a broader role in the graduate outcomes landscape than is currently recognized at
most universities. An additional area for consideration in this respect is that respondents

149

reported New perspectives on home country, an aspect that may be aligned with citizenship
development goals that often appear in graduate attributes statements (Rigby et al., 2009).
This finding may take the utility of study abroad beyond the generally accepted
outcome of the development of intercultural competence (Daly & Barker, 2010) and global
citizenship (though this is also very important and is included in some graduate attribute
statements). Furthermore, the connection between employability skills and study abroad
has been identified in previous studies. Crossman and Clarke (2009) noted the general
contribution of study abroad towards employability. Prospect Marketing (2006) also found
that Australian employers recognized the potential for overseas study to enhance soft
skills, but emphasized that candidates needed to draw attention to these skills sets during
the interview process.
According to recent research, although generic skills have been a requirement in the
higher education system for many years, the development of generic skills remains a
contested area, with different conceptions of what is meant by generic skills across
campuses, and a lack of shared understanding on how generic skills can be integrated
within disciplinary contexts (Barrie, 2012; Green, Hammer & Star, 2009; Rigby et al.,
2009). Although recently some progress has been achieved in the development and
application of a shared understanding of generic skills at some campuses (see Barrie,
2012), the measurement and achievement of generic skills goals remain a challenge at
many institutions.
With the findings of the current study, the opportunity exists to further explore the
connection between generic skills, or employability skills, and study abroad. Recognition
that study abroad may make a positive contribution to specific skills acquisition in this

150

problematic and contested area, and ultimately a contribution to graduate outcomes, may
lead to more institutional support, including funding, to promote study abroad programs
across the full spectrum of disciplines on Australian university campuses. This is not to
say that study abroad is the only tool available to promote employability skills; however
study abroad is currently not framed in this manner, and subsequently may not be receiving
the support needed to make it accessible to a broader audience on campuses.
Policy Related to Structural Elements of Study Abroad
The role of program structural elements, including duration, destination, activity
and foreign language, in study abroad is the focus of policy initiatives internationally.
Four specific examples demonstrate the nature of policy, practice and research in this area.
First, the European Union, through its ERASMUS program, does not fund programs of
less than three-months duration. Second, in the US, the rising popularity of short-term
programs has prompted a series of research studies to test the value of short-term study
abroad against longer programs (for example see Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Dwyer, 2004).
Third, the US government recently launched policy initiatives aimed at increasing the
numbers of students studying in China and Latin America. Finally, the Australian
Government, under the umbrella of the New Colombo Plan announced an ambitious policy
initiative to send more Australian students to Asian countries.
This study set out to test specific program elements against career benefits as
reported by former participants with a view to using this information to inform policy
development at both an institutional and national level. However, it is important to note
the limitation of the data at the outset, that is, the lack of diversity in terms of duration and
program type, and the absence of respondents who studied abroad in Africa and the Middle

151

East. Respondents who studied in Latin America and Eastern Europe, although present,
were too low in numbers to provide a meaningful analysis. Any further research in this
area should work towards obtaining a more balanced sample.
As mentioned previously in this chapter, studying in a foreign language, studying
abroad multiple times, and study abroad as a compulsory component of the bachelor’s
degree were identified as potentially significant structural variables across all benefit
categories. There were also linkages between the variables, indicating, for example, that if
a respondent studied abroad multiple times, there was a high likelihood that one experience
was undertaken in a foreign language. The nature and structure of programs with
compulsory study abroad programs generally means that foreign language is also a
requirement. The international nature of the curriculum in these degree programs indicates
that participants are possibly already predisposed to an international career, and likely to be
more receptive to additional opportunities to go abroad. The finding that these three
variables were tightly connected to perceived positive career benefits and working in
international organizations also indicates that such programs appear to be achieving their
intended graduate outcomes.
The findings of this study lead me to recommend that institutional policy-makers
consider how their course offerings and structures support students in studying a foreign
language and studying abroad more than once. A well-structured program that supports
both foreign language study and multiple study abroad experiences appears to be best
practice when considering perceived career benefits for participants and an employment
outcome of working for an international organization. Ideally, such programs could
consider how multiple study abroad opportunities might be required or strongly

152

encouraged, particularly for those students who were not able to study abroad before
higher education, and for those students who aspire to a career in an international
organization.
In terms of specific country or regional focuses in study abroad policy, the findings
indicate some support for claims that exposure to Asia is perceived to provide a career
benefit. However, conflicting results from the regression analysis should also be
considered. The regression results indicated only a small, non-significant effect for Asia as
a study destination and this creates some uncertainty in the results. The reported shift
towards a global work environment and a focus on brain circulation (Wildavsky, 2010)
may mean that a variety of experiences in different countries is more important for young
graduates than deep experience with one country. This topic needs to be explored through
further research in order to understand the dynamics impacting upon the perceived career
benefits and outcomes of graduates, particularly in relation to region or country of study.
Qualitative methodology would better serve this purpose. At the same time, the finding
indicates that practitioners, faculty and policy leaders may benefit students by rethinking
their rhetoric around destinations of study. These findings strongly suggest that all
students regardless of their destination of study perceived general career benefits and that
specific country benefits may be limited to a much smaller group of participants. The
recommendation from this study is that country-specific policies to support study abroad
should be balanced against recognition of the general benefits that are likely to be gained
regardless of study destination.

153

Access to Study Abroad
This study provides the first comprehensive Australian data set on the backgrounds
of study abroad participants. Central to this study was the inclusion of socio-economic and
first-generation university graduate indicators. A limitation that needs to be recognized is
that the high school indicator used to allocate students to an SES category is a geographic
indicator and not an individual measure. However, it is a valid way of understanding the
general patterns of participation in this study (Marks, McMillan, Jones & Ainsley, 2000),
and is reinforced by other data such as first-generation status, tuition-fee payment
information and the history of travel prior to higher education. Many of the respondents in
this study represented an educationally and economically advantaged group and this is not
a surprising finding. While access to higher education has been the focus of government
policy in recent years (see Bradley, Noonan, Nugent & Scales, 2008), it has not been a
topic of discussion around study abroad policy.
The results of this study challenge accepted policies and practices that do not
consider socio-economic background when promoting programs and awarding funding. It
is a difficult area to address, but the finding that 51% of respondents come from the top
25% of high schools, in terms of their SES designation, indicates that there may be serious
access issues related to study abroad for Australian students. These access issues may
continue into the graduate employment market, if working for an international organization
is a valid indication of early career success. The result that first-generation university
graduates in this study were around 20% less likely to work for an international
organization is both puzzling and alarming.

154

Further research is needed to understand all of the factors in this complex picture.
Research in Europe on access to the ERASMUS program indicates that the solution is not
as straightforward as providing scholarships (see Vossensteyn et al., 2010), and this may
be informative to the Australian sector. Practice in the US informed by a growing body of
knowledge on diversity and study abroad (see Stallman, Woodruff, Kasravi & Comp,
2010) may also be instructive in broadening access in Australia. The application of student
choice models to the study abroad decision process is an interesting research area in the US
that may assist in framing future research studies in Australia (see Salisbury, Umbach,
Paulsen & Pascarella, 2009; Salisbury, Paulsen & Pascarella, 2011). Cost is not the only
barrier to study abroad in many countries where this has been studied. Cultural and social
capital of students and their families can also be important variables to consider when
addressing study abroad access issues (Jahr & Teichler, 2007). This is particularly relevant
for policies and practices around first-generation university students.
Finally, this study raises some additional questions regarding access to language
study prior to higher education, the impact this has upon studying abroad in a foreign
language, choice of destination, and the subsequent career outcomes. It may be that a lack
of access to foreign language in the non-private school system is the starting point for
some access issues in study abroad that cannot be resolved by the higher education system.
Where these resourcing and policy implications spill over into ongoing disadvantage in the
employment sector, this issue should be a concern to a broader section of the Australian
community, and certainly to policy-makers at a national and state level.

155

Patterns of Return and the Development of Host Country Expertise
I have already noted that this is the first time patterns of international mobility have
been examined in the Australian context. Not only was it a surprise to note that almost one
quarter of respondents had studied abroad more than once, it was unexpected that 21% had
studied abroad before university. Patterns of international study during high school are
virtually unknown in Australia on a national level, so it has not been possible to connect
high school study abroad with university study abroad in the past.
This study extends the pattern one step further to consider post-graduation
international work experience for this sample. Seventeen percent worked abroad at the
time of the study, a figure consistent with results from studies of European graduates
(Teichler & Janson, 2007). Also consistent with research on European students (MurphyLejeune, 2002), it appears that experiences of living and studying overseas prior to higher
education positively predispose young Australians to international experiences in the
future.
When considering patterns of return to a country in which respondents had previous
studied, familiarity is a significant pull-factor, particularly for students who went to Japan
and the UK. Table 6.2 presents the data.

156

Table 6.2
Analysis of patterns of international experiences from high school to university to work
following graduation
Studied abroad before

Studied abroad multiple

university

times at university

21% (n=41)

24% (n=54)

Now work abroad

17% (n=38)

46% (n=19) returned to host Second experience: 30%

37% (n=14) returned to host

country

country

(n=16) returned to host
country
Third experience: 46%
(n=6) returned to host
country

Popular countries of return:

Popular countries of return:

Popular countries of return:

Japan, France, Germany,

UK, Japan, USA, China

Japan, UK, Italy

USA

These findings show that a small group of respondents have developed significant
skills and knowledge connected with one country. Whether the individuals at the outset
planned this is unknown, but it can be concluded that this group, especially the 14 who, at
the time of the study, were working in a country in which they previously studied abroad,
have accumulated important international career capital (Inkson & Arthur, 2001; Inkson &
Myers, 2005). The prevalence of Japan in the countries of return suggests that if the
Australian Government wants to achieve successful policy outcomes in developing
graduates with expertise in Asia, further examination of policies and programs between
Australia and Japan could be very beneficial. Australia’s study abroad partnership with
Japan and the long-term connections for respondents are notable in this study.
157

It is unknown if any more of the respondents will work abroad in the future, but we
should consider Table 6.2 to be an incomplete picture, as it is likely that more respondents
will work abroad at some time. This research study, therefore, provides a foundation for
further research that tracks the career progression of graduates at a national and
international level and the subsequent contribution of this career development to both
private and social aspects of human capital. A longitudinal tracer study is needed to extend
our understanding of this phenomenon, and also to better understand the career benefits
and broader personal and social outcomes following participation in a study abroad
program. Research of this nature has been attempted in the US (see Paige, Fry, Stallman,
Josi & Jon, 2009) but the final report on the qualitative component of the study has not
been completed. Research in Europe, through the European Graduate Surveys, tracks
outcomes of cohorts of graduates over time, but each temporal period reports on a new
group of graduates (see Teichler & Janson, 2007).
Another area of future research could look at the decision processes of students as
they are making their destination choices. Of particular interest would be those who have
studied abroad in the past and their rationale for choosing a familiar country over a
different country or vice versa. A policy-related research question could consider how
career-related decisions are made and supported by Australian universities. In a time of
increased competition in the domestic student recruitment market, what influence do study
abroad opportunities have when prospective students are choosing their universities? And
do the same conditions apply in the competitive international student market? The next
section will attempt to summarize the findings presented so far into a coherent model.

158

Segmentation of the Prospective Australian Study Abroad Audience
Throughout this analysis, I’ve examined at some length those respondents with
multiple experiences abroad. The findings steered me in that direction, and some
important discoveries have been discussed. In this last section, I will present a proposed
model for understanding the broad landscape of study abroad in Australia considering both
the respondent profiles and the career outcomes, with the goal of further enhancing the
human capital development and employment success of Australian graduates.
The sample can be viewed as representing two basic groups: Those who had
undertaken their first significant international experience through a study abroad program,
and those who had been abroad before university and were seeking an additional
international experience through study abroad. We know from the analysis that the second
group was more likely to represent a high socio-economic group. This fact does not mean
that the first group was not from a high SES group, but indicates that it was likely to be a
mix of respondents from a range of backgrounds. It probably means, however, that the
two groups had different needs when they started the process of deciding, then applying,
then actually leaving Australia.
A little later in their higher education, a third group entered the mix, and this group
represented those who had already studied abroad during their bachelor degree. This group
was familiar with the process of looking for options and submitting an application, but
probably brought another set of needs into the picture. While these patterns can all be
viewed from the practitioner perspective, as illustrated in Figure 6.1, this framework can
also provide a conceptual understanding of how international skills and knowledge, as a
subset of human capital, accumulate through study abroad experiences. At the entry level,

159

there are the Explorers, who are using their study abroad program to undertake their first
academically-focused and (likely) extended time period overseas. For some, the Explorer
phase happens before higher education and they are entering this picture as Returners, who
bring with them to university an existing set of international skills and experiences (basic
international human capital). At the next level, there are Collectors, students who
undertake multiple study abroad experiences with a view to building their international
skills and knowledge and possibly shaping their profile to work in an international role in
the future.
The final group, which I have called Young Globalists, have had multiple
experiences abroad and are developing a significant international skills and knowledge
portfolio, either with specialization in one country, or with a variety of experiences which
they perceive will support their long-term career prospects. It is likely that this group has
acquired language skills along the way to supplement their employment profile. Young
Globalists are focused and strategic about their choices in relation to their education and
career profile, and their human capital development, and are likely to spend substantial
time abroad at a professional level in the future.

160

Figure 6.1
Conceptual model of Australian study abroad participants and the development of
international human capital

Young
Globalist

Collector
Returner
Explorer

It is important to note that not all prospective students will continue along the
international experience pyramid. Many will be satisfied with one experience to begin
their exploration of the world. The findings of this study indicate that important career
benefits can be attained from
m one experience abroad and many students will use their
acquired skills, knowledge and experiences in whatever job they move into following
graduation. A smaller and more international
international-career
career focused group will go to university
seeking multiple levels of international opportunities to develop their skills, knowledge
and experiences to support their career development in the future.
For institutions, this means study abroad programs need to cater to a range of
student profiles with different motivations an
and
d varying career goals. Universities need the
educational pathways, program models and financial assistance to support a segmented

161

student body, while facilitating access to study abroad for all students. It is likely that this
space, specifically providing access to international experiences for Explorers, Returners
and Collectors, and the development of future Young Globalists, will become increasingly
competitive as Australian universities look for points of differentiation in a crowded higher
education market.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Although I have already discussed many of the implications of this study, in this
section I will draw together and summarize the main implications to ensure that they are
readily accessible to the reader. Table 6.3 provides a summary of the implications
discussed in this chapter.

162

Table 6.3
Implications for policy and practice
Implication
1. Connect study abroad with employability skills and graduate outcomes:
Universities should recognize the utility of study abroad in the development of
employability skills, as an important goal of higher education, and therefore
the potential of study abroad to improve graduate outcomes.
2. Educate graduate employers on study abroad benefits: Universities and the
Australian Government should play an active role in raising awareness
amongst employers about the employability benefits of study abroad
participation, as identified in the results of this dissertation.
3. Increase opportunities for foreign language study and studying abroad
multiple times: Universities should examine how policies and practices
encourage (or mandate) foreign language study and multiple study abroad
participation for all students, as the most salient factors for high-level career
benefits.
4. Balance goals relating to specific geographic locations against general
participation goals: Study abroad policy and practice should recognize the
general career benefits of study abroad participation for all participants,
regardless of the destination country chosen. Balance between policy priorities
is important to cater to the needs and career goals of different students.
5. Cater for students with diverse needs: Universities should develop a
segmented approach to study abroad program promotion, development,
financing and delivery, and offer opportunities for international experiences at
different stages of the degree path.
6. Address issues around access to study abroad: Access to study abroad may
change career outcomes. Universities and the Australian Government should
work together to address access issues in study abroad, to ensure all students
can compete for the most desirable, international jobs.
7. Use Japan as a unique case study on how to expand study abroad in Asia:
The Australian Government should use the case of Japan-Australia education

163

Table 6.3 (cont’d)
partnerships to better understand how to expand study abroad in Asia and
develop more Asia-literate graduates.

Research Methodology and Limitations
Before outlining my recommendations for further research and concluding the
presentation of this research project, I will draw together the main limitations and discuss
the topic of research methodology as it relates to this study, its weaknesses and the
potential for further research on this subject area.
The major challenge of this study was the complexity of the topic and the difficulty
of studying a unique set of outcomes in isolation from the previous influences and the
environment in which the phenomenon occurs. Study abroad is just one piece of the
education process, which has been happening for at least twelve years before an individual
reaches university, and is influenced by a wide range of background variables and personal
characteristics. Universities provide different education environments. In addition, the
graduate employment sector is diverse. All of these factors create research challenges, and
when added to the wide range of international study experiences, the process of
investigation and interpreting results becomes overwhelming. The final interpretation was
guided by my professional knowledge of the answers that are most urgently needed for
policy development, but there are many more questions and answers left to be explored.
Complex issues of cause and effect may never be fully understood.
A significant constraint on this study was sample size, which reflected the logistical
complications in finding and contacting prospective respondents. Australian universities
do not have a long history of fostering alumni relations, nor do they have good systems (in

164

general) to identify study abroad participants in the central student records systems.
Additionally, decentralized institutional structures revealed weaknesses in identifying
particular groups of study abroad program participants, such as those who went abroad
under faculty-sponsored programs like study tours and internships. The lack of diversity in
the data is a weakness in the current study that can be rectified in the future with the
adoption of centralized record systems that connect through to alumni databases. A few
institutions seem to have good systems in place. Given the challenges presented, the
sample gathered for this study was a very good starting point.
Being a quantitative study, sample size was important and in some areas the data
did not allow for full analysis of important aspects of the study. While disappointing, this
result may support the case for using qualitative methodologies in the future for further
exploration of this topic. The Australian international higher education sector is highly
oriented towards quantitative data, and this is another reason the current study was
designed to utilize quantitative analysis. However, in building complex life cases, such as
those identified through this study, much richness and a greater understanding could be
developed through in-depth and constructivist research methodologies. In terms of
unbundling many of the issues identified in this study, I believe this is the direction that
should be taken to further contribute to our knowledge of study abroad outcomes in the
Australian context.
The other major methodological issue identified through this study was the
temporal nature of the data. Although this study was designed as a snapshot of the early
career period, and successfully achieved this goal, this choice also reflected the availability
of data and the logistics of a national study. Study abroad in the Australian context is not a

165

new phenomenon, but it has only recently caught the attention of policy-makers as an
interesting and worthwhile educational activity. Participation has grown rapidly in recent
years and this should facilitate future research projects with larger and more representative
data sets.
Recommendations for Further Research
I have identified six areas of research that should follow this study to continue to
expand our knowledge of study abroad outcomes for Australian students:
1.

Longitudinal tracer studies, tracking graduates as they progress further in
their careers and their lives, and the long-term private and social impacts
of study abroad;

2.

The contribution of study abroad to career-management skills, and the
support provided in Australian universities for international career
development;

3.

The role of education advantage (SES and parental education) in study
abroad access, destination choice and language acquisition;

4.

The role of social and cultural capital of students and their families in the
decision to study abroad;

5.

The role of individual characteristics and predispositions influencing
travel, study abroad and a general interest in gaining international
knowledge and experiences;

6.

The implications of the increasing diversity in program types, durations
and destinations, as recently reported in Australia, for study abroad
outcomes.

166

Although the short-term nature of policy-making in the Australian higher education
system may work against an ambition to understand the long-term implications of study
abroad participation, several institutions could come together to sponsor a meaningful
long-term research project which examines outcomes beyond the early career period
considered in this study. The international mobility of young people through education is a
growing trend and research is urgently needed to encourage informed policy and funding
decisions. For the young people themselves, a better understanding of the long-term
benefits is likely to encourage investment in study abroad, along with more purposeful
choices.
The area of career development and study abroad is closely related to the current
focus on employability at Australian universities. However, we understand little about
how students are conceiving study abroad in the career-development context, and what
support they are receiving to design experiences that will allow them to explore possible
international career directions. In this area, Australian researchers and practitioners could
benefit from recent discussion in the US on this topic. This area of research could also
include a closer examination of connections between study abroad and employability
skills.
For policy-makers and practitioners, a deeper understanding of access issues
including the role of SES, parental education and social and cultural capital is likely to
change approaches to study abroad policy setting and implementation. In this area, the
unintended consequences of policy, such as elite access to scholarship programs and
language requirements for overseas study should be examined. Additionally, a better
understanding of individual predispositions that may influence study abroad participation

167

could support educators in expanding participation of different student groups. Finally,
with the emergence of new and diverse program models, and the expansion of enrolments
in these activities, research is needed to consider these variables against planned and actual
outcomes.
Concluding Thoughts
This research study was conceptualized to provide a foundation of knowledge in
the area of study abroad and career outcomes in Australia, and it has successfully achieved
this goal. Through this study, and the small knowledge base from which it was informed,
we now understand much more than ever before about the early career experiences of
former participants in study abroad programs, and the international mobility patterns of a
segment of the university undergraduate population. Although this study was based on the
Australian context, my hope is that some of the general findings and implications will
make a contribution to the understanding of study abroad outcomes and future research in
other countries. The current study is, however, only another step in the discovery process,
which relies on future researchers to make additional contributions to our understanding of
study abroad outcomes. By better understanding the implications of study abroad policy
and practice, we can support future generations in becoming more internationally attuned
and better prepared to face the challenges imposed by an increasingly interconnected
world.

168

APPENDICES

169

Appendix A

Survey Instrument
Early Career Value of International Study for Australian University Graduates

Research Participant Information and Consent Form
You are being asked to participate in a research study that seeks to better understand the
perceived benefits of international education for the early career of graduates of
Australian universities. This study is being conducted in cooperation with the Australian
Universities International Directors Forum (AUIDF) and involves participants from a range
of Australian universities. You have been selected as a possible participant in this study
from the records of the Education Abroad Office of your university. From this study, the
researchers hope to learn about what aspects of your international study experience have
been most beneficial to you in the process of finding employment and starting your
career.
Your participation in this study will take about twenty minutes. You are asked to
complete a survey made up of nine questions about the benefits to your career of
international study. The remaining questions are about your work, your university study,
your study abroad experience and your personal background.
Your participation in this research is voluntary. You may elect not to participate without
any penalty or loss of benefits at any time during the study. You are free to not answer
certain questions without penalty or loss of benefits.
There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. Additionally,
there are no costs or compensation for participating in this study. The potential benefits
are
(1). Reflection of your experiences in applying for jobs and starting work as a
graduate of an Australian university,
(2). Reflection on how your international experience may benefit your career in
the future, and
(3). Help inform future research on international study and career outcomes for
graduates.
No personal identifiers are attached to the survey (IP addresses will not be recorded).
This means that neither the researchers nor anyone else has any way of linking individuals
with completed surveys. All survey responses will be kept confidential and only shared

170

among members of the research team. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law. The results of this study may be published or presented at
professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain
anonymous.
To enter the prize draw, you will be linked to a different survey system, that is not
connected to the main survey. Entering your details into the prize draw will not, in any
way, compromise the anonymity of your survey responses.
For the period of the project, the data will be stored on the Qualtrics system. This data is
not used by the survey administrators under the Qualtrics privacy policy.
If you would like further information about this research, please contact:
Davina Potts
Doctoral Candidate
Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI, 48824
E-mail: pottsda1@msu.edu
If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant,
would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint
about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State
University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or
e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Clicking the “I agree” button below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this
research study. Please print this information for your records.

171

Figure A1
Screening Questions
Screening Questions
1. Did you participate in an education abroad program, student exchange, study tour or other
international activity recognized by your university during your bachelor degree studies?
a. Yes
b. No – survey terminates
2. Have you graduated from your bachelor degree?
a. Yes
b. No – survey terminates
3. Institution [drop down menu list of participating institutions]

4. What is your current major activity?
a. Full-time employed (35 hours or more per week)
b. Self-employed
c. Part-time employed (less than 35 hours per week)
d. Unemployed (seeking employment) – survey terminates
e. Further full-time study – survey terminates
f. Family care – survey terminates
g. Other – survey terminates

172

Main Survey Instrument

Current employment situation

1.

How many employers have you had since graduation?
a. One employer
b. Two employers
c. Three employers
d. Four employers
e. Five or more employers
f. Other

2.

What type of organization do you currently work with?
a. Public
b. Private
c. Non-profit

3.

What type of position do you currently hold?
a. Managers
b. Professionals
c. Technicians and trade workers
d. Community and personal service workers
e. Clerical and administrative workers
f. Other occupations

4.

In which industry are you employed?
a. Agriculture, forestry & fishing
b. Mining
c. Manufacturing
d. Electricity, gas, water supply
e. Construction
f. Wholesale trade
g. Retail trade
h. Accommodation and food services
i. Transport, postal and warehousing
j. Information media and telecommunications
k. Financial and insurance services
l. Rental, hiring and real estate services
m. Professional, scientific and technical services
n. Administrative and support services
o. Public administration and safety
p. Education and training
q. Healthcare and social assistance
r. Arts and recreation services
s. Other services

5.

Approximately many employees are employed by your organization?
a. 1-19
b. 20-100
c. 100-500

173

d.
6.

More than 500

What is the scope of operation of your organization?
a. Local
b. Regional
c. National
d. International

Employment & Career Impact Questions

1. What criteria were important to you when seeking employment? (scale 1= not at all important, 5 = very
important)
a. Applying knowledge and skills acquired while studying
b. High income
c. Accomplishing worthwhile professional activities
d. Enough spare time for other activities (life balance)
e. Possibility of personal development
f. Possibility to explore own ideas
g. Well recognized professional status
h. High employment security
i. Applying foreign language skills
j. Working in a foreign country
k. Working in an organization with an international scope
2. How important, according to you, were the following aspects for your employer in recruiting you for
potential employment after graduation, if applicable? (Scale 1=,not at all, 5 = very high extent)
a. Field of study
b. Grades
c. Work experience acquired during course of study
d. Reputation of the university you attended (Australian university)
e. Your experience/s abroad
f. Country/region of your experience/s abroad
g. Foreign language proficiency
h. References or recommendations
i. Personality
3. Have you had a professional international mobility experience since graduation? (yes/no, multiple
responses possible)
a. I considered working abroad
b. I sought employment abroad
c. I have actually received an offer to work abroad
d. I have actually had regular employment abroad since graduation
e. I have actually been sent abroad by my employer on work assignments
f. None of the above
Free text box for comments

174

4. To what extent does the organization, institution or company with which you are associated do
business or have contact with other countries? (scale 1 = not at all important, 5= very high extent)
a. With other countries in general
b. With the host country of your study abroad
c. With host region of your study abroad

5. How important do you consider the following competencies for doing your current work? (scale 1= not
at all important, 5 = very important)
a. Knowledge of other countries (eg. economical, sociological, legal knowledge)
b. Knowledge/understanding of international differences in culture and society, modes of behaviour
in culture and society, lifestyles etc
c. Working with people from different cultural backgrounds
d. Communicating in foreign languages

6. To what extent do the responsibilities of your work involve the following: (Scale 1= not at all, 5 = very
high extent)
a. Using firsthand professional knowledge of the host country
b. Using firsthand general knowledge of host country culture/society
c. Professional travel to host country
d. Using the language of the host country orally (where language other than English)
e. Using the language of the host country in reading and writing (where language other than English)
Free text box for comments
7. What impact do you feel that your study abroad experience has had with regard to your employment?
(scale 1= very negative impact, 5= very positive impact)
a. Obtaining first job
b. Type of work task involved
c. Income level
d. Long-term career prospects

8. From your point of view today, to what extent do you consider your study abroad worthwhile with
regard to the following? (scale 1= not at all worthwhile to 5 = very worthwhile)
a. Enhancement of academic and professional knowledge
b. Relevance to your job/occupation
c. Interpersonal and communications skills
d. Career prospects
e. Increasing your motivation and passion for your career direction
f. Foreign language proficiency
g. Teamwork/ability to work with others
h. New perspectives on your home country
i. Problem solving and analytical skills
j. Knowledge and understanding of the host country
k. Maturity and personal development

175

9. Of the areas rated in the previous question, in which areas do you believe your study abroad
experience has provided you with the greatest benefits? Please rank your top three (1=greatest benefit).
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.

Enhancement of academic and professional knowledge
Relevance to your job/occupation
Interpersonal and communications skills
Career prospects
Increasing your motivation and passion for your career direction
Foreign language proficiency
Teamwork/ability to work with others
New perspectives on your home country
Problem solving and analytical skills
Knowledge and understanding of the host country
Maturity and personal development

Free text box for comments

Education information

1.

Please select your major areas of study in your undergraduate degree
a. Natural and physical sciences
b. Information technology
c. Engineering and related technologies
d. Architecture and building
e. Health
f. Education
g. Management and commerce
h. Society and culture
i. Creative arts

2.

Did you study
a. Full-time
b. Part-time
c. Combination

3.

In which year did you graduate?
a. 2008
b. 2009
c. 2010
d. Other [free text]

4.

How do you rate your academic achievement during your bachelor degree? (Scale 1= very poor, 5
= very good)

176

5.

Please provide further details of your international study experience/s (list up to 3)
a. Country (Populated from ABS country list)
b. Duration (1 month or less; 2-3 months; 4-6 months; 7-12 months; more than 12 months)
c. Activity (academic courses taught at an overseas institution; study tour facilitated or led
by home institution; internship, practicum, or clinical placement; volunteering; research;
double/joint degree; conference; other)
d. Language of activity (English; host country language; combination)

6.

Was international study a compulsory component of your degree?
a. Yes
b. No

7.

How did you finance your tuition? (if multiple, indicate the major form)
a. HECS upfront
b. HECS deferred
c. International fee-paying
d. Australian fee-paying
e. Other scholarship/funding [free text]

8.

How did you finance your international experience? (may select multiple)
a. OS-Help
b. Australian government scholarship (Endeavour, UMAP, EU/AU)
c. Institutional grant or scholarship
d. Foundation grant or scholarship
e. Bank loan
f. Personal funds
g. Family support
h. Other [free text]

9.

Are you planning to undertake further study?
a. I am currently enrolled in a postgraduate program
b. I am planning to enroll in a postgraduate program
c. Don’t know

Background Information

1.

Gender
a. Male
b. Female

2.

Year of birth [drop down menu]

3.

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
a. Yes
b. No
c. Don’t know

177

4.

Citizenship
a. Country where completed secondary education (Populated from ABS country list)
b. Current country of employment/work
c. Current country of residence (where you live now)
d. Country of citizenship

5.

Prior to your first enrolment in higher education, have you been employed abroad, have you
received any education abroad or have you lived abroad? (list up to three in each category. Do
not include tourism travel).
a.
b.

Yes (continue with question)
No (skip to next question)
i. Studied abroad [Years

months

country]

ii. Worked abroad [Years

months

country]

iii. Lived abroad [Years

months

country]

6.

Which languages do you speak?
a. Up to 5 options (populated from ABS list)

7.

What is the highest level of education attained by your parents?
a. Mother
i. 10 years or less
ii. 11-12 years (senior secondary education)
secondary education)
iii. University bachelor degree
iv. Postgraduate degree (Masters, PhD)
(Masters, PhD)
v. Don’t know/not applicable

8.

Which high school did you attend?
a. Name
b. State (if Australia) or County (if not Australia)

Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Free text box for comments

178

Father
10 years or less
11-12 years (senior
University bachelor degree
Postgraduate degree
Don’t know/not applicable

SURVEY COMPLETION TEXT
Thank you for completing this survey. To enter the prize draw to win an iPad or STA travel
voucher (valued at $539), please follow the link below. In order to maintain the confidentiality of
your survey response, this link will take you out of this survey into a different web site. Your
survey will remain anonymous and cannot be linked to your entry into the prize draw.
This competition is being conducted in compliance with the competition laws of all states
participating in the survey. For the purpose of Victorian state regulations, the competition is being
conducted through Swinburne University of Technology, declared community or charitable
organization number 46359. The winner will be notified by email within two days of the prize
draw, to be conducted on July 31 2013.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LHLS6GW

Competition entry text (operated in a different database program)
Competition registration - international education and careers research
This competition is being conducted in compliance with the competition laws of all states
participating in the survey. For the purpose of Victorian state regulations, the competition
is being conducted through Swinburne University of Technology, declared community or
charitable organization number 46359.
The winner will be notified by email within two days of the prize draw, to be conducted on
July 31 2013.
All data from the survey remains confidential - competition entries cannot be linked to
your survey answers.
*1. Please enter your name and email address so you can be contacted if you win the
prize draw
Name:

Email Address:

Thank you for participating. If you have any questions, please contact Davina Potts, PhD
Candidate, pottsda1@msu.edu

179

Appendix B

Permission to Use Survey Instrument
Figure B1
Permission to use survey instrument

180

Appendix C

Instructions To Institutions
AUIDF research study: Graduate perceptions of the early career value of international learning
mobility
Project overview
This project has been designed as an exploratory study considering the early career benefits of
participation in outbound education abroad programs. It is based on similar work in Europe
which has been undertaken over the last 20 years. The main survey questions have been taken
from the European Graduate Survey and modified for the Australian audience. They address such
issues as perceived benefits of an international study experience during recruitment, in obtaining
a job, and in supporting the day-to-day work tasks of graduates. The focus is on specific
international competencies such as the use language and knowledge of their host country. It also
briefly explores benefits beyond the workplace in terms of personal and social development.
The research will also provide valuable insight into the profiles of participants of mobility
programs. This information will assist us in understanding who participates (and who doesn’t),
and how to better target program promotions and scholarships to encourage participation of
underrepresented groups.
11 institutions are participating, representing a diverse range of institutions profiles.
The data collection will happen in June 2013. Results will be presented at the AIEC conference in
October, and it is anticipated that institutional reports will be available by the end of 2013.
The project has been classified as exempt by the MSU Institutional Review Board (ethics
committee). It is still subject to such inclusions as a participation consent form. Individuals will
not be identifiable in the results and there are no harmful consequences from participation. An
incentive for participation is being offered – an iPad or STA travel voucher. In order to enter the
prize draw, respondents will exit the main survey and enter a new system to enter their contact
details.
The survey is being distributed through a program called Qualtrics, similar to Survey Monkey.
Design of the study
I am providing you with all of the tools you need to facilitate data collection. This includes the
project overview (above), target group, email templates for three email invitations and a timeline.
I will connect with you in person (at NAFSA) or by Skype to answer any other questions that arise
at your institution. I will be available throughout the study period to assist you.
Study targets: Who to send the invitation to participate to

181

The targets of the study are graduates who have been working for around three years.
Recognizing that there are limitations on graduate records at some institutions, a broader criteria
has been set (and can be sorted in the analysis). The criteria for your data set is students who:
1. Have studied abroad
2. Participated in a study abroad program during 2007-2009
3. Was an undergraduate student when they participated in study abroad
Other criteria will be screened during the initial questions (you don’t need to worry about these
things):
• Has graduated
• Graduated between 2007 and 2012
• Is currently full or part-time employed
As there are screening mechanisms in place, don't worry if your data is not 100% accurate. The
survey program will take care of this.
Timeline for data collection
Week of May 20
Study information distributed by email
May 20 to June 7
Davina will check in with institutions by Skype or in person at NAFSA
Week of June 10
Email invitation 1
Week of June 17
Email invitation 2
Week of June 24
Email invitation 3
You are requested to send the invitation to participate to the target group three times over a
period of three weeks – one per week for three weeks. The exact day for sending the email is
flexible and can be determined by the institution.
I anticipate checking in with each institution between email 2 and 3 to update you on response
rates and discuss any issues that may have arisen.
Survey closes July 5.
Preliminary results presented: Week of October 7 (AIEC conference)

Contact Details
Davina Potts
Pottsda1@msu.edu or davina.potts@gmail.com
Skype: davinapotts
Ph: +39 340 605 9798

182

Email templates
Please use the following templates for each email. Note that you’ll need to insert the institution
name and contact, and you may also tailor the email with the program name used by your
institution (for example, the Griffith University Exchange Program). Let me know if you have any
questions.
Email 1 (send week of June 10)
Re: Important study on education abroad for graduates of Australian universities
Dear [insert institution name] Alumni,
I am writing to invite you to participate in a study on the career outcomes for graduates of
Australian universities who participated in an international study experience during their
undergraduate degree. As a participant in the [insert institution name] education abroad
program, we are contacting you.
The study involves recent graduates from around Australia, and the results will help universities
to improve international study opportunities particularly as they support or enhance the career
opportunities of graduates. Results of the study will also be made available to the Australian
Government.
All respondents who complete the survey will be eligible to enter a prize draw to win an iPad or
an STA travel voucher (valued at $539).
To complete the anonymous survey, go to the following link:
https://msucoe.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cUTN9pY4e5Q7Pql
If you have any questions about the project you can contact the Australian Universities
International Directors Forum at eo@auidf.org .
Yours sincerely,
[institutional contact name/office]

Email 2 (send week of June 17)
Re: Share your opinion on your career experiences
Dear [insert institution name] Alumni,
Many recent graduates have already responded to this opportunity to tell us how your
international study experience relates to your career experiences so far. If you haven’t already
competed the survey, click the link below.
All respondents who complete the survey will be eligible to enter a prize draw to win an iPad or
an STA travel voucher (valued at $539).
The study involves recent graduates from around Australia, and the results will help universities
to improve international study opportunities particularly as they support or enhance the career

183

opportunities of graduates. Results of the study will also be made available to the Australian
Government.

To complete the anonymous survey, go to the following link:
https://msucoe.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cUTN9pY4e5Q7Pql

If you have any questions about the project you can contact the Australian Universities
International Directors Forum at eo@auidf.org .
Thank you for being part of this important study.
[institutional contact/office signature]

Email 3 (send week of June 24)

Re: Final chance to participate
Attention [institution name] alumni,
You could win an iPad or an STA travel voucher (valued at $539) by completing a survey about
your graduate employment experiences.
Many recent graduates have already responded to this opportunity to tell us how your
international study experience relates to your career experiences so far.
To complete the anonymous survey, go to the following link:
https://msucoe.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cUTN9pY4e5Q7Pql
The study involves recent graduates from around Australia, and the results will help universities
to improve international study opportunities particularly as they support or enhance the career
opportunities of graduates. Results of the study will also be made available to the Australian
Government.

Good luck in the prize draw! Thank you for participating.
[institutional contact/office signature]

184

AUIDF Career Outcomes Project Checklist

Collect data needed for the target group or liaise with another office on campus.
Prepare list for distribution of the email invitation.
Check in by Davina on your institution and the study

Send first email invitation – week of June 10

Notify Davina of the total number of alumni invited to participate

Send second email invitation – week of June 17
Davina checks in on participation so far, discusses questions or concerns

Send third email invitation – week of June 24
* Survey closes July 5
If you are able to collect data on email hits and misses (bounce backs or nondeliveries, for example), please send to Davina
Final response rates sent by Davina (FYI only)

185

Appendix D

List of Variables
Table D.1
List of variables
Dependent variables
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3

Independent variables
Study Abroad Program
variables
Country of study abroad 1
Region study abroad 1 (recoded
from country list)

Description

Scale

Scale variable of factor score for
Employability Skills factor
Scale variable of factor score for
Career-related aspects
Scale variable of factor score for
Host country aspects

Range -4.32600 – 1.34912

Categorical variable country of
study abroad 1
Categorical variable region of
study abroad 1

List taken from Australian
standard classification of countries
1=Asia
2=Continental Europe
3=North America
4=South America
5=UK and Ireland
6=Eastern Europe
1=1 month or less
2=2-3 months
3=4-6 months
4=7-12 months
5=More than 12 months
1=Short (3 months or less)
2=Medium (4-6 months)
3=Long (7-12 months or more)
1=Academic courses taught at an
overseas institution
2=Study tour facilitated or led by
home institution
3=Internship, practicum, clinical
placement
4=Volunteering/community
service
5=Research
6=Double/joint degree
7=Conference
8=Other
1= Academic courses taught at an
overseas institution
2=Other (internship, volunteering,
research, study tour, double/joint
degree, other)
List taken from Australian

Duration of study abroad 1

Categorical variable duration of
study abroad 1

Duration study abroad 1
(recoded)

Categorical variable duration of
study abroad 1 grouped into three
categories
Categorical variable activity of
study abroad 1

Activity of study abroad 1

Activity study abroad 1
(recoded)

Dichotomous variable activity of
study abroad 1 grouped into two
categories

Language study abroad 1

Categorical variable language of

186

Range -2.62662 – 1.49316
Range -2.66982 – 1.67834

Table D.1 (cont’d)
study abroad 1
Country of study abroad 2
Region study abroad 2
(recoded)

Categorical variable country of
study abroad 2
Categorical variable region of
study abroad 2

Duration study abroad 2

Categorical variable duration of
study abroad 2

Activity study abroad 2

Categorical variable activity of
study abroad 2

Language study abroad 2

Categorical variable language of
study abroad 2

Country of study abroad 3

Categorical variable country of
study abroad 3
Categorical variable region of
study abroad 3

Region study abroad 3
(recoded)

Duration study abroad 3

Categorical variable duration of
study abroad 3

Activity study abroad 3

Categorical variable activity of
study abroad 3

187

standard classification of
languages
List taken from Australian
standard classification of countries
1=Asia
2=Continental Europe
3=North America
4=South America
5=UK and Ireland
6=Eastern Europe
1=1 month or less
2=2-3 months
3=4-6 months
4=7-12 months
5=More than 12 months
1=Academic courses taught at an
overseas institution
2=Study tour facilitated or led by
home institution
3=Internship, practicum, clinical
placement
4=Volunteering/community
service
5=Research
6=Double/joint degree
7=Conference
8=Other
List taken from Australian
standard classification of
languages
List taken from Australian
standard classification of countries
1=Asia
2=Continental Europe
3=North America
4=South America
5=UK and Ireland
6=Eastern Europe
1=1 month or less
2=2-3 months
3=4-6 months
4=7-12 months
5=More than 12 months
1=Academic courses taught at an
overseas institution
2=Study tour facilitated or led by
home institution
3=Internship, practicum, clinical
placement
4=Volunteering/community
service
5=Research
6=Double/joint degree
7=Conference
8=Other

Table D.1 (cont’d)
Language study abroad 3

Categorical variable language of
study abroad 3

Studied abroad in another
language
Went to same destination twice

Dichotomous variable language of
study abroad all experiences
Dichotomous variable studied
abroad at the same destination
twice
Dichotomous variable study in
Asia or not (experience 1, 2 or 3)
Dichotomous variable study in
Continental Europe or not
(experience 1, 2 or 3)
Dichotomous variable study in
North America or not (experience
1, 2 or 3)
Dichotomous variable study in
UK and Ireland or not (experience
1, 2 or 3)
Categorical variable number of
times studied abroad

Asia study
Euro study

NA study

UK study

Number of times studied abroad

Studied abroad multiple times

Categorical variable studied
abroad multiple times

Background variables
Individual characteristics
Gender

Dichotomous variable gender

Age
Aboriginal or Torres Straight
Islander

Continuous variable current age
Categorical variable representing
indigenous background

Currently work overseas

Dichotomous variable indicating
that respondent works overseas
Categorical variable country in
which the respondent is currently
working
Categorical variable country in
which the respondent is currently
a resident
Dichotomous variable indicating
if respondent has multiple
citizenship
Categorical variable indicating
country of citizenship 1
Categorical variable indicating
country of citizenship 2
Categorical variable country in
which secondary education was
completed
String variable – high school
String variable – high school
state/country
Dichotomous variable indicating

Country current employment

Country current residence

Holds more than one citizenship

Country of citizenship 1
Country of citizenship 2
Country secondary education

Name of high school attended
State/Country of high school
Previous international

188

List taken from Australian
standard classification of
languages
1=English
0=Not English
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=One
2=Two
3=Three
1=Yes
0=No

1=Female
0=Male
Range 21-30, Other
0=No
1=Yes
2=Don’t know
1=Yes
0=No
List taken from Australian
standard classification of countries
List taken from Australian
standard classification of countries
1=Yes
0=No
List taken from Australian
standard classification of countries
List taken from Australian
standard classification of countries
List taken from Australian
standard classification of countries
Free text box
Free text box
1=Yes

Table D.1 (cont’d)
experience

Language 1

whether the participant has
studied, worked or lived abroad in
the past
Dichotomous variable indicating
previous international study
Categorical variable country in
which the respondent previously
studied
Categorical variable length of
time studying abroad previously
Dichotomous variable indicating
previous international work
Categorical variable country in
which the respondent previously
worked
Categorical variable length of
time working abroad previously
Dichotomous variable indicating
previous international residence
Categorical variable country in
which the respondent previously
lived
Categorical variable length of
time living abroad previously
String variable – additional
information on previous
experiences abroad
Dichotomous variable indicating
that respondents speak another
language
Categorical variable language 1

Language 2

Categorical variable language 2

Language 3

Categorical variable language 3

Language 4

Categorical variable language 4

Language 5

Categorical variable language 5

Mother education

Categorical variable highest level
of education of mother

Father education

Categorical variable highest level
of education of father

Previous international study
Country previous international
study
Duration previous international
study
Previous international work
Country previous international
work
Duration previous international
work
Previous international residence
abroad
Country previous international
residence
Duration previous international
residence
Additional information previous
experience abroad
Do you speak a language other
than English?

189

0=No

1=Yes
0=No
List taken from Australian
standard classification of countries
Range 1-12 months, 2–10 or more
years
1=Yes
0=No
List taken from Australian
standard classification of countries
Range 1-12 months, 2–10 or more
years
1=Yes
0=No
List taken from Australian
standard classification of countries
Range 1-12 months, 2–10 or more
years
Free text box

1=Yes
0=No
List taken from Australian
standard classification of
languages
List taken from Australian
standard classification of
languages
List taken from Australian
standard classification of
languages
List taken from Australian
standard classification of
languages
List taken from Australian
standard classification of
languages
1=10 years or less
2=11-12 years (senior secondary)
3=University bachelor degree
4=Postgraduate degree (Masters,
PhD)
5=Don’t know/Not applicable
1=10 years or less
2=11-12 years (senior secondary)
3=University bachelor degree
4=Postgraduate degree (Masters,

Table D.1 (cont’d)
First-generation

High school SES

High school SES LOW

High school SES MEDIUM

High school SES HIGH

Final comments

Education
Institution

Institution dichotomous 1
Institution dichotomous 2
Institution dichotomous 3
Institution dichotomous 4
Institution dichotomous 5
Institution dichotomous 6
Institution dichotomous 7
Institution dichotomous 8
Institution dichotomous 9
Institution dichotomous 10
Institution dichotomous 11
Academic major

Dichotomous variable indicating
that respondent is first-generation
university graduate
Categorical variable SES
classification of high school
Dichotomous variable
representing if respondent HS is
in low SES category
Dichotomous variable
representing if respondent HS is
in medium SES category
Dichotomous variable
representing if respondent HS is
in high SES category
String variable for any other
comments to add

Categorical variable institution
attended

Dichotomous variable of
institution of enrolment (or not)
Dichotomous variable of
institution of enrolment (or not)
Dichotomous variable of
institution of enrolment (or not)
Dichotomous variable of
institution of enrolment (or not)
Dichotomous variable of
institution of enrolment (or not)
Dichotomous variable of
institution of enrolment (or not)
Dichotomous variable of
institution of enrolment (or not)
Dichotomous variable of
institution of enrolment (or not)
Dichotomous variable of
institution of enrolment (or not)
Dichotomous variable of
institution of enrolment (or not)
Dichotomous variable of
institution of enrolment (or not)
Categorical variable major area of

190

PhD)
5=Don’t know/Not applicable
1=Yes
0=No
1=Low
2=Medium
3=High
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
Free text box

1=Institution 1
2=Institution 2
3=Institution 3
4=Institution 4
5=Institution 5
6=Institution 6
7=Institution 7
8=Institution 8
9=Institution 9
10=Institution 10
11=Institution 11
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Natural and physical sciences

Table D.1 (cont’d)
study

Year of completion of
undergraduate degree

Categorical variable year of
completion of bachelor degree

Academic performance

Categorical variable selfassessment of academic
performance during bachelor
degree

Study mode

Categorical variable of mode of
study

Study abroad was a compulsory
component of degree
How did you finance your
tuition (indicate the major form)

Dichotomous variable compulsory
study abroad
Categorical variable type of
tuition finance

Finance tuition additional
information
Finance study abroad OS Help

String variable- additional
information
Dichotomous variable type of
study abroad finance
(multiple choices possible)
Dichotomous variable type of
study abroad finance
(multiple choices possible)
Dichotomous variable type of
study abroad finance
(multiple choices possible)
Dichotomous variable type of
study abroad finance
(multiple choices possible)
Dichotomous variable type of
study abroad finance
(multiple choices possible)
Dichotomous variable type of
study abroad finance
(multiple choices possible)
Dichotomous variable type of
study abroad finance
(multiple choices possible)

Finance study abroad Australian
Government scholarship
Finance study abroad
Institutional grant/scholarship
Finance study abroad
Foundation grant/scholarship
Finance study abroad Bank loan

Finance study abroad Personal
funds/savings
Finance study abroad Family
support

191

2=Information technology
3=Engineering and related
technologies
4=Architecture and building
5=Health
6=Education
7=Management and commerce
8=Society and culture
9=Creative arts
10=More than one major
1=2007
2=2008
3=2009
4=2010
5=2011
6=2012
7=Other
1=Very good
2=Good
3=Fair
4=Poor
5=Very poor
1=Full-time
2=Part-time
3=Combination
1=Yes
0=No
1=HECS deferred
2=HECS upfront
3=International fee-paying
4=Australian fee-paying
5=Other scholarship/funding
Free text box
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No

Table D.1 (cont’d)
Finance study abroad Other
Further study

Employment Context
Current major activity

String variable
Categorical variable indicating
current enrolment or intention to
enroll in a postgraduate program

Free text box
1=Don’t know
2=I am already enrolled in a
postgraduate program
3=I am planning to enroll in a
postgraduate program

Categorical variable current major
activity (four other options
terminate survey)

1=Full-time employed (35 hours
per week or more)
2=Self-employed
3=Part-time employed (less than
35 hours per week)
4=Unemployed
5=Full-time study
6=Family care
7=Other
1=One employer
2=Two employers
3=Three employers
4=Four employers
5=Five or more employers
1=Private sector
2=Public sector
3=Non-profit
1=Agriculture, forestry & fishing
2=Mining
3=Manufacturing
4=Electricity, gas, water supply
5=Construction
6=Wholesale trade
7=Retail trade
8=Accommodation and food
services
9=Transport, postal and
warehousing
10=Information media and
telecommunications
11=Financial and insurance
services
12=Rental, hiring and real estate
services
13=Administrative and support
services
14=Public administration and
safety
15=Education and training
16=Healthcare and social
assistance
17=Arts and recreation services
18=Other services
1=1-19
2=20-100
3=101-500
4=More than 500

Number of employers since
graduation

Categorical variable number of
employers since graduation

Organization type

Categorical variable current
organization type

Industry of employment

Categorical variable current
industry of employment

Organization size

Categorical variable size of
current employment organization

192

Table D.1 (cont’d)
Organization scope

Categorical variable scope of
current employment organization

Organization scope international

Dichotomous variable of
international organization or not
Categorical variable type of
employment position

Type of position

1=Local
2=Regional
3=National
4=International
1=Yes
0=No
1=Manager
2=Professional
3=Technician and trade worker
4=Community and personal
services worker
5=Clerical and administrative
worker
6=Other type of position

Table D.2
Questionnaire items
Main questions
Q1. What criteria were
important to you when
seeking your first job?
Applying knowledge and skills
acquired while studying

Ordinal variable of the factors
important when seeking
employment

High Income

Ordinal variable of the factors
important when seeking
employment

Accomplishing worthwhile
professional activities

Ordinal variable of the factors
important when seeking
employment

Enough spare time for other
activities (life balance)

Ordinal variable of the factors
important when seeking
employment

Possibility of personal
development

Ordinal variable of the factors
important when seeking
employment

Possibility to explore own ideas

Ordinal variable of the factors
important when seeking
employment

Well recognized professional
status

Ordinal variable of the factors
important when seeking

193

1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance

Table D.2 (cont’d)
employment

High employment security

Ordinal variable of the factors
important when seeking
employment

Applying foreign language
skills

Ordinal variable of the factors
important when seeking
employment

Working in a foreign country

Ordinal variable of the factors
important when seeking
employment

Working in an organization with
an international scope

Ordinal variable of the factors
important when seeking
employment

Q2. How important, according
to you, were the following
aspects for your employer
when recruiting you?
Field of study

Ordinal variable of the employer
recruitment criteria

Grades

Ordinal variable of the employer
recruitment criteria

Work experience acquired
during course of study

Ordinal variable of the employer
recruitment criteria

Reputation of the Australian
university you attended

Ordinal variable of the employer
recruitment criteria

Your experience/s abroad

Ordinal variable of the employer
recruitment criteria

Country/region of your
experience/s abroad

Ordinal variable of the employer
recruitment criteria

194

3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important

1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance

Table D.2 (cont’d)

Your foreign language
proficiency

Ordinal variable of the employer
recruitment criteria

Your references

Ordinal variable of the employer
recruitment criteria

Your personality

Ordinal variable of the employer
recruitment criteria

Q3. Have you had a
professional international
mobility experience since
graduation?
I have considered working
abroad
I have sought employment
abroad
I have actually received an offer
to work abroad
I have actually had regular
employment abroad since
graduation
I have actually been sent abroad
by my employer on work
assignments
Comments section 1
Q4. To what extent does the
organization, institution or
company with which you are
associated do business or have
contact with other countries?
With other countries in general

With the host country of study
abroad

Dichotomous variable of
international professional mobility
since graduation
Dichotomous variable of
international professional mobility
since graduation
Dichotomous variable of
international professional mobility
since graduation
Dichotomous variable of
international professional mobility
since graduation
Dichotomous variable of
international professional mobility
since graduation
String variable

Ordinal variable of international
contact of organization

Ordinal variable of specific
international contact with country
of study abroad

195

3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important

1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
1=Yes
0=No
Free text box

1=Not at all
2=Rarely
3-Occasionally
4=Frequently
5=Very frequently
1=Not at all
2=Rarely
3-Occasionally
4=Frequently
5=Very frequently

Table D.2 (cont’d)
With host region of study
abroad

Q5. How important do you
consider the following
competencies for doing your
current work?
Knowledge of other countries
(eg. economical, sociological,
legal knowledge)

Ordinal variable of specific
international contact with region
of study abroad

1=Not at all
2=Rarely
3-Occasionally
4=Frequently
5=Very frequently

Ordinal variable of perceived
importance of competencies for
current work

1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important

Knowledge/understanding of
international differences in
culture and society, modes of
behaviour in culture and society,
lifestyles etc

Ordinal variable of perceived
importance of competencies for
current work

Working with people from
different cultural backgrounds

Ordinal variable of perceived
importance of competencies for
current work

Communicating in foreign
languages

Ordinal variable of perceived
importance of competencies for
current work

Q6. To what extent do the
responsibilities of your work
involve the following
Using firsthand professional
knowledge of the host country

Ordinal variable of use of
international skills & knowledge

Using firsthand general
knowledge of host country
culture/society

Ordinal variable of use of
international skills & knowledge

Professional travel to host
country

Ordinal variable of use of
international skills & knowledge

Using the language of the host
country orally (where language

Ordinal variable of use of
international skills & knowledge

196

1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important
1=Unimportant
2=Of little importance
3=Moderately important
4=Important
5=Very important

1=Not at all
2=Rarely
3=Occasionally
4=Frequently
5=Very frequently
6=Not applicable
1=Not at all
2=Rarely
3=Occasionally
4=Frequently
5=Very frequently
6=Not applicable
1=Not at all
2=Rarely
3=Occasionally
4=Frequently
5=Very frequently
6=Not applicable
1=Not at all
2=Rarely

Table D.2 (cont’d)
other than English)

Using the language of the host
country in reading and writing
(where language other than
English)

Ordinal variable of use of
international skills & knowledge

Comments section 2

String variable

Q7. What impact do you feel
that your study abroad
experience has had with
regard to your employment?
Obtaining first job

Ordinal variable of impact of
study abroad on employment

Type of work tasks involved

Ordinal variable of impact of
study abroad on employment

Income level

Ordinal variable of impact of
study abroad on employment

Long-term career prospects

Ordinal variable of impact of
study abroad on employment

Q8. From your point of view
today, to what extent do you
consider your study abroad
worthwhile with regard to the
following?
Enhancement of academic and
professional knowledge

Ordinal variable of perception of
general value of study abroad

Relevance to your job/
occupation

Ordinal variable of perception of
general value of study abroad

Interpersonal and
communications skills

Ordinal variable of perception of
general value of study abroad

197

3=Occasionally
4=Frequently
5=Very frequently
6=Not applicable
1=Not at all
2=Rarely
3=Occasionally
4=Frequently
5=Very frequently
6=Not applicable
Free text box

1=Very negative impact
2=Somewhat negative impact
3=Moderate impact
4=Positive impact
5=Very positive impact
1=Very negative impact
2=Somewhat negative impact
3=Moderate impact
4=Positive impact
5=Very positive impact
1=Very negative impact
2=Somewhat negative impact
3=Moderate impact
4=Positive impact
5=Very positive impact
1=Very negative impact
2=Somewhat negative impact
3=Moderate impact
4=Positive impact
5=Very positive impact

1=Not worthwhile at all
2=Somewhat worthwhile
3=Moderately worthwhile
4=Worthwhile
5=Very worthwhile
1=Not worthwhile at all
2=Somewhat worthwhile
3=Moderately worthwhile
4=Worthwhile
5=Very worthwhile
1=Not worthwhile at all
2=Somewhat worthwhile
3=Moderately worthwhile

Table D.2 (cont’d)

Career prospects

Ordinal variable of perception of
general value of study abroad

Increasing your motivation and
passion for your career direction

Ordinal variable of perception of
general value of study abroad

Foreign language proficiency

Ordinal variable of perception of
personal value of study abroad

Teamwork/ability to work with
others

Ordinal variable of perception of
general value of study abroad

New perspectives on your home
country

Ordinal variable of perception of
personal value of study abroad

Problem solving and analytical
skills

Ordinal variable of perception of
personal value of study abroad

Knowledge and understanding
of the host country

Ordinal variable of perception of
personal value of study abroad

Maturity and personal
development

Ordinal variable of perception of
personal value of study abroad

Q9. Of the areas rated in the
previous question, in which
areas do you believe your
education abroad experience
has provided you with the
greatest benefit? Please rank
your top 3
Enhancement of academic and
professional knowledge

Categorical variable of general
value of study abroad

Relevance to your job/

Categorical variable of general

198

4=Worthwhile
5=Very worthwhile
1=Not worthwhile at all
2=Somewhat worthwhile
3=Moderately worthwhile
4=Worthwhile
5=Very worthwhile
1=Not worthwhile at all
2=Somewhat worthwhile
3=Moderately worthwhile
4=Worthwhile
5=Very worthwhile
1=Not worthwhile at all
2=Somewhat worthwhile
3=Moderately worthwhile
4=Worthwhile
5=Very worthwhile
1=Not worthwhile at all
2=Somewhat worthwhile
3=Moderately worthwhile
4=Worthwhile
5=Very worthwhile
1=Not worthwhile at all
2=Somewhat worthwhile
3=Moderately worthwhile
4=Worthwhile
5=Very worthwhile
1=Not worthwhile at all
2=Somewhat worthwhile
3=Moderately worthwhile
4=Worthwhile
5=Very worthwhile
1=Not worthwhile at all
2=Somewhat worthwhile
3=Moderately worthwhile
4=Worthwhile
5=Very worthwhile
1=Not worthwhile at all
2=Somewhat worthwhile
3=Moderately worthwhile
4=Worthwhile
5=Very worthwhile

1=One
2=Two
3=Three
0=No ranking
1=One

Table D.2 (cont’d)
occupation

value of study abroad

Interpersonal and
communications skills

Categorical variable of general
value of study abroad

Career prospects

Categorical variable of general
value of study abroad

Increasing your motivation and
passion for your career direction

Categorical variable of general
value of study abroad

Foreign language proficiency

Categorical variable of general
value of study abroad

Teamwork/ability to work with
others

Categorical variable of general
value of study abroad

New perspectives on your home
country

Categorical variable of general
value of study abroad

Problem solving and analytical
skills

Categorical variable of general
value of study abroad

Knowledge and understanding
of the host country

Categorical variable of general
value of study abroad

Maturity and personal
development

Categorical variable of general
value of study abroad

Comments section 3

String variable

199

2=Two
3=Three
0=No ranking
1=One
2=Two
3=Three
0=No ranking
1=One
2=Two
3=Three
0=No ranking
1=One
2=Two
3=Three
0=No ranking
1=One
2=Two
3=Three
0=No ranking
1=One
2=Two
3=Three
0=No ranking
1=One
2=Two
3=Three
0=No ranking
1=One
2=Two
3=Three
0=No ranking
1=One
2=Two
3=Three
0=No ranking
1=One
2=Two
3=Three
0=No ranking
Free text box

Appendix E

Descriptive Statistics
Table E.1
Age of participants
Age

Frequency

Percent

23

14

6.2

24

39

17.3

25

45

19.9

26

44

19.5

27

28

12.4

28

25

11.1

29

8

3.5

30

7

3.1

31

7

3.1

Other

7

3.1

Total

224

100%

200

Table E.2
Country of current employment
Country

Frequency

Percent

Australia

186

83.0

Japan

6

2.7

UK

6

2.7

USA

5

2.2

Canada

3

1.3

Singapore

3

1.3

China

2

0.9

Italy

2

0.9

South Korea

2

0.9

Vietnam

2

0.9

Colombia

1

0.4

France

1

0.4

Germany

1

0.4

New Caledonia

1

0.4

Norway

1

0.4

Taiwan

1

0.4

Tanzania

1

0.4

Total

224

100%

Table E.3
Self-rated academic achievement
Rating

Frequency

Percent

Very good

114

51.1

Good

93

41.7

Fair

14

6.3

Poor

2

.9

Total

223

100%

201

Table E.4
Interest in further study
Response

Frequency

Percent

Don’t know

122

55.5

I am already enrolled

47

21.3

I am planning to enroll

51

23.2

Total

220

100%

Table E.5
Region of study (experience 3)
Region

Frequency

Percent

Asia

8

61.5

Continental Europe

2

15.4

North America

2

15.4

UK & Ireland

1

7.7

Total

13

100%

Frequency

Percent

3

25.0

3

25.0

2

16.7

3

25.0

Research

1

8.3

Total

12

100%

Table E.6
Mode of study (experience 3)
Activity
Academic courses taught at an
overseas institution
Study tour facilitated or led by
home institution
Internship, practicum, clinical
placement
Volunteering/community
service

202

Table E.7
Duration of study (experience 3)
Duration

Frequency

Percent

One month or less

4

33.3

2-3 months

3

25.0

4-6 months

3

25.0

7-12 months

1

8.3

More than 12 months

1

8.3

Total

12

100%

Table E.8
Language of study (experience 3)
Language

Frequency

Percent

English

8

66.7

Mandarin

2

16.7

German

1

8.3

Other Eastern Asian Language

1

8.3

Total

12

100%

Table E.9
Studied in a language other than English (all experiences)
Language

Frequency

Percent

Yes

68

30.4

No

156

69.6

Total

224

100%

203

Table E.10
Descriptive statistics all variables
Study Abroad Program variables
n

Min

Max

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Country of study abroad 1

225

9

232

137.46

79.731

Duration of study abroad 1

225

1

5

3.27

.670

Activity of study abroad 1

225

1

8

1.19

.820

Language study abroad 1

225

1

21

4.21

5.829

Country of study abroad 2

54

9

237

131.33

74.841

Duration study abroad 2

50

1

5

2.52

1.266

Activity study abroad 2

54

1

8

2.13

1.802

Language study abroad 2

47

1

5

5.38

6.694

Country of study abroad 3

13

34

232

130.85

71.055

Duration study abroad 3

12

1

5

2.33

1.303

Activity study abroad 3

12

1

5

2.67

1.371

Language study abroad 3

12

1

138

15.42

39.035

Studied abroad in another language

68

Asia study

56

Euro study

73

NA study

75

UK study

47

Min

Max

Mean

Standard

Individual characteristics
n

Deviation
Gender

224

1

2

1.33

.473

Age

224

2

11

6.04

2.077

Aboriginal or Torres Straight

223

2

2

2.00

.000

Islander
Currently work overseas

225

Country current employment

224

1

241

25.78

63.058

Country current residence

224

1

241

26.19

63.892

204

Table E.10 (cont’d)
Holds more than one citizenship

215

Country of citizenship 1

214

1

248

9.44

36.769

Country of citizenship 2

52

11

240

173.31

74.367

Country secondary education

223

1

248

10.24

38.986

Previous international experience

69

1

2

1.69

.463

Previous international study

41

1

2

Previous international work

24

Previous international residence

41

1

2

1.48

.501

abroad
Do you speak a language other

223

than English?
Language 1

115

Language 2

35

Language 3

13

Language 4

4

Language 5

0

Mother education

218

1

4

2.47

.907

Father education

217

1

4

2.56

1.017

First-generation

219

1

2

High school SES

188

1

3

High school SES LOW

22

High school SES MEDIUM

69

High school SES HIGH

97

Min

Max

Mean

Standard

Education
n

Deviation
Institution

226

1

11

6.19

3.035

Academic major

220

Year of completion of

226

1

5

3.46

1.116

223

1

3

1.56

.626

undergraduate degree
Academic performance

205

Table E.10 (cont’d)
Study mode

223

1

3

1.15

.515

Study abroad required component

173

1

2

1.92

.274

223

1

5

1.57

1.063

of degree
How did you finance your tuition
(indicate the major form)
Finance study abroad OS Help

62

Finance study abroad Australian

36

Government scholarship
Finance study abroad Institutional

128

grant/scholarship
Finance study abroad Foundation

14

grant/scholarship
Finance study abroad Bank loan

15

Finance study abroad Personal

180

funds/savings
Finance study abroad Family

135

support
Finance study abroad Other

25

Further study

220

1

3

1.68

.828

n

Min

Max

Mean

Standard

Employment Context

Deviation
Current major activity

226

1

3

1.27

.633

Number of employers since

226

1

5

2.06

1.090

Organization type

226

1

3

1.48

.668

Industry of employment

213

2

18

13.31

5.345

Organization size

226

1

4

2.80

1.215

Organization scope

226

1

4

2.91

1.098

Type of position

226

1

6

2.58

1.465

graduation

206

Table E.10 (cont’d)
Dependent variables
n

Min

Max

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Employability skills

219

-4.32600

1.34912

.0000

1.0000

Career-related aspects

219

-2.62662

1.49316

.0000

1.0000

Host country aspects

219

-2.66982

1.67834

.0000

1.0000

Descriptive Statistics Main Survey Questions

Table E.11
Q1. What criteria were important to you when seeking employment?
Criteria

n

Min

Max

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Possibility of personal development

226

2

5

4.42

.670

Accomplishing worthwhile professional

226

2

5

4.37

.688

226

1

5

4.00

.909

226

1

5

3.94

.867

Possibility to explore own ideas

226

2

5

3.89

.875

Well recognized professional status

226

1

5

3.79

.947

High employment security

225

1

5

3.60

1.061

High income

226

1

5

3.40

.890

Working for an organization with an

225

1

5

3.24

1.319

Working in a foreign country

225

1

5

2.91

1.277

Applying foreign language skills

226

1

5

2.15

1.275

activities
Enough spare time for other activities (life
balance)
Applying knowledge and skills acquired
while studying

international scope

207

Table E.12
Q2. How important, according to you, were the following aspects for your employer in
recruiting you?
Aspect

n

Min

Max

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Your personality

224

2

5

4.45

.688

Field of study

223

1

5

4.05

1.043

References or recommendations

225

1

5

3.68

1.034

Work experience acquired during course

224

1

5

3.58

1.122

Your experience/s abroad

224

1

5

3.26

1.110

Grades

225

1

5

3.20

1.161

Reputation of the Australian university

225

1

5

2.84

1.126

Country/region of experience/s abroad

224

1

5

2.69

1.141

Foreign language proficiency

224

1

5

2.00

1.181

of study

you attended

Table E.13
Q4. To what extent does the organization, institution or company with which you are
associated do business or have contact with other countries?
Standard

Contact with other countries

n

Min

Max

Mean

With other countries in general

226

1

5

3.42

1.422

With the host region of your study abroad

225

1

5

2.67

1.505

With the host country of your study abroad

224

1

5

2.54

1.439

208

Deviation

Table E.14
Q5. How important do you consider the following competencies for doing your current
work?

Competency
Working with people from different
cultural backgrounds

n

226

Knowledge/understanding of international
differences in culture and society, modes of
behavior in culture and society, lifestyle

Min

Max

1

5

1

5

226

Mean

Standard
Deviation

4.08

.993

3.50

1.193

3.08

1.214

2.32

1.336

etc.
Knowledge of other countries (E.g.
Economy, society, legal knowledge)
Communicating in foreign languages

226
226

1

5

1

5

Table E.15
Q6. To what extent do the responsibilities of your work involve the following:
Work tasks
Using firsthand general knowledge of my
host country culture/society
Using firsthand professional knowledge of
my host country

n

215

217

Using the language of my host country in
reading and writing (where language is not

Min

Max

1

5

1

5

1

5

190

Mean

Standard
Deviation

2.33

1.292

2.27

1.270

1.85

1.317

1.85

1.324

1.73

1.220

English)
Using the language of my host country
orally (where language is not English)
Professional travel to my host country

188
210

209

1

5

1

5

Table E.16
Q7. What impact do you feel that your education abroad experience has had with regard to
your employment?
Standard

Category

n

Min

Max

Mean

Obtaining your first job

226

1

5

3.88

.887

Long-term career prospects

226

1

5

3.36

.766

Type of work tasks

226

1

5

3.14

.645

Income level

226

1

5

3.77

.864

Deviation

Table E.17
Q8. From your point of view today, to what extent do you consider your education abroad
experience worthwhile with regard to the following:
Standard

Category

n

Min

Max

Mean

Maturity and personal development

224

1

5

4.66

.651

Interpersonal & communication skills

226

2

5

4.42

.752

New perspectives of your home country

226

1

5

4.20

.914

1

5

4.19

.937

1

5

3.98

1.037

1

5

3.95

.985

Knowledge and understanding of my host
country
Increasing your motivation & passion for
your career direction
Enhancement of academic & professional
knowledge

225

226

226

Deviation

Teamwork/ability to work with others

226

1

5

3.85

.986

Career prospects

226

1

5

3.82

1.078

Problem solving & analytical skills

225

1

5

3.75

1.005

Relevance to your job/occupation

225

1

5

3.44

1.160

Foreign language proficiency

224

1

5

2.94

1.535

210

Table E.18
Q9. Of the areas rated in the previous question, in which areas do you believe your
education abroad experience has provided you with the greatest benefit? Please rank your
top 3
Category

n

Maturity and personal development

Standard

Min

Max

Mean

174

1

3

1.713

.825

Interpersonal & communication skills

114

1

3

1.983

.787

New perspectives of your home country

63

1

3

2.476

.618

42

1

3

2.143

.751

76

1

3

2.000

.894

49

1

3

2.204

.841

Teamwork/ability to work with others

29

1

3

2.207

.675

Career prospects

33

1

3

1.939

.788

Problem solving & analytical skills

33

1

3

2.364

.603

Relevance to your job/occupation

20

1

3

2.150

.745

Foreign language proficiency

45

1

3

1.733

.809

Knowledge and understanding of my host
country
Increasing your motivation & passion for
your career direction
Enhancement of academic & professional
knowledge

211

Deviation

Appendix F

Crosstabs
Table F.1
Region of experience 1 and activity
For this international experience, what was the main activity?
Academic

Study tour

courses

Internship,

Double/

practicum,

joint

clinical

degree

Other

placement
Asia

34

4

3

2

1

Region of

Cont. Europe

62

3

2

0

0

experience

North America

65

0

2

1

0

1

South America

3

0

0

0

0

41

0

0

0

0

205

7

7

3

1

UK & Ireland
Total

Table F.2
Region experience 2 and activity
For experience 2, what was the main activity?
Academic

Study tour

courses

Internship,

Volunteer/

practicum,

community

clinical

service

Research

Other

placement

Region of

Asia

9

6

2

1

1

1

Cont. Europe

8

1

2

0

1

0

North

5

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

UK & Ireland

6

2

2

0

0

0

Eastern

1

1

0

0

0

0

29

11

6

2

2

2

America

experience South
2

America

Europe
Total

212

Table F.3
Region experience 3 and activity
For experience 3, what was the main activity?
Academic

Study

Internship,

Volunteer/

courses

tour

practicum,

community

clinical

service

Total

Research

placement

Region of

Asia

1

2

0

3

1

7

Cont. Europe

0

1

1

0

0

2

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

1

3

3

2

3

1

12

experienc North
e3

America
UK & Ireland

Total

Table F.4
Region of experience 2 and duration
Experience 2 Duration
Short
Asia
Region of study
experience 2

Medium

Total

Long

12

3

4

19

Cont. Europe

3

5

3

11

North America

0

5

1

6

South America

0

0

2

2

UK & Ireland

6

3

1

10

1
22

1
17

0
11

2
50

Eastern Europe
Total

Table F.5
Region of experience 3 and duration
Experience 3 Duration
Short
Region of study
experience 3

Medium

Total

Long

Asia

5

1

1

7

Cont. Europe

1

1

0

2

North America

1

1

0

2

UK & Ireland

0
7

0
3

1
2

1
12

Total

213

Table F.6
Duration of experience by country of study – Experience 1
Duration experience 1
Short

Experience 1
Country

Total

Medium

Total
Long

Argentina

0

1

0

1

Austria

0

3

3

6

Canada

0

17

3

20

Chile

0

1

0

1

China

7

4

2

13

Denmark

0

5

4

9

Ecuador

0

1

1

2

France

0

4

5

9

Germany

0

6

3

9

Hong Kong

0

2

0

2

India

0

1

0

1

Italy

3

4

3

10

Japan

0

5

13

18

Korea, South

0

0

1

1

Malaysia

0

2

1

3

Malta

0

1

0

1

Mexico

0

3

2

5

Netherlands

0

2

2

4

Norway

0

2

0

2

Philippines

0

2

0

2

Singapore

3

1

0

4

Slovenia

0

1

0

1

Spain

0

2

3

5

Sweden

0

7

4

11

Switzerland

1

0

0

1

UK

0

31

9

40

USA

2

27

15

44

16

135

74

225

214

Appendix G

Analysis of Data–PCA and Independent T-test Results
Table G.1
Structure Matrix – PCA Question 8

Item
New perspectives on your home
country

Employability

Career-related

Host country

skills (1)

aspects (2)

aspects (3)

.793

Maturity & personal development

.757

Problem solving & analytical skills

.799

.490

Teamwork/ability to work with others

.757

.458

Interpersonal & communication skills

.727

.500

Relevance to your job/occupation
Career prospects

.831
.449

Enhancement of academic &

.754

professional knowledge
Increasing your motivation & passion
for your career direction
Knowledge & understanding of host
country

.846

.441

.788

.512

.441

Foreign language proficiency

.473

.675
.916

215

Table G.2
Independent t-test results for program characteristics and benefit factors
Study Abroad Program
Characteristics
Mean

SE of

diff.

diff.

.860

.028

.156

214

.104

.235

.144

.999

167.622

.319

.134

.134

-2.178

215

.030*

-.362

.166

.067

217

.947

.016

.247

1.169

215

.244

.172

.147

Abroad multiple times

1.760

217

.080

.278

.158

Career-related aspects

‫ݐ‬

df

Sig.

Mean

SE of

diff.

diff.

2.653

111.347

.009*

.372

.140

.435

214

.664

.063

.144

Destination - North America/ other

.400

214

.689

.058

.146

Destination – UK & Ireland/ other

-1.869

215

.063

-.312

.167

-.304

217

.762

-.075

.247

2.150

145.409

.033*

.298

.138

2.993

217

.003*

.467

.156

‫ݐ‬

df

Sig.

Mean

SE of

diff.

diff.

Destination – Asia/ other

4.991

217

.000*

.738

.138

Destination - Continental Europe/

1.892

214

.060

.271

.143

‫ݐ‬

df

Sig.

.176

217

1.634

Destination - North America/ other
Destination – UK & Ireland/ other

Employability skills
Destination – Asia/ other
Destination - Continental Europe/
other

Mode of study – academic classes
or year/ other
Language – Foreign language/
English

Destination – Asia/ other
Destination - Continental Europe/
other

Mode of study – academic classes/
other
Language – Foreign language/
English
Abroad multiple times
Host country aspects

other

216

Table G.2 (cont’d)
Destination - North America/ other

-1.637

214

.103

-.237

.145

Destination – UK & Ireland/ other

-6.361

80.157

.000*

-.899

.141

Mode of study – academic classes/

-.970

217

.333

-.239

.246

8.790

156.592

.000*

1.047

.119

2.593

217

.010*

.407

.157

other
Language – Foreign language/
English
Abroad multiple times
* denotes significance ‫< ݌‬.05

217

Table G.3
Independent t-test results for background characteristics and benefit factors
Background characteristics
Mean

SE of

diff.

diff.

.023*

.330

.144

214

.478

.097

.137

.586

206

.558

.095

.162

Lived abroad before HE

1.232

214

.219

.181

.147

First-generation university student

1.211

210

.227

.175

.145

‫ݐ‬

df

Sig.

Mean

SE of

diff.

diff.

-.172

215

.864

-.025

.146

.807

197.431

.420

.111

.138

Holds more than one citizenship

1.095

206

.275

.176

.161

Lived abroad before HE

.833

214

.406

.122

.147

-1.441

210

.151

-.209

.145

‫ݐ‬

df

Sig.

Mean

SE of

diff.

diff.

-1.856

215

.065

-.269

.145

5.909

214

.000*

.753

.128

Holds more than one citizenship

.010

206

.992

.002

.160

Lived abroad before HE

3.395

214

.001*

.489

.143

First-generation university student

.577

210

.564

.084

.146

‫ݐ‬

df

Sig.

2.293

215

.711

Holds more than one citizenship

Employability skills
Gender
Speaks a language other than
English

Career-related aspects
Gender
Speaks a language other than
English

First-generation university student
Host country aspects
Gender
Speaks a language other than
English

* denotes significance ‫< ݌‬.05

218

Table G.4
Independent t-test results for study characteristics and benefit factors
Study characteristics
Mean

SE of

diff.

diff.

.649

.142

.311

217

.494

-.130

.189

-.273

217

.785

-.059

.217

Institution 6

.559

217

.577

.150

.268

Institution 7

-.079

217

.937

-.023

.287

Institution 8

1.086

217

.278

.352

.324

Institution 9

1.739

217

.083

.397

.228

Institution 10

-2.084

217

.038*

-.307

.147

Institution 11

1.163

10.883

.270

.393

.338

Compulsory study abroad

1.470

166

.143

.389

.265

‫ݐ‬

df

Sig.

Mean

SE of

diff.

diff.

Institution 1

1.624

213

.106

.504

.310

Institution 2

-.057

217

.954

-.011

.189

Institution 5

-.723

217

.470

-1.57

.217

Institution 6

1.673

217

.716

.098

.268

Institution 7

2.008

217

.046*

.570

.284

Institution 8

.120

217

.905

.039

.324

Institution 9

-.269

217

.788

-.062

.230

Institution 10

-1.675

217

.095

-.247

.148

Institution 11

.594

217

.553

.184

.310

Compulsory study abroad

2.607

20.287

.017*

.473

.275

‫ݐ‬

df

Sig.

Mean

SE of

diff.

diff.

Institution 1

.376

213

.707

.117

.311

Institution 2

2.012

217

.045*

.377

.188

Institution 5

.143

217

.887

.031

.217

Institution 6

.365

217

.716

.098

.268

Employability skills

‫ݐ‬

df

Sig.

Institution 1

.455

213

Institution 2

-.685

Institution 5

Career-related aspects

Host country aspects

219

Table G.4 (cont’d)
Institution 7

-.979

217

.329

-.280

.286

Institution 8

.860

217

.391

.279

.324

Institution 9

.614

217

.540

.141

.230

Institution 10

-564

217

.574

-.083

.149

Institution 11

-.611

217

.542

-.189

.310

Compulsory study abroad

.108

1.978

.050*

.550

.278

* denotes significance ‫< ݌‬.05

220

Table G.5
Independent t-test results for current employment context and benefit factors
Employment context
Mean

SE of

diff.

diff.

.201

.177

.138

217

.382

.143

.163

-.745

217

.457

-.120

.161

Works for a local organization

-1.954

217

.052

-.376

.193

Currently works abroad

-.515

216

.607

-.092

.179

‫ݐ‬

df

Sig.

Mean

SE of

diff.

diff.

4.207

214.319

.000*

.535

.127

Works for a national organization

-.823

217

.412

-.134

.163

Works for a regional organization

-2.434

217

0.16*

-.387

.159

Works for a local organization

-1.541

217

.125

-.298

.193

Currently works abroad

1.623

216

.106

.289

.178

‫ݐ‬

df

Sig.

Mean

SE of

diff.

diff.

2.994

216

.003*

.405

.135

Works for a national organization

-.536

217

.592

-.088

.164

Works for a regional organization

-1.497

217

.136

-.240

.160

Works for a local organization

-1.787

217

.075

-.345

.193

Currently works abroad

1.845

216

.066

.328

.178

Employability skills

‫ݐ‬

df

Sig.

1.284

216

Works for a national organization

.875

Works for a regional organization

Works for an international
organization

Career-related aspects
Works for an international
organization

Host country aspects
Works for an international
organization

* denotes significance ‫< ݌‬.05

221

REFERENCES

222

REFERENCES

Adams, T., Banks, M., & Olsen, A. (2011). Benefits of international education: Enriching
students, enriching communities. In Making a difference: Australian international
education (pp. 9-49). Sydney, Australia: UNSW Publishing.
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2004). Statistical methods for the social sciences. Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Census of population and housing 2011. Retrieved
from http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/Census
Australian Education International. (2008). Country education profiles: Australia 2008.
Canberra, Australia: Author.
Australian Education International. (2011). Australian student mobility in the higher
education sector: Research snapshot. Canberra, Australia: Author.
Barclay Hamir, H. (2011). Go abroad and graduate on time: Study abroad participation,
degree completion and time to degree . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved
from Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations and Theses (UMI: 3450065).
Barrie, S. C. (2012). A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy.
Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 261-275.
Barro, R. J. (1991). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 106(2), 407-443.
Becker, G.S. (1964). Human Capital. New York, New York: Columbia University Press.
Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special
reference to education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bracht, O., Engel, C., Janson, K., Over, A., Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. (2006). The
professional value of ERASMUS mobility, final report. Kassel, Germany: International
Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel).
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher
education: Final report. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Employment
and Workplace Relations.

223

Braskamp, L. A., Braskamp, D. C., & Merrill, K. C. (2009). Assessing progress in global
learning and development of students with education abroad experiences. Frontiers:
The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 101-118.
Brennan, J. L., Kogan, M., & Teichler, U. (1996). Higher education and work. London,
UK: Jessica Kingsley.
Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate
employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research &
Development, 28(1), 31-44.
British Council. (2012). The shape of things to come: Higher education global trends and
emerging opportunities to 2020. London, UK: Author.
Brockington, J. L., & Wiedenhoeft, M. D. (2009). The liberal arts and global citizenship:
Fostering intercultural engagement through integrative experiences and structured
reflection. In The handbook of practice & research in study abroad: Higher education
and the quest for global citizenship. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carlson, J. S., Burn, B. B., Useem, J., & Yackimowicz, D. (1991). Study abroad: The
experience of American undergraduates in Western Europe and the United States
(abridged version). New York, NY: Council on International Education Exchange.
Centre for the Study of Higher Education. (2008). Participation and equity: A review of
the participation in higher education of people from low socioeconomic backgrounds
and indigenous people. Canberra, Australia: Universities Australia.
Chaison, D. B. (2008). International service-learning approaches: Factors of social
engagement for minority students at a large mid-western university. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations and
Theses (UMI: 3331883).
Chieffo, L., & Griffiths, L. (2004). Large-Scale assessment of student attitudes after a
short-term study abroad program. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study
Abroad, 10, 13.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2012). Australia in the Asian century [White Paper].
Canberra, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://asiancentury.dpmc.gov.au
Corliss, M., Lewis, P., & Daly, A. (2013). The rate of return to higher education over the
business cycle. Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 16(2), 219.
Crossman, J. E., & Clarke, M. (2009). International experience and graduate
employability: Stakeholder perceptions on the connection. Higher Education, 59(5),
599-613. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9268-z

224

Daly, A. (2011). Determinants of participating in Australian university student exchange
programs. Journal of Research in International Education, 10(1), 58-70.
Daly, A., & Barker, M. (2010). Australian universities' strategic goals of student exchange
and participation rates in outbound exchange programmes. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 32(4), 333-342.
Deakin University. (2014). Undergraduate course guide. Melbourne, Australia: Author.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2007). Australian
outbound mobility: Current trends. Canberra, Australia: Government of Australia.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2008). Students: 2008
summary of higher education statistics. Canberra, Australia: Author.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009). Measuring the
socio-economic status of higher education students. Canberra, Australia: Author.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2011). UMAP funding
guidelines. Retrieved from www.aei.gov.au
Department of Education, Science and Training. (2002). Employability skills for the future.
Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2014). About the New Colombo Plan.
Retrieved from www.dfat.gov.au/new-colombo-plan/about.html
de Weert, E. (1996). Responsiveness of higher education to labor market demands:
Curricular change in the humanities and social sciences. In J. L. Brennan, M. Kogan, &
U. Teichler (Eds.), Higher education and work. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
DIISRTE. (2013a). Low SES interim indicator. Retrieved from
http://www.innovation.gov.au/highereducation/HigherEducationStatistics/StatisticsPub
lications/Pages/LowSESInterimIndicator.aspx
DIISRTE. (2013b). uCube: Higher Education Statistics Collection (Online Reference
Tool). Retrieved from http://www.highereducationstatistics.deewr.gov.au/Default.aspx
Dolby, N. (2008). Global citizenship and study abroad: A comparative study of American
and Australian undergraduates. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study
Abroad, 17, 51-67.
Dwyer, M. M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 13.

225

Edmonds, L. M. (2010). The lived experience of nursing students who study abroad: A
qualitative inquiry. Journal of Studies in International Education.
doi:10.1177/1028315310375306
Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity
development in relation to study abroad program design. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 18.
European Commission. (2012). Strategic framework for education and training. Lifelong
learning policy. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learningpolicy/framework_en.htm
Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS : (And sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll).
Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Forsey, M.G., Broomhall, S. & Davis, J. (2011). Broadening the mind? Australian student
reflections on the experience of overseas study. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 6(2), 128-139.
Fry, G. W., Paige, R. M., Jon, J. E., Dillow, J., & Nam, K. A. (2009). Study abroad and its
transformative power (Occasional paper no. 32). Council on International Education
Exchange, New York.
Gardner, P., Gross, L., & Steglitz, I. (2008). CERI research brief. Unpacking your study
abroad experience: Critical reflection for workplace competencies (CERI research
brief 1-2008). Michigan State University: Collegiate Employment Research Institute.
Graduate Careers Australia. (2010). Graduate destinations 2010. Melbourne, Australia:
Graduate Careers Council.
Graduate Careers Australia. (2011). Graduate outlook 2011. Melbourne, Australia:
Graduate Careers Council.
Green, W., Hammer, S., & Star, C. (2009). Facing up to the challenge: Why is it so hard to
develop graduate attributes? Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 1729. doi:10.1080/07294360802444339
Grossman, M. (2005). Education and nonmarket outcomes. NBER Working Paper Series,
(Working paper 11582). Retrieved from www.nber.org/papers/w11582
Hadis, B. F. (2005). Why are they better students when they come back? Determinants of
academic focusing gains in the study abroad experience. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 11, 14.
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2010). The high cost of low educational performance:
The long-run economic impact of improving PISA outcomes. Paris, France: OECD.

226

Higher Education Council. (1992). Achieving quality. Canberra, Australia: National Board
of Employment, Education and Training.
Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action.
Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators.
Ingraham, E. C., & Peterson, D. L. (2004). Assessing the impact of study abroad on
student learning at Michigan State University. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal
of Study Abroad, 10, 18.
Inkson, K., & Arthur, M. B. (2001). How to be a successful career capitalist.
Organizational Dynamics.
Inkson, K., & Myers, B. A. (2005). “The big OE”: Self-directed travel and career
development. Career Development International, 8(4), 170-181.
doi:10.1108/13620430310482553
Institute for International Education. (2013). Open doors 2013. New York, NY: Institute
for International Education.
Jahr, V., & Teichler, U. (2000). Employment and work of former ERASMUS students. In
J. Gordon, F. Maiworm, & U. Teichler (Eds.), Socrates 2000 evaluation study: Study
for the European Commission. Brussels: European Commission.
Jahr, V., & Teichler, U. (2007). Graduates' international experience and mobility. Careers
of University Graduates, 211-224.
James, R. (2000). TAFE, university or work? The early preferences and choices of students
in years 10, 11 and 12. Leabrook, Australia: NCVER.
James, R. (2002). Socioeconomic background and higher education participation: An
analysis of school students’ aspirations and expectations. Canberra, Australia:
Department of Education, Science and Training.
Janson, K., Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. (2009). The professional value of ERASMUS
mobility. Bonn, Germany: Lemmens.
Jones, E. (2013). Internationalization and employability: The role of intercultural
experiences in the development of transferable skills. Public Money and Management,
33(2), 95-104. doi:10.1080/09540962.2013.763416
Liberal Party of Australia. (2013). The coalition’s policy for a New Colombo Plan.
Retrieved from http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/08/30/coalitions-policynew-colombo-plan

227

Lindsay, E. (2014). An analysis of the gender wage gap in the Australian graduate labour
market. Melbourne, Australia: Graduate Careers Australia. Retrieved from
www.graduatecareers.com.au
Lou, K., & Bosley, G. (2008). Dynamics of cultural contexts: Meta-level intervention in
the study abroad experience. In V. Savicki (Ed.), Developing intercultural competence
and transformation: Theory, research, and application in international education (pp.
276-96). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Maiworm, F., & Teichler, U. (1996). Study abroad and early career: Experiences of
former ERASMUS students. Jessica Kingsley Publications.
Malmgren, J., & Galvin, J. (2008). Effects of study abroad participation on student
graduation rates: A study of three incoming freshman cohorts at the University of
Minnesota, Twin Cities. NACADA Journal, 28(1), 14.
Marks, G. N., McMillan, J., Jones, F. L., & Ainsley, J. (2000). The measurement of
socioeconomic status for the reporting of nationally comparable outcomes of
schooling: Draft report by the national education performance monitoring taskforce.
Canberra, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research and Sociology
Program, Australian National University. Retrieved from www.
mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/socioeconomicstatus_file.pdf
McInnis, C., Coates, H. B., Jensz, F., Hooper, C., & Vu, T. (2004). Study abroad and study
exchange systems in industrial countries. Canberra, Australia: Department of
Education, Science and Training.
McMahon, W. W. (2001). The impact of human capital on non-market outcomes and
feedbacks on economic development. In J. Helliwell (Ed.) The contribution of human
and social capital to sustained economic growth and well-being. Paris, France: OECD.
McMahon, W. W. (2009). Higher learning, greater good: The private and social benefits
of higher education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
McMahon, W. W., & Oketch, M. (2013). Education's effects on individual life chances and
on development: An overview. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(1), 79-107.
Meadows, E. (2011). From aid to trade: A history of international education in Australia.
In Making a difference: Australian international education (pp. 50-90). Sydney,
Australia: UNSW Publishing.
Messer, D., & Wolter, S. C. (2007). Are student exchange programs worth it? Higher
Education, 54(5), 647-663. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9016-6
Molony, J. (2012). Curricular and extra curricular programs supporting improved
international learning mobility experiences: An emerging trend in Australia. Frontiers:

228

The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 211-233.
Molony, J., Sowter, B., & Potts, D. (2011). QS global employer survey. London, UK: QS
Intelligence Unit.
Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2002). Student mobility and narrative in Europe: The new strangers.
London, UK: Routledge.
Nolan, R. W. (2009). Turning our back on the world. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of
practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global
citizenship. New York, NY: Routledge.
Norris, E. M., & Gillespie, J. (2007). How study abroad shapes global careers: Evidence
from the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), 382.
doi:10.1177/1028315308319740
Nunan, P. (2006). An exploration of the long term effects of student exchange experiences.
Paper presented at the Australian International Education Conference, Perth.
Nussbaum Martha, C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. (2013). Indonesia to participate in New
Colombo Plan pilot [press release]. Retrieved from
http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2013/jb_mr_131002.html
Office of the Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
(2012).More than 10,000 Australian students Asiabound [press release].Retrieved
from
http://archive.innovation.gov.au/ministersarchive2013/chrisevans/mediareleases/pages/
morethan10000australianstudentsasiabound.aspx.htm
Olsen, A. (2007). Outgoing international mobility of Australian university students 2007.
Presentation at the Australian International Education Conference, Perth, Australia.
Olsen, A. (2008). International mobility of Australian university students: 2005. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 12(4), 364. doi:10.1177/1028315308314939
Olsen, A. (2010). 2010 research agenda: Australian Universities International Directors
Forum. Presentation at the Australian International Education Conference, Sydney,
Australia.
Olsen, A. (2011). 2011 research agenda: Australian Universities International Directors
Forum. Presentation at the Australian International Education Conference, Adelaide,
Australia.

229

Olsen, A. (2012). 2012 research agenda: Australian Universities International Directors
Forum. Presentation at the Australian International Education Conference,
Melbourne, Australia.
Olsen, A. (2013). Outgoing international mobility of Australian university students, 2012.
Presentation at the Australian International Education Conference: Canberra,
Australia.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2011). Education at a glance.
Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). Education at a glance.
Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org
Ott, M. C. (2011). How is postsecondary education associated with membership in the
American corporate elite? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from Retrieved
from Proquest Dissertations and Theses (UMI: 3476778).
Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2004). Assessing the impact of a strategiesbased curriculum on language and culture learning abroad. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 24.
Paige, R. M., Fry, G. W., Stallman, E. M., Josi, J., & Jon, J. E. (2009). Study abroad for
global engagement: The long-term impact of mobility experiences. Intercultural
Education, 20, 29-44. doi:doi:10.1080/14675980903370847
Parey, M., & Waldinger, F. (2008). Studying abroad and the effect on international labor
market mobility (Discussion paper no. 3430). Germany: Institute for the Study of
Labor.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Precision Consulting. (2007). Graduate employability skills: Prepared for the business,
industry and higher education collaboration council. Canberra, Australia:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Prospect Marketing. (2006). The attitudes and perceptions of Australian employers
towards an overseas study experience. Melbourne, Australia: Queensland Education
and Training International and the International Education Association of Australia.
Rigby, B., Wood, L., Clark-Murphy, M., Daly, A., Dixon, P., Kavanagh, M., Leveson, L.,
Petocz, P., & Thomas, T. (2009). Review of graduate skills: Critical thinking, team
work, ethical practice and sustainability. Canberra, Australia: Australian Teaching and
Learning Council.

230

RMIT University. (2012). Education abroad. Retrieved from
http://www.rmit.edu.au/globalpassport/educationabroad
RMIT University. (2014). Degree and diploma guide. Melbourne, Australia: Author.
Rundstrom, T. (2005). Exploring the impact of study abroad on students’ intercultural
communication skills: Adaptability and sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 9(4), 356. doi:10.1177/1028315305277681
Saarikallio-Torp, M., & Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2010). Nordic students abroad: Student
mobility patterns, student support systems and labour market outcomes. (Studies in
social security and health 110). Helsinki, Finland: Kela, The Social Insurance
Institution of Finland.
Salisbury, M., Paulsen, M., & Pascarella, E. (2011). To see the world or stay at home:
Applying an integrated student choice model to explore the gender gap in the intent to
study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 51, 615-640. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-0109171-6
Salisbury, M. H., Umbach, P. D., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2009). Going global:
Understanding the choice process of the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher
Education, 50(2), 119-143. doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9111-x
Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. (2006). Higher education and graduate employment in
Europe: Results of graduate surveys from twelve countries. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (3, illustrated ed.,
p. 670). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Sidhu, R. K. (2006). Universities and globalization: To market, to market. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stallman, E., Woodruff, G. A., Kasravi, J., & Comp, D. (2010). The diversification of the
student profile. In A history of US study abroad: 1965-present (pp. 115-160). Carlisle,
PA: Frontiers Journal.
Sutton, R. S., & Rubin, D. L. (2010). Documenting the academic impact of study abroad:
Final report of the GLOSSARI project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
NAFSA: International Education Association. Kansas City.
Teichler, U. (2007). Does higher education matter? Lessons from a comparative graduate
survey. European Journal of Education, 42(1), 11-34.

231

Teichler, U. (2009). Higher education and the world of work: Conceptual frameworks,
comparative perspectives, empirical findings. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense
Publishers.
Teichler, U. (2011). International dimensions of higher education and graduate
employment. In J. Allen & R. van de Velden (Eds.), Higher Education Dynamics: The
flexible professional in the knowledge society (pp. 177-97). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Teichler, U. (2012). Student mobility in Europe: The informational value of official
statistics and graduate surveys. European Higher Education at the Crossroads, 485509. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6_27
Teichler, U., & Jahr, V. (2001). Mobility during the course of study and after graduation.
European Journal of Education, 36(4), 443-458. doi:10.1111/1467-3435.00081
Teichler, U., & Janson, K. (2007). The professional value of temporary study in another
European country: Employment and work of former ERASMUS students. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 11, 486-495. doi:10.1177/1028315307303230
Teichler, U., & Maiworm, G. (1994). Transition to work: The experience of former
ERASMUS students. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., & Bernal, E. M. (2001). Swimming against the tide: The
poor in American higher education (report no. 2001-01). New York: The College
Entrance Examination Board.
Thomas, S. L., & McMahon, M. E. (1998). Americans abroad: Student characteristics, predeparture qualifications and performance abroad. International Journal of Educational
Management, 12(2), 57-64.
Twombly, S. B., Salisbury, M. H., Tumanut, S. D., & Klute, P. (2012). Study abroad in a
new global century: Renewing the promise, refining the purpose, ASHE higher
education report. John Wiley & Sons.
University of Queensland. (2011). Global strategy and internationalization at UQ 2011. St
Lucia, Australia: Author.
Useem, M., & Karabel, J. (1986). Pathways to top corporate management. American
Sociological Review, 51(2), 184-200.
Vande Berg, M. V., Connor-Linton, J. C., & Paige, M. P. (2009). The Georgetown
Consortium project: Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 1-75.

232

Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (2009). Methodological issues in researching intercultural
competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The sage handbook of intercultural competence
(pp. 404-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
van der Wende, M. (2007). Internationalization of higher education in the OECD
countries: Challenges and opportunities for the coming decade. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 11(3-4), 274-289.
Vossensteyn, H., Beerkens, M., Cremonini, L., Besancon, B., Focken, N., Leurs, B.,
McCoshan, A., Mozuraityte, N., Huisman, J., Otero, M. and de Wit, H. (2010).
Improving the participation in the ERASMUS program. Brussels, Belgium: European
Parliament.
Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2008). Does higher education attained abroad lead to international jobs?
Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), 101.
doi:10.1177/1028315307307656
Wildavsky, B. (2010). The great brain race : How global universities are reshaping the
world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

233