INTERNATIONALIZING GRADUATE EDUCATION THROUGH EDUCATION ABROAD: THE PEDAGOGY OF SHORT-TERM, FACULTY-LED, EDUCATION ABROAD EXPERIENCES By Karla Loebick 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 2017 ABSTRACT INTERNATIONALIZING GRADUATE EDUCATION THROUGH EDUCATION ABROAD: THE PEDAGOGY OF SHORT-TERM, FACULTY-LED, EDUCATION ABROAD EXPERIENCES By Karla Loebick Internationalization efforts within higher education have been increasingly prioritized over the past few decades as a response to the growing demands of the changing globalized world. Short-term education abroad has emerged as a common strategy that institutions implement to help internationalize their campuses, students, and faculty. Faculty are central to curricular decisions for their institutions and this responsibility permeates their roles as faculty leaders of short-term, faculty-led education abroad. While considerable research exists on undergraduate experiences, few studies have focused on graduate education programs that are faculty led. The purpose of this study was to develop understanding of the perspectives of faculty members as leaders of short-term, faculty-led, education abroad at the graduate level (henceforth graduate education abroad). Within this study, short-term is used to denote programs of one to five weeks in duration. Framed by Clark and Peterson’s (1986) Teacher Thought Process Model and Pratt’s (1992) General Model of Teaching, I studied how faculty members perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their role as leaders of graduate education abroad including: Three major research questions guided this research: (1) What do faculty leaders want to accomplish when leading graduate education abroad?; (2) What beliefs, assumptions, and values guide the work of faculty members in their role as a faculty leader of graduate education abroad?; and (3) What do faculty leaders do in their role as a faculty leader of graduate education abroad? These questions were investigated using qualitative research methods with 21 faculty leaders representing early, mid, and late career positions from five disciplinary areas at two doctorate granting universities. Each faculty leader had led between two and nine short term, graduate level education abroad experiences. The analysis of this study led to the creation of a model of the Pedagogy of Graduate Education Abroad which illustrates the process that 21 faculty leaders in this study experienced in their participation as faculty leaders of graduate education abroad. This study illuminated findings that provided insight into how faculty leaders pedagogically approach graduate education abroad including their motivations for involvement, defined purposes for short-term programming at the graduate level, responsibilities and liabilities of faculty leaders, qualities of graduate education abroad, highlights and challenges of being a faculty leader, types of graduate education abroad, pedagogical components of short-term programs, outcomes (for faculty, students, and institutions), and the role of graduate education abroad in the internationalization of graduate education. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have been fortunate to have had many adventures in my life. The pursuit of earning a Ph.D. over the last six years has been yet another. Pushing me to learn more about myself in ways I had never imagined, this process has tested my passion and resilience. I am ending this journey wiser and stronger and for that I incredibly grateful for the opportunity. I have been fortunate to have an incredible community of support throughout this process to whom I owe much gratitude. First, I want to thank my dissertation committee – Dr. Marilyn Amey, Dr. Brendan Cantwell, and Dr. Rique Campa. Thank you for your generosity of time, ideas, feedback, and encouragement. You have played a critical role in my completing my Ph.D. in more ways that I could describe. I appreciate your kind and supportive demeanor and value the methods in which you pushed me to think more critically and write more concisely. Dr. John Dirkx is the busiest, most intellectual, world traveling man I know. I do not know how you juggle all that you do but I admire you for your constant drive for learning and sharing of knowledge. I cannot thank you enough for sticking by me, supporting me, and guiding me through this process. I appreciate your calm demeanor, hilarious wit, constructive feedback, and guidance. I also am grateful to have had an advisor that accepted my hugs and gave me confidence to push toward my goals. Another important group of people who have supported me to no end are my wonderful mentors, colleagues, and friends - Dr. Melissa McDaniels, Dr. Jeno Rivera, Dr. Estrella Torrez, and Dale Elshoff. The four of you powerful, vibrant women have inspired, pushed, and motivated me to be a better scholar, community member, and professional. You move mountains iv for your communities. Each of you have greatly influenced me in countless ways and have given me lifelines when I needed them most. Thank you for your unconditional support and love! Another special thanks goes out to my HALE colleagues. I wouldn’t have made it through without the support of my many colleagues. So, a big HALE-yeah to Renata, Jodi, Jess, Gina, Emiko, Inese, Ryan, Claire, Heather, Dawn, and Michelle. From study groups to peer editing, and coffee breaks and ice cream, you have all supported me with laughter and tears at some point in this process. Thank you for giving me confidence and offering endless smiles! I am fortunate to be surrounding by a community of energetic, passionate individuals who have helped me balance life with the pursuit of Ph.D. You all fuel me with your zeal for life, adventures, workouts, laughter, wine nights, friendship, and successes. To all of my chingonas Sara, Jeno, Maggie, Estrella, Leslie, Marcelina, Susan, Patty, Titun, Barb, Kim, Nellita, Luella, Emily, Leydi, Angeliek, and Floridalma - thank you a million times over for your enthusiasm, support, and unconditional love! Last but not least, I have to thank my marvelous family. I am the luckiest person in the world to be born into a family of the most accepting, generous, driven, hard-working people I know. Regardless of the hour, you have supported me and kept me going. Your unconditional love and acceptance and willingness to listen to me babble about my research and “critical life happenings” always amazes me. Mom and Dad, thank you for being my rocks, my role models, my biggest fans, and for removing the stresses in life. Ben, Codruta, and Claudia, the smartest household on the planet, thank you for always being up for an adventure and for supporting me with your infinite advice and guidance through this process. To my chosen family, Amanda, Natalie, Agustina, Jessie, and Amy, thank you for never letting me forget about the silver lining and for reminding me of what it is all about. And finally, to Celina. Since I was a child, you have v been there, helping me, listening to me, making me tough, and being a role model. Thank you for the never-ending hours on the phone, the plethora of edits, the pep talks, and reminding me that I am the power in my own life. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ xii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 Background to the Study ............................................................................................................. 4 Internationalization of Higher Education ................................................................................ 4 Internationalizing Faculty, Curriculum, and Learning Outcomes ........................................... 5 Internationalization through Education Abroad ...................................................................... 7 Short-term Education Abroad .................................................................................................. 8 Pedagogy of Education Abroad ............................................................................................. 10 Faculty Leader Responsibilities............................................................................................. 11 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 14 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 15 Significance of Study ................................................................................................................ 16 Overview of Dissertation .......................................................................................................... 18 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 19 Review of Literature.................................................................................................................. 19 Internationalization of Higher Education as a Response to Globalization ............................ 19 Historical contexts for internationalization of higher education........................................ 21 Strategies to internationalize. ............................................................................................. 22 Internationalization through Education Abroad .................................................................... 24 Types of and purposes for education abroad. .................................................................... 25 Short-term education abroad. ............................................................................................. 27 Student outcomes. .............................................................................................................. 27 Faculty outcomes. .............................................................................................................. 28 Criticisms of short-term education abroad. ........................................................................ 29 Internationalization of Graduate Education ........................................................................... 30 Internationalization of graduate students and faculty. ....................................................... 30 Strategies to internationalize graduate education. ............................................................. 33 Graduate level education abroad. ....................................................................................... 34 Pedagogy of Short-term Education Abroad........................................................................... 35 Efforts to define good pedagogical practices. .................................................................... 36 Pre-departure practices. .................................................................................................. 37 Mid-experience practices. .............................................................................................. 38 Post-travel practices. ...................................................................................................... 38 Learning theories supporting pedagogical practices in education abroad. ........................ 38 Experiential learning. ......................................................................................................... 38 Transformative learning. .................................................................................................... 40 T-Shaped learning. ............................................................................................................. 41 Faculty Role in Short-term Education Abroad Programs ...................................................... 42 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 44 vii Faculty Leader Thought Processes ........................................................................................ 45 General Model of Teaching ................................................................................................... 47 Summary of Chapter Two ......................................................................................................... 50 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 51 Research Paradigm, Research Design, and Methodology......................................................... 51 Context and Setting ................................................................................................................... 52 Participant Selection .................................................................................................................. 53 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 54 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 56 Role of the Researcher and Reflexivity..................................................................................... 57 Rigor and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................................ 59 Credibility .............................................................................................................................. 59 Cross-checking. .................................................................................................................. 60 Member checking............................................................................................................... 60 Triangulation. ..................................................................................................................... 60 Transferability ....................................................................................................................... 61 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 61 Summary of Chapter Three ....................................................................................................... 62 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS – FACULTY LEADER BELIEFS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND VALUES ABOUT AND MANIFESTED IN ACTION IN GRADUATE EDUCATION ABROAD ...................................................................................................................................... 63 Overview of Chapter ................................................................................................................. 63 Faculty Leader Beliefs, Assumptions, and Values about Graduate Education Abroad ........ 66 Faculty leader motivations for involvement in short-term education abroad. ................... 66 Benefit professionally and personally. ........................................................................... 67 Deepen relationships with students. ............................................................................... 68 Invigorate creative teaching. .......................................................................................... 69 Expand research agendas ............................................................................................... 69 Provide diverse learning experiences. ............................................................................ 70 Perceived purposes of graduate education abroad. ............................................................ 71 Application of disciplinary learning within a global context. ........................................ 71 Opportunities for experiential learning. ......................................................................... 73 Comparative analysis and experience. ........................................................................... 74 Development of cultural and global competencies. ....................................................... 75 Exposure to international professional perspectives and networking opportunities. ..... 77 Enhance internationalization of graduate student thinking and broaden understanding of diversity. ......................................................................................................................... 77 Preparation for and learning to be a faculty leader. ........................................................... 79 Learning the faculty leader role. .................................................................................... 79 Responsibilities of faculty leaders.................................................................................. 81 Faculty leader beliefs about characteristics of short-term education abroad. .................... 83 Intensity and rigor. ......................................................................................................... 83 Valuable experience for all learners and independent learning. .................................... 84 Pedagogically unique. .................................................................................................... 85 Permeate departmental and program experience. .......................................................... 85 viii Potential to lack substance. ............................................................................................ 86 Faculty leader assumptions about the graduate learner. .................................................... 87 What faculty leaders like most about being a faculty leader of graduate education abroad. ............................................................................................................................................ 89 Interaction with graduate students in new contexts. ...................................................... 89 Observation of learning in action. .................................................................................. 90 Application of disciplinary knowledge. ......................................................................... 90 Exploration of an international context. ......................................................................... 91 A unique pedagogical opportunity. ................................................................................ 91 Faculty leader challenges and dislikes of graduate education abroad. .............................. 92 Managing interpersonal relationships and challenging students. ................................... 92 Balancing boundaries between faculty leaders and students. ........................................ 93 Managing program logistics, administration, financial constraints, and ensuring health and safety........................................................................................................................ 94 Working with contextual unpredictability...................................................................... 96 Reconciling academic challenges and scholarly, institutional, and culturally appropriate contexts and expectations. .............................................................................................. 97 Balancing the burden on family. .................................................................................... 98 Articulating program value. ........................................................................................... 99 Summary: Faculty leader beliefs, assumptions, and values about graduate education abroad. ................................................................................................................................ 99 Faculty Leader Beliefs, Assumptions, and Values about Graduate Education Abroad Manifested in Action ........................................................................................................... 101 Institutional logistics and planning affecting pedagogical variability. ............................ 101 Curricular approaches to short-term education abroad. ................................................... 104 Subject-based vs. project-based models. ...................................................................... 104 Credit vs. non-credit. .................................................................................................... 105 Types of graduate education abroad............................................................................. 106 Identical course. ........................................................................................................ 107 Revised or altered course .......................................................................................... 108 Embedded experience ............................................................................................... 108 Creation of new course ............................................................................................. 109 Professional collaboration ........................................................................................ 110 Study tour ................................................................................................................. 111 Components of graduate education abroad ...................................................................... 112 Timing, logistics, and placement of experience. .......................................................... 112 Flexibility. .................................................................................................................... 113 Institutional and personal relationships ........................................................................ 113 Strong curriculum ......................................................................................................... 113 Clear expectations and goals ........................................................................................ 114 Pre-trip orientations ...................................................................................................... 115 Positive group dynamics .............................................................................................. 116 Facilitated experiential learning ................................................................................... 118 Professional and collaborative sharing of research and knowledge ............................. 120 Site visits ...................................................................................................................... 121 Cultural exposure ......................................................................................................... 122 ix Reflective debriefings .................................................................................................. 123 Post-travel meetings or gatherings ............................................................................... 124 Formal post-travel writing assignments or exams........................................................ 125 Post-travel presentations .............................................................................................. 126 Blogs............................................................................................................................. 126 Assessment of graduate education abroad ....................................................................... 127 Summary: Faculty Leader Beliefs, Assumptions, and Values about Graduate Education Abroad Manifested in Action .............................................................................................. 131 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 133 CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS – FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF OUTCOMES OF GRADUATE EDUCATION ABROAD AND THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF GRADUATE EDUCATION ...................................................................................................... 134 Overview of Chapter ............................................................................................................... 134 Faculty Outcomes from Graduate Education Abroad ......................................................... 135 Professional development and benefits ............................................................................ 135 Personal growth from a comparative experience ............................................................. 136 Develop self-awareness ................................................................................................... 138 Increased creativity in teaching ....................................................................................... 139 Personal learning .............................................................................................................. 140 Faculty Leader Perceptions of Outcomes of Graduate Education Abroad for Students ..... 141 Interdisciplinary connections ........................................................................................... 141 Changed perspectives....................................................................................................... 142 Personal growth ............................................................................................................... 143 Learning from and with peers .......................................................................................... 145 Disciplinary and Institutional Outcomes of Graduate Education Abroad ........................... 146 Linking theoretical knowledge with experiential learning .............................................. 146 Recruitment value ............................................................................................................ 147 Increase skills and ability for hiring................................................................................. 148 Expand research opportunities and collaborations .......................................................... 148 Understanding the Influence of Graduate Education Abroad on the Internationalization of Graduate Education ............................................................................................................. 149 Faculty Leader definitions of the internationalization of graduate education ................. 150 Role of graduate education abroad for the internationalization of graduate education ... 152 Developing global citizens ........................................................................................... 152 Building global networks ............................................................................................. 153 Professional and career preparation ............................................................................. 153 Bridge to global community of practice and global scholarship .................................. 154 Characteristics of graduate education abroad as graduate level education ...................... 155 Graduate level course content ...................................................................................... 155 Depth of engagement ................................................................................................... 156 Professionalism ............................................................................................................ 157 Professional and personal application of concepts ....................................................... 158 Cultural and disciplinary adaptation ............................................................................ 159 Summary: Outcomes of Graduate Education Abroad and Faculty Leader Perceptions of the Internationalization of Graduate Education ......................................................................... 160 Summary of Findings from Chapters Four and Five............................................................... 161 x CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 163 Study Overview ....................................................................................................................... 163 Review of Findings ................................................................................................................. 164 Contributions to Theory .......................................................................................................... 167 Conceptual Frameworks ...................................................................................................... 168 Teacher thought process model ....................................................................................... 168 General model of teaching ............................................................................................... 171 A third contributing framework ....................................................................................... 173 Model of pedagogy of graduate education abroad ........................................................... 175 Implications for Practice ......................................................................................................... 180 Institutional Influence on Faculty Involvement in Graduate Education Abroad ................. 180 Disciplinary Focus of Graduate Education Abroad ............................................................. 182 Pedagogical Diversity in Graduate Education Abroad ........................................................ 187 Graduate Level, Short-Term Education Abroad.................................................................. 189 Good Pedagogical Practices in Graduate Education Abroad .............................................. 191 Interplay between Purposes, Motivations, and Outcomes ................................................... 194 Implications for Future Research & Theory ........................................................................... 196 Concluding Thoughts .............................................................................................................. 201 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 204 APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol ......................................................................................... 205 APPENDIX B: Research Consent Form for Interviews and Audiotaping .............................. 207 APPENDIX C: Email Solicitation for Participation ............................................................... 208 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 209 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Faculty Leaders .......................................................................................... 65 Table 2: Critical Components of Graduate Education Abroad ................................................... 194 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Framework of Inquiry for the Pedagogy Graduate Education Abroad ......................... 15 Figure 2. Faculty Leader Thought Processes modeled after Clark & Peterson’s (1986) Model of Teacher Thought and Action ........................................................................................................ 46 Figure 3. General Model of Education Abroad Pedagogy modeled from Pratt’s (1992) General Model of Teaching ........................................................................................................................ 48 Figure 4. Faculty Commitments in Leading Education Abroad modeled after Pratt’s (1992) Indicators of Commitment in Teaching ........................................................................................ 49 Figure 5. Faculty Leader Thought Processes modeled after Clark & Peterson’s (1986) Model of Teacher Thought and Action ...................................................................................................... 169 Figure 6. Predominant Graduate Education Abroad Decision-Making Approaches ................. 170 Figure 7. General Model of Education Abroad Pedagogy modeled from Pratt’s (1992) General Model of Teaching ...................................................................................................................... 172 Figure 8. Elements of Academic Plans (Lattuca & Stark, 2009, p. 7) ....................................... 174 Figure 9. Model of the Pedagogy of Graduate Education Abroad ............................................. 176 Figure 10. T-Shape Professional Model (Gardner, 2014) .......................................................... 184 xiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION The rapidly changing globalized world of the 21st century has placed growing demands on higher education to establish global and intercultural dimensions into all of its functions including teaching, research, service, and outreach (Knight, 2004). Campuses are increasing their efforts to internationalize to maintain relevancy, be more competitive in the global arena, and connect their students and faculty to the globalized world (Knight, 2004; NAFSA, 2011; Nerad, 2010) through opportunities such as internationalized curriculum, language study, increased enrollment of international students, and semester- or year-long education abroad programs (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Wotila Croom, 2010). At the graduate level, a variety of international experiences have also been available for some time, such as individual-based research, dual degree programs, jointly administered degree programs, exchange programs, and intensive language study (Allum, 2014). Unlike undergraduate education though, graduate education often is discipline-focused without a crossdisciplinary, general curriculum, often making available time for international experiences challenging. Curricular decisions at this level are typically conducted at the college, department, or program level with faculty guiding the decision-making process (Lattuca & Stark, 2009; Lunde, 1995). Graduate education is a process wherein students are socialized into particular academic disciplines and other professional arenas (Austin & McDaniels, 2006). It aims to prepare highly skilled workers with foundational knowledge and functional work skills and develop “critical thinking skills and produces innovators…that will help ensure our country’s future economic prosperity, influence social growth, and maintain our leadership position in the global economy” (Commission on the Future of Graduate Education, 2012, p. 1). The nation leans on graduate education to produce individuals that are “crucial to ensure our nation’s continuing ability to compete in the global economy, foster international understanding, and 1 solve many of the greatest challenges that face our nation and the world” (CFGE, 2010, p. 55). Therefore, to reach some of the goals of graduate education, which often vary from undergraduate level goals, education abroad provides a seemingly optimal opportunity for graduate students. There has also been a significant increase in the past few decades in offerings of and participation in short-term (one to eight weeks in duration) education abroad programming. At the undergraduate level, this trend has stimulated programming efforts and a growing empirical and theoretical body of scholarly literature around education abroad as a form of internationalization (Altbach & Knight, 2007). More recently, there has been a rise in the number of short-term, education abroad programs that focus on graduate and professional students, as well as an increase in the number of graduate students participating in these programs (IIE, 2015). Fields now offering graduate education abroad opportunities include medicine (Leggett, 2009), engineering (Kernaghan, 2012), nursing (Ladka, 2008), social work (Leggett, 2008), business (Alon & McAllaster, 2009; Hulstrand, 2007), law (Ferguson, 2010; Tobenkin, 2009), dentistry, education, and public health (Dirkx, Janka Millar, Vizvary, Sinclair, & Clason, 2014a; Fernandez, 2014; Leggett, 2009; Sinclair, 2014). However, there is very little scholarly work that has focused on short-term education abroad as a form of internationalization at the graduate level. Only recently have a few studies been reported (Dirkx et al., 2014a; Dirkx, Janka Millar, Berquist, & Vizvary, 2014b; Kernaghan, 2012; Sinclair, 2014), most of which have focused on individual programs or disciplines (Festervand & Tillery, 2001). These studies provide a descriptive understanding of available programming (Dirkx et al., 2014a) or elaboration of students’ perceptions of their experiences in these programs (Dirkx et al., 2014b). However, we know almost nothing about the faculty members leading these programs and the ways they think about their role as pedagogical leaders, 2 despite the fact that most graduate education abroad offerings are led and facilitated exclusively by faculty. Faculty members are central to understanding the quality of learning experiences and outcomes that students derive from formal learning settings. Instructional strategies planned and selected by faculty influence the experience and learning of students (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Bok, 2006; Lattuca & Stark, 2009). In short-term education abroad for undergraduate students, scholars and practitioners have emphasized the importance of programs that are intentional, wellplanned and facilitated (McCallon & Holmes, 2010; Mullens & Cuper, 2012; Rasch, 2001), and that foster meaningful relationships between faculty members and students (Smith, MacGregor, Matthews, & Gabelnick, 2004). Attention to the quality of these programs is evident in emerging efforts to train leaders for these programs (Berquist & Chalou, 2015). While some information is available on the disciplinary backgrounds, motivations, and broad objectives of faculty leaders for graduate education abroad programs (Dirkx et al., 2014a; Kernaghan, 2015), there is virtually no information available on how they construe their curricular and pedagogical roles within these programs. Developing a better understanding of faculty leaders in these settings can enhance the development of graduate education abroad experiences, gather insight into best practices, and maximize utilization of these programs in the process of internationalizing graduate education. In addition, a theoretical understanding of teaching and learning in international contexts can be gained to enrich the experiences of graduate students. The purpose of this qualitative study was to develop a deeper understanding of the perspectives of faculty members as leaders of short-term, graduate level education abroad programs. The study focused on identifying the perspectives, beliefs, and values of faculty leaders that guide and inform their pedagogical planning, development, and facilitation of short- 3 term, faculty led, education abroad experiences for graduate students. In this chapter, I present the need for this study, describe the conceptual framework, and state the research questions that guided this inquiry. Background to the Study Globalization reaches every sector of the world, even higher education (Knight, 2004). Globalization is defined as “the economic, political, and societal forces pushing 21st century higher education toward greater international involvement” (Altbach & Knight, 2007, p. 290) and “the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people, values, [and] ideas…across borders” (Knight, 2004, p. 8). Kirkwood (2001) described the rapidly changing globalized environment as the “global age” during which …young adults will face a new world order. Their daily contacts will include individuals from diverse ethnic, gender, linguistic, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds. They will experience some of history’s most serious health problems, inequities among less developed and more-developed nations, environmental deterioration, overpopulation, transnational migrations, ethnic nationalism, and the decline of the nation-state (p. 10). Globalization has therefore stimulated internationalization as a response to pressing needs such as national security, diplomacy, leadership, active engagement in the international community, economic growth and a global knowledge base (Durbin, 2006; Lucas, 2009; Stearns, 2008). Internationalization of Higher Education As a reaction to this changing globalized landscape, higher education institutions have been tasked with internationalizing all levels of higher education to produce graduates capable of engaging in global practice with broad knowledge and perspectives (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Dolby, 2004; Kernaghan, 2012; Knight, 1997). To reach this goal, there has been growing 4 emphasis on internationalizing higher education curriculum to create globally competent learners and faculty (American Council on Education, 2015; Matross Helms & Tukibayeva, 2013; Rowan-Kenyon & Niehaus, 2011; Stearns, 2008) and steady development and implementation of internationalization strategies within higher education (Altbach, 2004; Bartell, 2003; De Wit, 2002). Within higher education, definitions of internationalization relate predominantly to “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (Knight, 2003, p.2). Typically, strategies focus on fostering development of international and intercultural perspectives through “studyabroad experiences, curriculum enrichment via international studies majors or area studies, strengthening foreign-language instruction, and sponsorship of foreign students to study on campus” (Altbach & Knight, 2007, p. 293). The American Council on Education (2012) emphasizes campus internationalization as a strategy to weave global perspectives and learning into all components of the learning process, teaching, and research to build global and cultural competencies in students and faculty while fostering international relationships and partnerships. Internationalizing Faculty, Curriculum, and Learning Outcomes As institutions have explored how to integrate internationalization efforts in a more comprehensive manner, much emphasis has taken place in regards to curriculum and learning outcomes (ACE, 2012). Knight (1994) describes curriculum as “the backbone of the internationalization process” (p. 6). Through this lens, extant literature focused on education abroad programming, foreign language courses, interdisciplinary programming, increased international student presence, and integration of courses or themes of international, intercultural, global, or comparatives focus (ACE, 2012; Bremer & van der Wende, 1995; Green, 2005). 5 Furthermore, guidance for internationalizing curriculum includes establishing globally oriented learning outcomes or competencies, designing learning experiences to support identified outcomes, and creating opportunities for students to demonstrate competencies (AACU, 2015). Much of the literature emphasizes the internationalization of curriculum of undergraduate education with teaching and learning as a central, critical component (Green & Olson, 2003; Knight, 1994; Knight 1997; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981). Institutions often strive for curricular integration reflective of real world learning and encompassing a philosophy for teaching that draws from various discipline areas to focus on a specific topic (McBrien & Brandt, 1997). Curricular integration uses an assortment of institutional approaches created to integrate real world, experiential opportunities into the learning experiences and curricula for students across all disciplines (Brewer & Cunningham, 2009). But literature suggests that internationalizing curriculum requires the internationalization of faculty (Bond, Qian, & Huang, 2003; Bond & Thayer, 1999; Savishinsky, 2012; Shute, 2002; Stohl, 2007). Though literature shows a lack of interest of faculty on a wide scale to get involved with institutional internationalization efforts (Hawawini, 2011; Stohl, 2007), institutions strive to engage and involve faculty as they are critical for influencing programmatic and departmental decisions. Within their academic positions, faculty members play a central role in the development and implementation of disciplinary curricula and university research objectives (Lattuca & Stark, 2009). Faculty are vital to the process of campus and curricular internationalization and goals to thoroughly internationalize higher education (ACE, 2012; Childress, 2007; Finkelstein, Walker, & Chen, 2013). They are intricately engaged in the development, oversight, and teaching of curriculum, international connections, and international activities such as research, education abroad, and conferences (Childress, 2009; Mullens & Cuper, 2012; Savishinsky, 2012). However, the role of 6 faculty as a source of learning about internationalization strategies through best practices, teaching, program design, or research methods is often overlooked (Hawawini, 2011). Internationalization through Education Abroad Education abroad is a primary internationalization opportunity for students and is a commonly used internationalization strategy among higher education institutions (Green, Luu, & Burris, 2008; Twombly, Salisbury, Tumanut, & Klute, 2012). Broadly defined, education abroad is “education that occurs outside the participant’s home country… [including] such international experiences as work, volunteering, non-credit internships, and directed travel, as long as these programs are driven to a significant degree by learning goals” (IIE, 2014). For purposes of this study, education abroad is considered a structured learning experience that takes place in another country. Benefits of education abroad opportunities are well documented at the undergraduate level (Dolby, 2004; Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Kernaghan, 2012; Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005) and are increasingly recognized at the graduate level (Dirkx, Janka Millar, Berquist, & Vizvary, 2016; Hulstrand, 2006; Sinclair, 2014; Yarbrough, 2015). A general goal is to “help students understand [their] interconnectedness and to help weave a garment of global awareness and mutuality by building international bridges of understanding” (Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2002, p. 1). Education abroad helps build diverse understanding and connections between people from around the world (Deardorff, 2006; Kauffmann, Martin, & Weaver, 1992; IIE, 2015; Suttons & Rubin, 2004), increases involvement with other cultures (Abrams, 1979; Fischer, 2012; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004), develops global views (Burn, 1980; Fischer, 2012), enhances global competitiveness and international collaboration (Dwyer, 2004), and improves foreign language abilities (Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005). Additionally, education abroad has been linked 7 to the improvement of job opportunities and career readiness (Kernaghan, 2012; Picard, Bernardino, & Ehigiator, 2009), development of general skills (Dirkx et al., 2016), and cultivation of students personally, professionally, and academically (Dwyer & Peters, 2004). Within graduate education abroad, a main goal that has emerged in the literature is to develop professional skills of graduate students in international contexts (Dirkx, et al., 2016; Hulstrand, 2015; Sinclair, 2014; Yarbrough, 2015). Graduate education abroad strives to prepare graduate students to work with increasing diverse populations (Sinclair, 2014; Yarbrough, 2015), develop comparative understandings of disciplinary practice in international contexts (Dirkx et al., 2016; Bremer, 2008), and better understand realities of their professions in a global setting (Dirkx, et al., 2016; Ferguson, 2010; Tobenkin, 2009). Short-term Education Abroad Of all education abroad types, higher education has seen the largest growth in short-term education abroad programs (Engle & Engle, 2003; Hulstrand, 2006). About 60% of all education abroad participants did so through short-term programs and often, but did not always earn academic credit through these programs (IIE, 2015; Rowan-Kenyon & Niehaus, 2011). Engle and Engle (2003) distinguish two main types of short-term education abroad: study tours and short-term education abroad. These two types, although by definition are slightly different, have great similarities and are even often documented as one single program type within extant literature due to unclear or blurring of program descriptions. For purposes of this study, shortterm education abroad will include both study tours and short-term education abroad programs. These include programs that are one to eight weeks in duration, require little to no language competency, contain pre- and post- travel coursework and meetings, offer some group components, and afford cultural integration (Engle & Engle, 2003). 8 The growth in short-term education abroad has been the result of a variety of forces: initiatives for internationalization within higher education, increased global mobility, increased diversity of learners and learner needs in higher education, and increases in international research and collaborations by faculty (Bond, Qian, & Huang, 2003; Hulstrand, 2006). These programs provide international learning opportunities to a more diverse body of undergraduate and graduate students, including nontraditional students who often have varied and unique social, economic, and ethnic backgrounds (Edge, 2012; Mullens & Cuper, 2012; Szekely & Krane, 1997) or students who otherwise are unable to afford longer programs (Hulstrand, 2006). Documented effects of short-term education abroad programs are limited, though researchers have identified some benefits of these programs (Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Hulstrand, 2006; Neppel, 2005; Redden, 2010; Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, & Paige, 2009). These programs offer great diversity in program type, duration, qualities, disciplinary focus, etc (Hulstrand, 2006). Short-term programs “can offer a more intensive and focused experience” and provide a “realistic alternative in terms of demands of [a] degree studies and economic resources” (Long, Akande, Purdy, & Nakano, 2010, p. 92). These programs provide options for and accommodate diverse learning styles and preferences as well as afford opportunities to many people who were unable to participate in traditional semester- or year-long programs (Hulstrand, 2006). Also, pedagogically, short-term programs are often faculty-led and are viewed as exciting to create, develop, and facilitate (Goode, 2008; O’Neal & Krueger, 1995). They also yield opportunities for direct intellectual engagement between faculty leaders and participants (Goode, 2008; Hulstrand, 2006). 9 Pedagogy of Education Abroad While many traditional pedagogical strategies apply to education abroad, education abroad pedagogy generally refers to the strategies and tools used to “endow students with an international perspective- knowledge, attitudes, and skills” (Kauffman et al., 1992, p. 56). Education abroad pedagogy includes the conceptual, curricular, and cultural foundations and perspectives a leader uses to structure education abroad programs before experiences, adapting and implementing plans throughout experiences, and reflecting and making changes after an experience (McCallon & Holmes, 2010). By looking at and deliberately planning for an experience holistically, leaders can pedagogically optimize learning and engagement experiences (Lattuca & Stark, 2009). Pedagogically, scholars commonly apply Kolb’s (1984) experiential education model (Katula & Threnhauser, 1990; Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2002) and use the AAC&U’s (2015) institutional liberal learning goals as guiding frameworks for developing and assessing education abroad programs at the undergraduate level. These frameworks present experiential, active learning approaches to learning in an international context. To pedagogically guide faculty leaders of education abroad, the National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE, 1998) further identified several principles regarded as good pedagogical practice for education abroad including intention, authenticity, planning, clarity, monitoring and assessment, reflection, evaluation, and acknowledgment (Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2002). However, despite some consistencies in pedagogical practices used in education abroad with these models, there is still a lack of understanding about what leads to particular outcomes or how program leaders go about constructing education abroad experiences at both the undergraduate and graduate level. 10 Faculty Leader Responsibilities Historically, the creation, modification, and scrutiny of curriculum within higher education has fallen within the realm of responsibility of faculty (Lattuca & Stark, 2009). At both the undergraduate and graduate levels, faculty “determine what we teach and how we teach it” (Bond et al., 2003, p. 2). Similarly, faculty have been centrally associated with successful processes to internationalize curriculum and with internationalization initiatives on campuses (Barnhart, Ricks, & Speier, 1997; Mullens & Cuper, 2012). Faculty-led education abroad presents an opportunity for faculty leaders to explore new teaching methods, new pedagogical contexts, target varied learning styles and engage international research interests (McCallon & Holmes, 2010). Education abroad thus presents a unique context for faculty to explore pedagogical strategies that support learning objectives and align with the distinct goals of their education abroad programs and institutional internationalization plans. Faculty duties in education abroad programs vary considerably and encompass a multitude of responsibilities that have diverse dimensions (Goode, 2008; Rasch, 2001). Thus, with short-term, faculty-led education abroad, we must consider the plethora of academic and logistical expectations and responsibilities of faculty in creating and implementing these programs (Goode, 2008; O’Neal & Krueger, 1995). For education abroad, faculty have academic responsibilities such as developing the program curriculum and building relationships in international contexts. Faculty aim to thoroughly accommodate student learning as well as intercultural components of the experience (Goode, 2008). Moreover, faculty leaders are tasked with maintaining traditional, discipline-based curricular requirements, upholding academic rigor of their courses, and finding ways to integrate internationalized curriculum into the curriculum and their role as teachers and researchers (Brewer & Cunningham, 2009). 11 In addition to the academic responsibilities of leading a short-term education abroad experience, faculty leaders are usually required to take on logistical responsibilities (Goode, 2008; McCallon & Holmes, 2010; Mullens & Cuper, 2012; O’Neal & Krueger, 1995). These often include activities both on-campus prior to, during and after the international experience, including logistics for travel, academic planning, and designing and arranging intercultural experiences (Goode, 2008). Within this role, faculty leaders take on a variety of titles and responsibilities such as “interpreter, facilitator, cheerleader, route finder, food gatherer, disciplinarian, troubleshooter, and problem solver” (McCallon & Holmes, 2010, p. 16). Logistically, under these titles, faculty leader duties often include advising, risk management, program design, instruction, student services, among others (McCallon & Holmes, 2010; Savishinsky, 2012). Consequently, the faculty leader responsibilities in education abroad vary greatly and continually fluctuate making their position neither simple to define nor easy to implement. Selby (2008) describes how it is common for faculty leaders to establish goals for education abroad experiences that reflect those of on-campus classes. Although these mirroring strategies can foundationally support curriculum development and pedagogical approaches for short-term education abroad programs, over-reliance on these strategies can lead to a failure to embed and integrate cultural and intercultural aspects into curriculum and pedagogy that are necessary in international contexts (Mestenhauser, 1998). In education abroad experiences, students are often faced with entirely new contexts for living and learning, which requires adaptation to challenges to prior knowledge and physical and emotional comfort. Intentional attention to cultural and intercultural aspects of the experience are both critical and necessary for student learning as they help “move students beyond what they think is negative or ‘weird’ into 12 true understandings…beyond the idea that everything they are seeing and experiencing is strange and unusual and transform the moment into a learning experience” (McCallon & Holmes, 2010, p. 137). The faculty leader sets the stage for student learning, reflection, and long-term processing of the experience. The importance of the faculty leader in education abroad at the undergraduate level is widely documented including pedagogical approaches, program types, motivations, and outcomes (Green & Olson, 2003; Liverpool, 1995; Navarro, 2004; Savishinsky, 2012; Schweitz, 2006). However, even with the growth in program offerings, there is minimal extant literature on comparable programs, pedagogical approaches used, or documented outcomes of the faculty leader perspectives in short-term, faculty-led education abroad programs at the graduate level. Graduate level programs are also usually discipline based with a specialized, centralized curriculum (Dirkx, et al., 2014a). We have some basic understanding about graduate education abroad programs such as logistical and programmatic information, general motivations to lead education abroad programs (Dirkx et al., 2014a; Dirkx et al., 2014b; Augustine, Kernaghan, & Russo, 2013; Kernaghan, 2015), and program type, duration, and general purpose (Allum, 2014; Dirkx, et al., 2014b). There is also general knowledge of participating students, whose average age is 34 years old, often with professional work knowledge, life experience, and maturity (Dirkx, et al., 2014b). Beyond basic statistics and data that focus on these general categories, and various discipline based program-level descriptive pieces, we lack research that focuses on preparation, goals, approach to building international partners, program design and planning, facilitation of programs and pedagogy used, experiences and learning outcomes of graduate students, the effect of discipline or subject focus, or faculty leader roles (Dirkx et al., 2014a; Dirkx et al., 2016). Participation continues to grow requiring more funding from institutions and 13 increased demands on faculty to develop and implement diverse array of education abroad experiences. Thus, it is essential that we understand how faculty leaders, often the drivers of these programs, both with design of curriculum and logistics, go about constructing experiences and how they perceive these experiences as enhancing existing graduate education efforts. With little research to provide a landscape of support for graduate level international experiences, it is difficult to extract evidence-based conclusions about effective programs, actual learning outcomes that occur for participating graduate students, or pedagogical structures or tools used within these programs. Furthermore, we lack information and understanding about how faculty leaders perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their positions as faculty leaders, the theoretical foundations they use to create experiences, or how they approach preparing for and facilitating short-term, faculty-led, graduate level, education abroad (henceforth graduate education abroad). Therefore, to confront lacking research in this area, this study seeks to gain further understanding of what motivates faculty to lead education abroad, what they do in their position as a faculty leader, and how faculty leaders approach, plan, facilitate and evaluate shortterm education abroad experiences. Research Questions Recognizing the critical role that faculty members play in graduate education abroad combined with the lacking knowledge of faculty leader responsibilities, practices, and outcomes from short-term programming at the graduate level, this study was designed. This study aimed to understand how faculty members perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their positions as faculty leaders of graduate education abroad. This study explored the following research questions: o What do faculty want to accomplish when leading graduate education abroad? 14 o What beliefs, assumptions, and values guide the work of faculty members in their role as a faculty leader of graduate education abroad? o What do faculty leaders do in their role as a faculty leader of graduate education abroad? Conceptual Framework As a framework to guide this study, I employed several key constructs and theories concerned with faculty leaders and their relation to their approach to and curricular design of graduate education abroad. The combination of two conceptual foundations established a framework of inquiry to explore understanding of the pedagogy of graduate education abroad (see Figure 1). In exploring the pedagogy of these programs, this framework helped establish a platform to understand how faculty leaders think about what they do and how they do it. Figure 1. Framework of Inquiry for the Pedagogy Graduate Education Abroad The first conceptual construct used to frame this study is planning. Clark and Peterson’s (1986) teacher thought process model provides a lens to examine how faculty leaders think about what they do, how they plan what they will do, what pedagogical tools they use, and what curricular and instructional processes they explore and utilize when leading short-term, education 15 abroad experiences. The second construct used to frame this study is perspective. Pratt (1992) identified the importance of faculty actions, intentions, and beliefs within his general model of teaching. This model supported exploration of faculty leaders’ perspectives in relation to what they do when they teach or lead education abroad program (actions), what they try to accomplish in their teaching and programs (intentions), and what they believe about teaching in the context of education abroad (beliefs). Significance of Study This study adds to extant literature on the internationalization of higher education. First, while similar to undergraduate education abroad in some respects, graduate education abroad could potentially represent a fundamentally different experience (Dirkx et al., 2014b). Current research on graduate education abroad is limited and is generally descriptive in nature. Thus, this study offers empirical research that describes and presents a model of the pedagogy of graduate education abroad. Second, this study provides insight into the motivations, beliefs, values, and assumptions of faculty as they engage as faculty leaders of graduate education abroad. Faculty leader positions are usually voluntary opportunities to engage in a pedagogical context in education abroad. Faculty motivations to lead education abroad not only influence their theories and beliefs about teaching, students, and the process of internationalization, but also impact their pedagogical approach toward the design, plan, and implementation of the international experience. With faculty in the forefront of internationalization efforts in higher education, it is important to understand the role of faculty in short-term education abroad. Faculty leaders have many institutional responsibilities such as teaching, research, and service. Involvement in shortterm programming often results in added responsibilities and workload for faculty members and 16 little is known about the processes for developing these programs or their outcomes. Thus, understanding faculty leader beliefs, values, and assumptions could reveal much about how faculty approach these experiences and how they think about themselves as an agent of internationalization within higher education. As a result, this understanding could provide valuable insight for institutional decision-making about graduate education, program-level allocation of funds, curricular and pedagogical decisions, or allocation of faculty time and workloads. Third, while the most popular forms of education abroad at the graduate level are shortterm experiences, there is still little known about the pedagogy used within these programs. There is a lack of understanding of the faculty leader role, the preparation and planning of these experiences, and the implicit theories, thought processes and approaches used by faculty leaders in determining the details of the experience. Graduate programs normally consist of disciplinebased, professions-oriented curriculum and require a different approach regarding design, implementation, and assessment for international educational experiences (Dirkx et al., 2014b). Additionally, with broad definitions of program type and disciplinary focus, and minimal documentation about the learning outcomes of graduate education abroad, a need to better understand the development and design of these experiences emerges. This study affords an opportunity to engage in further discussion about the pedagogy of graduate level international education. As internationalization continues to permeate and guide the development of higher education institutions and graduate education, better understanding of common guiding theoretical frameworks, design, assessment strategies, outcomes, and pedagogical strategies used in graduate education abroad experiences become increasingly important. The current study 17 helps address this gap in the literature by affording understanding of the faculty leader roles, theoretical foundations and pedagogy of graduate education abroad. Overview of Dissertation Chapter One outlines the need for the study, the conceptual framework used to guide this work, and the study’s research questions. In chapter Two, I describe the context for examining the pedagogy of and faculty approach to graduate education abroad by reviewing existing literature. Chapter Three outlines my research agenda and methodology for my study. Chapters Four and Five present and discuss the findings from the data collection process. Chapter Six includes implications from the study, ideas for future research, and final conclusions of the study. Lastly, I included all necessary documentation and supplemental components of the study as appendices. 18 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Review of Literature In this chapter, I examine research that highlights the contexts for graduate education abroad in higher education to support understanding of how faculty perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their positions as faculty leaders of these programs. Literature to support this study includes the following broad areas: 1) internationalization of higher education as a response to increasing forces of globalization; 2) the internationalization of graduate education; 3) graduate education abroad as a particular and expanding form of internationalization within graduate education; 4) the pedagogy of education abroad; and 5) the role of the faculty leader in short-term education abroad programs. Lastly, I further explore the conceptual constructs that provided a framework of inquiry for this study. Internationalization of Higher Education as a Response to Globalization More than ever before in history, internationalization and globalization are influencing and presenting international political, economic, social and environmental challenges that require global cooperation for solutions. Globalization is defined as “the economic, political, and societal forces pushing 21st century higher education toward greater international involvement” (Altbach & Knight, 2007, p. 290) and “the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people, values, [and] ideas…across borders” (Knight, 2004, p. 8). Internationalization is defined as “any systematic effort aimed at making higher education responsive to the requirements and challenges related to the globalization of societies, economy, or labor markets” (Van der Wende, 1997, p. 18). Soderqvist (2002) expanded this definition to include “a change process from a national higher education institution to an international higher education institution leading to the inclusion of an international dimension in all aspects of its holistic management in order to enhance the quality of teaching and learning and to achieve the desired competencies” (p. 29). 19 As a result of globalization, higher education has increasingly internationalized policies and practices (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Higher education institutions are called to, among other strategies, afford opportunities for students to develop perspectives and understand practices to support global well-being and competiveness (Lewin, 2009). Within higher education, internationalization is viewed as a fundamental strategy for the preparation of faculty, staff, and students for the global work force, quality research, knowledge production, and fostering positive recognition and prestige for global student recruitment (Egron-Polak & Hudson, 2010; Finkelstein, Walker, & Chen, 2013; Knight, 2004). In general, internationalization within higher education includes institutional efforts to integrate global perspectives into all levels of teaching, learning, research and institutional activities (ACE, 2012; Coryell, Spencer, & Sehin, 2014). These efforts aim to develop and increase intercultural and global competence at all levels and build relationships and connections with people and institutions internationally (ACE, 2012). Knight (1999; 2004) described four main factors motivating internationalization at a national and international level: social/cultural, political, economic, and academic factors. These factors, or rationales, guide the process of integrating dimensions of internationalization into higher education. Variables that must be considered include: increasing international competitiveness and recognition through high academic standards and international recruitment, continual response to demographic shifts, changing labor force demands, increasing global trade, and growing international dimensions of teaching and research (Knight, 1999; Knight & de Wit, 1995). Higher education has been widely viewed as having the key responsibility of ensuring that students receive adequate preparation for interaction with work beyond U.S. borders (Bok, 2006; Sinclair, 2014). 20 In the context of this study, internationalization will refer to efforts implemented on an institutional, national or international level (Knight, 2004). Various terms are used interchangeably to describe the process used to internationalize campuses, students, faculty, and curriculum such as international education, comparative education, global education, multicultural education (Knight, 2004) and global learning (Slimbach, 2010). For this study, I used the term international education. Furthermore, the term international is used to denote “the relationship between and among different nations, cultures, or countries” (Knight, 2004, p. 11) …while global refers to “worldwide in scope and substance” (Knight, 2004, p. 8). Historical contexts for internationalization of higher education. Internationalization of higher education has been a growing, central focus of postsecondary institutions for decades and has become a priority within U.S. higher education worldwide (Childress, 2009; Finkelstein, Walker, & Chen, 2013; Knight, 2004). Internationalization has undergone shifts and been approached in a variety of ways over the past few decades with the current impetus extending back to the Second World War (Merkx, 2003). After World War II, internationalization efforts began to focus on cross-border education, off campus or abroad (Knight, 2004), through the “movement of people, knowledge, programs, providers, policies, ideas, curricula, projects, research and services across national and regional jurisdictional borders” (Sakamoto & Chapman, 2011, p. 20). Cross-border education stimulated collaborative relationships, with partnering institutions abroad focused on instructional and non-instructional activities (de Wit, 2002; Sakamoto & Chapman, 2011). College campuses responded by establishing international support offices to accommodate international students and education abroad initiatives, expand programming for Americans to study or conduct research abroad, develop international studies 21 academic disciplines and language programs, and establish professional associations focused on internationalization (Merkx, 2003). In the 1980’s and 1990’s, internationalization was more broadly driven by globalization or factors external to higher education (de Wit, 2002). Technology and the interconnected global economy forced institutions to reexamine and develop initiatives to keep up with industry and globalization on their campuses on a much broader scale (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Responsive to these external factors, institutions prioritized international studies, international educational exchanges and programs, and technical cooperation between institutions and departments (Arum & van de Water, 1992) and began to reflect institutional values and priorities through internationalization of their institutional plans, visions, goals, strategies, and globally-oriented campus programs and initiatives (ACE, 2012, Hudzik, 2011; Knight, 2004). Internationalization shifted towards a “process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimensions into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education” (Knight, 2003, p. 2) through the integration of efforts into the teaching, research, and service areas of the institution (Knight ,1994, 2004; Nolan, 2009). Postsecondary institutions integrated international components into their missions and goals and developed new international partnerships and collaborations, branch campuses, and collaborative degrees (Merkx, 2003) with much emphasis on physical mobility across borders and education abroad (Finkelstein, Walker, & Chen, 2013). Strategies to internationalize. Higher education institutions use a multitude of approaches and strategies to internationalize both overseas and on campus that vary from institution to institution. Knight (1994) presents four main approaches used within higher education to implement these internationalization strategies at the institutional level: activity, competency, ethos, and process. Activity encompasses efforts to enhance internationalization 22 practices such as curriculum, international student recruitment, and student or faculty exchanges. Competency includes enhanced skills, knowledge, attitudes, and values at all levels of an institution. Ethos emphasizes the creation of institutional cultures or climates to promote internationalization efforts. And last, the process is the “integration or infusion of an international or intercultural dimension into teaching, research and service through a combination of a wide range of activities, policies and procedures” (Knight, 1999, p. 15). Institutions use these strategies to internationalize in a comprehensive manner through actionbased commitments to imbue comparative and global perspectives throughout institutional mission statements for teaching, research, and service (Hudzik & McCarthy, 2012). Strategies to internationalize within higher education include integration of international content with existing curricula (Wachter, 2003), emphasizing foreign language and international area studies (Knight, 2004), and encouraging collaborations for international research and partnered publications (Finkelstein, Walker, & Chen, 2013). To enhance activities and learning outcomes that enhance international and intercultural perspectives, institutions increase enrollment of international students, international exchanges, and education abroad opportunities (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Rowan-Kenyon & Niehaus, 2011; Wotila Croom, 2010). To stimulate internationalization, institutions not only increase enrollment of international students but also broaden education abroad recruitment and offerings, enhance foreign language options, expand interdisciplinary programming, and integrate courses or themes of international, intercultural, global, or comparatives focus (ACE, 2012; Bremer & van der Wende, 1995; Green, 2005; Green, Luu, & Burris, 2008). Other institutional strategies include the establishment of international offices, creation of internationally-focused employee positions, and the integration of language 23 focused on internationalization to institutional documents such as missions or defined learning goals (Green, Luu, & Burris, 2008; Sinclair, 2014). To fully integrate these strategies, institutions have placed much emphasis on the student experience to produce competitive, innovative, critical thinkers, well-prepared for the rigors and needs of the global workforce. To reach goals to internationalize campuses, students, and faculty, efforts have focused on curriculum, co-curriculum, identifying learning outcomes, and an increasing use of education abroad programming, specifically short-term education abroad options (ACE, 2012). Internationalization through Education Abroad As higher education institutions implement strategies to internationalize their campuses, faculty, and students, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), as well as other national agencies, leads the movement (Lewin, 2009). The AAC&U argues that “colleges and universities need to provide students with international civic experiences as a means of training them to think liberally and practically about global problems and their resolutions” (Lewin, 2009, p. xvii). One popular strategy used in higher education to accomplish this goal has been education abroad. Over 90% of all colleges and universities offer education abroad (Green, Luu, & Burris, 2008; Hoffa & DePaul, 2010; Twombly et al., 2012). Education abroad is a tool found to help build diverse understanding and connections between people from around the world (IIE, 2015), increase involvement with other cultures (Abrams, 1979), and develop global views (Burn, 1980; Lambert, 1994). The AAC&U acknowledges education abroad as a way to advance values of liberal education and educate students about diversity, critical thinking, citizenship, and globalization (Hovland, 2006; Kirkwood, 2001; Stearns, 2008). Research suggests that students with travel or education abroad experiences in intentionally 24 designed programs have heightened capacity to learn new languages, conduct appropriate intercultural interactions, and develop problem solving strategies for living in international contexts (Hovey & Weinberg, 2009). Education abroad in higher education is thus a term that encompasses a wide array of international education experiences including credit and not-for-credit overseas experiences, internships, service learning, travel seminars, immersion programs, language study, or research (Forum on Education Abroad, 2011). Though many opportunities and experiences are seemingly similar when observing undergraduate and graduate level programming, it is important to note that there are often differences between the two in terms of the role education abroad experiences may play for institutional or departmental goals. Disciplinary departments are typically drivers of graduate level curriculum versus the institution as a driving influence for undergraduate level programming. Differences may exist in how undergraduate versus graduate programs are established in terms of specific goals created to support learning or desired outcomes. Engle and Engle (2003) identify seven main components of overseas programs, including “length of student sojourn, entry target-language competence, language used in course work, context of academic work, types of student housing, provisions for guided/structured cultural interaction and experiential learning, [and] guided reflection on cultural experience” (p. 8). Education abroad “expands the borders and space of learning in higher education” (Hovey & Weinberg, 2009, p. 39) and “isn’t just about individual transformation…[but] also about building a society capable of responding to the challenges of this century” (Nolan, 2009, p. 267). Types of and purposes for education abroad. There are diverse purposes for education abroad such as to foster peace and social justice, increase opportunities to model democratic values, and develop students into responsible global citizens (Lewin, 2009). As a primary goal 25 discussed in education abroad literature, global citizenship and acquiring knowledge to reach competency in global citizenry is most effectively reached through interaction with others’ cultures in new environments which foster the exploration of critical reflection on personal experiences and build understanding of others’ circumstances (Lewin, 2009). However, VandeBerg, Paige, and Hemming Lou (2012) argue that the purpose of education abroad is not to “simply acquire knowledge” through an international experience “but to develop in ways that allow students to learn to shift cultural perspective and to adapt their behavior to other cultural contexts – knowledge that will allow them to interact more effectively and appropriately with others throughout their lives” (p. 18). Beyond a general definition, Engle and Engle (2003) distinguish five main types and classifications of education abroad: cross cultural immersion programs, cross cultural encounter programs, cross cultural contact programs, study tours, and short-term education abroad. Crosscultural immersion programs and cross-cultural encounter programs take place for a semester or academic year, focus on advanced language competency, and offer home stays and guided cultural integration. Cross-cultural contact programs typically last a semester, target beginner or intermediate language competency, offer small group travel and learning, and provide little to no formal cultural integration. Historically, these first three types of programs were most commonly used within higher education. In the past decade, the last two program types have significantly expanded in both program offerings and participation. Study tours engage participants in international experiences from several days to a few weeks (Engle & Engle, 2003). Little to no language competency is required, the majority of coursework or preparation is done pre-travel, and participants travel and reside as a group. With a similar duration as study tours, short-term education abroad programs 26 are typically one to eight weeks (Engle & Engle, 2003; Hulstrand, 2006; IIE, 2011; Spencer & Tuma, 2002). However, these programs differ slightly as they often target some language learning; include pre-travel orientation programs, in-country, on-the-ground course work, posttravel meetings, and afford cultural integration through excursions, home stays, and interaction with local communities. Short-term education abroad. Short-term education abroad is the most commonly used internationalization strategy among higher education institutions (Green et al., 2008; IIE, 2011; Twombly et al., 2012). Of those that education abroad, about 60% do so through short-term programs (IIE, 2011; IIE, 2015; Rowan-Kenyon & Niehaus, 2011; Twombly et al., 2012). Growing in popularity, these one to eight-week programs afford international learning opportunities to a more diverse body of students including nontraditional students who often have varied and unique social, economic and ethnic backgrounds (Edge, 2012; Szekely & Krane, 1997). With an influx of short-term education abroad offerings, these programs offer great diversity in program type, duration, qualities, disciplinary focus, etc (Hulstrand, 2006). Shortterm programs provide options for and accommodate diverse learning styles and preferences as well as afford opportunities to many people who were unable to participate in traditional semester- or year-long programs (Hulstrand, 2006). Also, pedagogically, short-term programs are often faculty-led and are viewed as exciting to create, develop, and facilitate as well as yield opportunities for direct intellectual engagement between faculty leaders and participants (Hulstrand, 2006). Short-term programs provide an opportunity for first-hand, experiential learning (Dewey, 1997; Lucas, 2009). Student outcomes. Although research on the outcomes of short-term education abroad programs is limited and is mainly focused on undergraduate experiences, researchers have 27 documented some benefits of these program types (Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Hulstrand, 2006; Neppel, 2005). In general, this research reveals that benefits for student learning from education abroad include personal development and growth (Dolby, 2007; Milstein, 2005; Twombly et al., 2012), academic knowledge and skills (Lewin, 2009), and changes in attitudes or behaviors (Carlson & Widaman, 1988). In addition, students gain global mindedness and awareness of world-wide issues (Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Golay, 2006; Hadis, 2005), a tendency for future global engagement (Fischer, 2010), and increased intercultural competence or sensitivity (Dwyer, 2004; Erwin & Colman, 1998; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Kauffman, Martin, & Weaver, 1992; Lucas, 2009; Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi, & Lassegard, 2002; Twombly et al., 2012). Dwyer and Peters (2004) found that education abroad also had positive influences on the career trajectories, world views, and personal confidence of students. They asserted that education abroad “is usually a defining moment in a young person’s life and continues to impact the participant’s life for years after the experience” (Dwyer & Peters, 2004, p. 1). Faculty outcomes. Although much of the literature surrounding outcomes of education abroad focus on outcomes for undergraduate students, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are beneficial learning outcomes for faculty and other leaders of international education initiatives (ACE, 2012; Goodwin & Nacht, 1991; Heely, 2005). These outcomes include cultural sensitivity (ACE, 2012), self-understanding (Goodwin & Nacht, 1991), and personal and professional learning (Viers, 2003). A variety of outcomes for faculty emerge from international experiences that vary from students. Engagement in international education activities has been linked to increased internationalization of course content and teaching methods (ACE, 2012; Bull, 1996; Goodwin & Nacht, 1991; Savishinsky, 2012). Faculty also report that international involvements enhanced 28 their research endeavors by extending prior or current research activities, stimulating fresh ideas and affording new opportunities for collaboration and data collection (ACE, 2012; Savishinsky, 2012). Other outcomes for faculty leaders have been in professional contexts such as expanded and maintained professional networks (Goodwin & Nacht, 1991), increased understanding of and connectedness with students (Viers, 2003), sustained international competence (Goodwin & Nacht, 1991), as well as “academic validation, intellectual growth, acculturation, academic administration, and cognitive repositioning” (Festervand & Tillery, 2001, p. 109). Criticisms of short-term education abroad. Many positive outcomes from short-term education abroad have been documented for both students and faculty (Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Dirkx et al., 2014b; Dolby, 2007; Dwyer, 2004; Erwin & Colman, 1998; Festervand & Tillery, 2001; Golay, 2006; Goodwin & Nacht, 1991; Hadis, 2005; Heely, 2005; Hulstrand, 2006; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Kauffman, Martin, & Weaver, 1992; Lewin, 2009; Lucas, 2009; Milstein, 2005; Neppel, 2005; Paige et al., 2002; Savishinsky, 2012; Twombly et al., 2012; Viers, 2003). There are, however, some broad criticisms of their quality and outcomes (Bolen, 2001; Engle & Engle, 2003; Twombly et al., 2012). Critics argue that the increasing use of shortterm education abroad formats could lead to commercialization of education abroad (Bolen, 2001; Zemach-Bersin, 2007) which could gravely affect the purposes and outcomes of education abroad (Twombly et al., 2012). Zemach-Bersin (2007, 2009) critiques short-term programs as potentially producing touristic experiences for participants wherein participants experience culture without having or needing to delve in, process, or reflect deeply upon what these experiences mean without increasing cultural competency. Moreover, debates continue about definitions of education abroad, the effectiveness of short-term experiences, and critical 29 components of education abroad such as homestays or language development (Allen & Herron, 2003, Dwyer, 2004, Schmidt-Rinehart & Knight, 2004) Internationalization of Graduate Education Various forms of internationalization of graduate education have been established within higher education around the world for many decades (Kent & McCarthy, 2011) including study tours, education abroad, internships, research, field experiences, and alternative, joint, or dual degree programs (Allum, 2014; Dirkx et al., 2016). Though a diverse array of international opportunities now exists for graduate students, the majority are short-term, faculty-led experiences (Allum, 2014; Gearon, 2011). Short-term education abroad has seen the largest growth (IIE, 2015). Increasingly over the last decade, the topic of internationalizing graduate education has increased and has also become of growing importance to professional organizations such as NAFSA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Council of Graduate Schools, and many scholars (Allum, 2014; Dirkx et al., 2014b; NAFSA, 2011; Sinclair, 2014). Internationalization of graduate students and faculty. Much of higher education’s response to globalization and increased role of internationalization has focused on undergraduate education. However, there are compelling reasons to highlight the internationalization of graduate education and how it fills a much-needed role for the global world. Graduate education, through discipline based programs, strives to prepare future faculty and professionals with transferable skills capable of meeting the ever-changing needs of our global knowledge economy, understanding the changing demographics and global presence nationally and worldwide, and socializing graduate students to successfully complete their degrees as skilled, knowledgeable professionals (CFGE, 2010). Part of this development of graduate students 30 includes the efforts of internationalization within higher education which aim to accommodate industry and global needs. With such emphasis on internationalization in the changing, professional industry to meet global needs, institutions and faculty must proactively prepare graduate students with a vast array of skills and knowledge quite different from their predecessors (Austin, 2002). Many internationalization efforts within higher education have been driven by faculty who play a crucial role for these efforts at their institutions (Matross Helms, 2013). McGill Peterson (2000) reinforced the role of faculty for internationalization of higher education when she wrote, “The faculty remain and serve as the stewards of the curriculum. As a group, they have the capacity to set a deeply embedded foundation for the international and intercultural character of an institution” (p. 13). Faculty are intimately involved with carrying out institutional missions, teaching, and research initiatives, critical components of internationalization efforts (Matross Helms, 2013). As universities continue to work to become global institutions through internationalization of their campuses, the internationalization of faculty also becomes critical. Though it has been a challenging endeavor, campuses have put forth efforts to internationalize faculty who are often thrust into the role of internationalizing curriculum, student experiences, and campuses (Altbach & McGill Peterson, 1998; McGill Peterson, 2000). Efforts to internationalize have included sabbaticals, faculty development on curricular design and integration of global perspectives, faculty exchanges, encouragement of international research or comparative work, leadership of education abroad programming, international teaching, institutional incentives for international initiatives, invitation of visiting faculty, and interaction with international students (Altbach & McGill Peterson, 1998; McGill Peterson, 2000; Scott, 31 1998). Despite these efforts, faculty engagement in internationalization efforts more broadly is still lacking (Matross Helms, 2013). However, international education at the graduate level offers a prime opportunity to support graduate students and faculty in the attainment and development of the global perspectives and international experiences necessary for future work. International perspectives, intercultural awareness, and evidence of internationalized experiences becomes more critical for competitiveness and preparedness in the professional arena. Institutional efforts at the graduate level have mostly resulted in increased enrollment of international students with minimal growth in program offerings or internationalization of curriculum. These efforts are viewed as challenging, yet of increasing importance. Discussion of graduate level internationalization is increasing as graduate students are a growing impetus for the nation to maintain global competitiveness. Internationalization of graduate education represents a relatively unique context relative to internationalization of undergraduate education. The population of learners at the graduate level is traditionally quite different than the undergraduate population. The average age of graduate students in the U.S. is 34 years, an age that allows learners to approach graduate education with a decade of professional and life experiences, from different positionality and educational agendas, and with diverse views towards learning and the world (Dirkx et al., 2014b). In addition, graduate students often reflect different cognitive and emotional developmental levels, which influence the ways in which they perceive and make sense of their educational and life experiences. Unfortunately, this very positionality in life sometimes prevents participation in traditional international experiences since graduate students are more likely to 32 have children, professional responsibilities, or rigorous discipline-focused graduate program requirements. Though the importance of the internationalization of graduate education is increasingly present in scholarly conversations, barriers exist for integration of internationalization into graduate education. At the graduate level curriculum is often departmentally driven, disciplinebased, and time intensive with little room to divert from or add to standard requirements (Allen, 2004). Furthermore, curricular efforts are typically driven by faculty adding additional responsibility on to already heavy loads. The discouraging effects of these barriers on internationalizing of graduate education are evident in the efforts to create such opportunities. According to the Institute of International Education’s (IIE) Open Doors Report (2015) there is minimal emphasis on affording international or education abroad opportunities to graduate students. Strategies to internationalize graduate education. However, barriers are slowly decreasing as the value of international experiences increases for graduate students. Many institutions and departments have begun allocating funds, faculty effort, and creating explicit institutional and departmental goals in support of international and global learning outcomes and experiences for graduate students. International experience at this level is inclusive of a variety of activities such as travel, study, or work abroad, interactions with international students, and language learning (ACE, 2012). Common internationally-oriented activities targeting graduate students include conference attendance, research, internships, and dual degree programs (Gearon, 2011; Hulstrand, 2006; Sinclair, 2014). Additional strategies are the inclusion of international dimensions and topics into curriculum, projects, education abroad and international learning experiences (Knight, 2004). 33 Outcomes reported in literature focus on education abroad at the graduate level as a method to develop professional skills within international contexts (Hulstrand, 2015; Sinclair, 2014; Yarbrough, 2015), build a comparative understanding and knowledge base of disciplinary and professional practices (Bremer, 2008), and cultivate skills to interact with and successfully work with immigrant populations and the increasingly diverse student body in higher education (Sinclair, 2014; Yarbrough, 2015). Despite what could seemingly be identified as similar objectives, program profiles, and faculty goals as undergraduate level programs, education abroad at the graduate level potentially reflects a different kind of internationalizing experience (Dirkx et al., 2014b). Graduate level education abroad. Despite personal or professional barriers for graduate students, the Open Doors Report (2014) showed a slight, yet steady increase in participation of graduate students in academically-oriented, international programs such as education abroad over the past decade. From 2003-2004 to 2012-2013, participation in graduate level education abroad increased from approximately 8.6% to almost 14% (IIE, 2015). Graduate education abroad is not a new phenomenon as it has existed for many decades in some disciplines such as law, business, health programs, and adult education (Dohmen & Niemi, 1986; Ferguson, 2010; Hulstrand, 2015; Alon & McAllaster, 2009; Yarbough, 2015). Yet, from a scholarly perspective, these activities and programs have gone almost unnoticed. Some identified goals for graduate education abroad include the growth of professional skills in international contexts (Hustrand, 2015; Yarbough, 2015), interacting professionally with immigrant populations (Sinclair, 2015), and developing comparative understanding of disciplinary professions within an international setting (Bremer, 2008). Beyond general statistics about growth of short-term education abroad programs and program characteristics such as intended goals, program types, locations, and some 34 participatory feedback from students, little is known about graduate education abroad programs (Dirkx et al., 2014b). Pedagogy of Short-term Education Abroad Much of the literature surrounding internationalization emphasizes curriculum, teaching and learning as central, critical components of internationalization (Green & Olson, 2003; Knight, 1994; Knight 1997; Knight, 2004; Navarro, 2004; Schweitz, 2006; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981; Viers, 2003). The process of internationalizing curriculum, interlaces global and international dimensions and perspectives into the structure, content, and facilitation of teaching and learning methods (Savishinsky, 2012; van der Wende, 1997). This process aims to thoroughly integrate international perspectives into all aspects of the college curriculum (Finkelstein, Walker, & Chen, 2010) in order to develop graduates with necessary global education to hone their ability to function in increasingly intercultural and diverse professional contexts (Twombly et al., 2012). Internationalizing curriculum, teaching and learning often requires a shift from instructor-centered to student-centered learning environments which have a more inclusive, interactive, experiential learning focus (Bond, 2003). Education abroad has been an increasingly utilized internationalization strategy within higher education to support this shift (Twombly et al., 2012). Literature on education abroad curriculum reflects various common curricular models, principles, and practices though most are based on education abroad research conducted mainly at the undergraduate level (Brewer & Cunningham, 2009; Edge, 2012; Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2007; McCallon & Holmes, 2010; Mullens & Cuper, 2012; Roberts, Conner, & Jones, 2013). However, there are some emergent studies that have begun to apply similar ideas at the graduate level (Dirkx et al., 2014a; Dirkx, Spohr, Tepper, & Tons, 2010; Gonsalvez, 2013; 35 Ladka, 2008; Leggett, 2009) but research on a broad scale about graduate level pedagogy of education abroad is limited (Dirkx, 2014b). Thus, as a foundation to begin to examine education abroad at the graduate level, existing literature of common pedagogical principles and good pedagogical practices are examined. Efforts to define good pedagogical practices. A growing body of literature focuses on identification of best practices in education abroad (Brewer & Cunningham, 2009; DonnellySmith, 2009; Gonsalvez, 2013; Lewin & Van Kirk, 2009; McCallon & Holmes, 2010; Pagano & Roselle, 2009; Perry, Stoner, & Tarrant, 2012; Spencer & Tuma, 2007). The question of good pedagogical practices has been a much-debated topic amongst scholars of education abroad. A number of scholars and professional organizations have identified common pedagogical practices, guidelines, and process-oriented standards that have emerged within literature as best practices for university education abroad programs. One example includes the standard principles for good practice identified by the National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE, 1998). The Institute for International Education of Students Abroad (IES Abroad) (2011) also established the Model Assessment Practice (MAP) of standards detailing three categories for successful program outcomes and student learning. Building from the IES Abroad MAP standards, the Forum on Education Abroad (2011) presented a series of nine standards created to guide the process of designing, implementing, and assessing education abroad programs while targeting specific guidance to programs with short duration to maximize student learning. Scholars have also developed guiding principles for good practice including Spencer and Tuma’s (2007) five best practices for short-term education abroad, Lutterman-Aguilar and Gingerich’s (2007) ten critical elements of experiential education and education abroad, and McCallon and Holmes’ (2010) emphasis on importance of clarity in standards of practice and communication 36 of expectations. Organizations and scholars aim to target the growing demand of education abroad programming by addressing effective education abroad development and assessment through common frameworks for planning and operating (Gillespie, 2009). Various themes emerged within the guiding principles, models, and standards for good practices for education abroad to guide the process of designing, implementing, and assessing education abroad programs while providing support for short-term education abroad as “a creative, engaging, and effective educative practice” (Perry, Stoner, & Tarrant, 2012, p. 679). These themes of good practices were established by professional organizations and scholars to target practices at both institutional and programmatic levels. Generally, at the institutional level, good practices of education abroad include the creation of mission statements inclusive of international education, adequate funding and personnel for programs abroad, institutional integrity and ethics (Forum on Education Abroad, 2011), allocation of appropriately prepared and training faculty (IES Abroad, 2011; LuttermanAguilar & Gingerich, 2007), and safety and risk management (Forum on Education Abroad, 2011; IES Abroad, 2011). At the programmatic level, practices are aligned in three areas: predeparture, during an experience, and post-travel. Pre-departure practices. Pre-departure practices include identifying intentions (NSEE, 1998), selecting faculty that are competent with experiential teaching (Spencer & Tuma, 2007), establishing clear personal and group expectations (of faculty, students, and partners) (McCallon & Holmes, 2010), developing specific program goals, objectives, and academic content appropriate to education abroad contexts (McCallon & Holmes, 2010; NSEE, 1998; Spencer & Tuma, 2007), establishing a plan (Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2007; NSEE, 1998), conducting purposefully designed pre-departure preparations and orientations (IES Abroad, 37 2011; McCallon & Holmes, 2010), and establishing mandated codes of conduct (Forum on Education Abroad, 2011). Mid-experience practices. Good practices during an international experience include: continual monitoring and assessment (Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2007; NSSE, 1998), providing guidance, advising, and on-the-ground support for participants (Forum on Education Abroad, 2011), the integration of experience with local communities and connections with host country lecturers (Spencer & Tuma, 2007), and ensuring ongoing guided individual and group reflections and debriefings (Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2007; McCallon & Holmes, 2010; NSSE, 1998; Spencer & Tuma, 2007). Post-travel practices. Lastly, post-travel good practices include: thorough evaluation both programmatically and of the student experience (Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2007; NSEE, 1998), post-travel reflections and debriefing (Forum on Education Abroad, 2011; McCallon & Holmes, 2010), and periodic follow-ups with students and international partners (Mullens & Cuper, 2012). Learning theories supporting pedagogical practices in education abroad. A few commonly identified theories focused on education abroad pedagogy are present in education abroad literature. These theories both guide the development and facilitation of education abroad experiences as well as foster particular outcomes for education abroad participants. Three main learning theories that guide and support most education abroad programs are experiential education, transformational learning, and T-shaped qualifications. Experiential learning. The most common theory highlighted in education abroad literature which supports inherently similar pedagogical characteristics of education abroad is experiential education (Katula & Threnhauser, 1990; Kolb, 1984; Lutterman-Aguilar & 38 Gingerich, 2007; Pagano & Roselle, 2009; Roberts, Conner, & Jones; 2013). Providing a model for the creation of many education abroad programs, experiential learning affords a “holistic approach to human adaptation through the transformation of experience into knowledge” (Passarelli & Kolb, 2012, p. 138) and presents an opportunity for students to “be affected by the experience in a way that encourages critical questioning and making connections with course content and context” (Pagano and Roselle, 2009, p. 221). Experiential education is a theory wherein knowledge is grounded in and transformed by experience (Dewey, 1997) and involves the building of knowledge from the transformation of experience. The experience is then reflected and acted upon through the concrete experiencing of events, abstract conceptualization, active experimentation, and reflective observation (Kolb, 1984). Within education abroad, students need to be taught the skills necessary to fully “observe, listen, describe, interpret, and reflect. In short, they need to be taught how to learn experientially” (Brewer & Cunningham, 2009, p. 13). Lutterman-Aguilar and Gingerich (2007) established ten critical elements of experiential education and education abroad that when utilized properly, aid in the quality of education abroad experiences. These elements include 1) process and personal integration/development; 2) problem-based content; 3) critical analysis and reflection; 4) collaboration and dialogue; 5) community; 6) diversity and intercultural communication; 7) action and social transformation; 8) mutuality and reciprocity; 9) facilitation by trained faculty and staff; and 10) evaluation and assessment. These interconnected principles are identified to guide the design, development, and implementation of education abroad programs (Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2007). The reflection component of the experiential learning model is a pedagogical tool emphasized and used in the majority of education abroad programs and types (Brewer & 39 Cunningham, 2009; Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2007; Mullens & Cuper, 2012; Roberts, Conner, & Jones, 2013). Reflection is viewed as a strategy for “helping students to take a step back to look at an experience, to frame it and to derive meaning from it” (Pagano & Roselle, 2009, p. 219). As a tool for learning and growth, reflection exists in various contexts before, during, and after and experience through activities such as individual or group writing exercises (journals, guided questions, diaries, papers, blogs, etc.) or discussions in small or large groups. Reflection helps the participant reframe a learning experience and learn skills “to understand the international context and/or work environment complimentary to course work” (Pagano & Roselle, 2009, p. 218). Transformative learning. Often discussed within education abroad literature alongside experiential education as deeply rooted in reflection, transformative learning theory is “purported to endow students with an international perspective-knowledge, attitudes, and skills which presumably lead to a better educated citizenry and ultimately to improved international relations and global understanding” (Kauffman et al., 1992, p. 56). Education abroad literature often focuses on transformational learning as involving a change in an individual’s frame of reference (Boyd & Myers, 1988; Dirkx, 2008; Dirkx et al., 2010; Kiely, 2005; Mezirow, 1997; Savicki, 2008) and relying on reinterpreting new experiences (Mezirow, 1991; Pagano & Roselle, 2009). A transformative learning experience entails a disorienting dilemma followed by a process of realizing, examining and questioning preexisting assumptions, resulting in a transformation or thought or action (Mezirow, 1997). Such dilemmas, as explained by Kiely (2005), “create dissonance when what students are seeing, hearing, and feeling is unfamiliar and incongruent with their present frame of reference” (Brewer & Cunningham, 2009, p. 9). Many scholars argue the transformative potential of short-term education abroad (Lyon, 2002; Ritz, 2011; Savicki, 40 2008; Taylor, 1994) as education abroad can alter students’ frames of reference which can influence the way in which they view and make meaning of the world (Rowan-Kenyon & Niehaus, 2011). With a pedagogically well-designed experience, intentionally targeting transformative experiences, short-term education abroad experiences can result in transformational learning (Ritz, 2011) by stimulating growth and change in students upon returning from an overseas experience in motivation, self-identity, and personal values (Savicki, 2008). T-Shaped learning. No longer is the emphasis of learning on the material at hand or merely knowing the material, rather it is on what learners can do with the material in “a changing, diverse, and even contradictory global environment” (Nolan, 2009, p. 268). In today’s global economy, industry demands that graduates have translational skills, or “T-shaped qualifications, where disciplinary knowledge is integrated with an equally important understanding of how to apply that knowledge… [thus] putting a context around the content of a particular knowledge area” (Nolan, 2009, p. 268). The T-shaped learner or professional model entails learners to have breadth and depth in their learning (Gardner, 2014; Sporher, Gregory, & Ren, 2010) thought to be developed through experiential learning opportunities like education abroad. T-shaped qualifications are often referred to as global competencies (Lambert, 1994) described as “knowledge of global events and affairs, attitudes of tolerance, curiosity and openness, and skill at learning and working across cultures” (Nolan, 2009, p. 268). These competencies have been identified as common goals for and outcomes of education abroad experiences (Twombly et al., 2012). Pedagogically, approaching education abroad experiences with T-shaped qualifications in focus, faculty leaders can support student learning and 41 development of desired translational skills by adding “applied dimensions to [their] teaching and learning” (Nolan, 2009, p. 268). Faculty Role in Short-term Education Abroad Programs Prior to the formal establishment of internationalization initiatives and processes within higher education, such as short-term education abroad programs, faculty members were key agents for internationalizing campuses playing a central role in the process of internationalization (ACE, 2012; Carter, 1992; Childress, 2007; Finkelstein, Walker, & Chen, 2013; Liverpool, 1995; Rasch, 2001; Savishinsky, 2012). Dooley and Rouse (2009) argue that faculty engagement has become vital in that “to internationalize the university, we need to internationalize the faculty” (p. 47). Faculty are central to creating and implementing curriculum (Childress, 2009; Mullens & Cuper, 2012; Savishinsky, 2012), and are tightly coupled with many campus functions. Faculty face rigorous demands in their campus roles. Usually focused on a particular disciplinary research area, they are bound by expectations for teaching, publishing, obtaining grants, and other service commitments (Nolan, 2009). These expectations require faculty to meet the curricular needs of academic disciplines at both the department and university level. Tasks related to internationalization efforts can be burdensome for faculty as they often call for efforts and responsibilities well beyond the three traditional pillars of university duties: teaching, service, and research (Knight, 1994; Navarro, 2004; Wotila Croom, 2010). Furthermore, when participating as a education abroad faculty leader, faculty are frequently required to connect education abroad experiences to courses outside of their areas of expertise in an interdisciplinary fashion (Brewer & Cunningham, 2009). On the other hand, scholars have identified several personal and professional benefits of internationalization for faculty, specifically involving teaching, service, and scholarship (Mullens 42 & Cuper, 2012). Playing such an important role for the internationalization of universities, faculty involvement in activities such as education abroad can infuse new energy, passion, or global perspectives into all facets of their academic work (Hulstrand, 2009). Leading students in international experiences can significantly impact student growth (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2007) which can be rewarding for faculty. Dooley and Rouse (2009) assert that international experiences can also support the development of cultural awareness and global mindedness as a faculty member, lifelong learner, and citizen. Despite the evident importance of the faculty role in the internationalization process, there is little known about how this role relates to short-term, faculty-led education abroad programs, particularly how faculty perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their roles as leaders of these programs within the broader context of their faculty work. Faculty play a crucial role for students in international learning experiences as they “learn a version of these worlds from their faculty mentors, who act as guides, gatekeepers, and interpreters” (Nolan, 2009, p. 272). But this role is considerably different from any role in which they may have previously served or learned, such as learning to be a classroom teacher in postsecondary education contexts. Faculty leaders of short-term, education abroad programs are tasked with establishing the general design of these programs, the learning goals for participants, as well as the program agenda of academic work, strategies for learning, and in-country activities to support learning (Kernaghan, 2012; McCallon & Holmes, 2010; Vande Berg, 2007). During a education abroad experience, faculty leaders are tasked with providing “a careful balance between recreation and learning” (Mills, Deviney, & Ball, 2010, p. 4) while “preparing students to be globally competent citizens” (Sobania & Braskamp, 2009, p. 25). Faculty responsibilities include encouragement of students to move beyond what they observe as “negative or weird into true 43 understanding” (McCallon & Holmes, 2010, p. 137). They must guide interactions with students, provide students with tools to navigate the experience and build competence, and foster and facilitate an environment and relationship that encourages reflection on and debriefing about experiences (McCallon & Holmes, 2010). The actions of faculty before, during, and after an experience directly influence how students reflect on and view an experience and how that experience will influence the student long-term (positive or negative) (McCallon & Holmes, 2010). As a leader in these programs, faculty are expected to teach and to foster the deep learning of their students. International contexts arouse curricular and pedagogical questions that, in the face to face and online environments, may have been previously settled for the faculty member. While it may not be exactly like learning to teach all over again, in some respects it might be a close approximation. As internationalization permeates the center of higher education, it becomes more critical to understand internationalization at the graduate level. More specifically, the role of faculty in the development and facilitation of international learning opportunities for graduate students comes in to question. Few research studies have discussed the influence of faculty for similar programs at the graduate level. Conceptual Framework To provide a framework of inquiry for this study, I combined concepts from two theories: planning from Clark and Peterson’s (1986) teacher thought process model and teaching perspective from Pratt’s (1992) general model of teaching. This framework of inquiry helped guide understanding of how faculty members perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their positions as faculty leaders of graduate education abroad through exploration of the following research questions: What do faculty want to accomplish when leading graduate 44 education abroad? What beliefs, assumptions, and values guide the work of faculty members in their role as a faculty leader of graduate education abroad? What do faculty leaders do in their role as a faculty leader of graduate education abroad? Faculty Leader Thought Processes Clark and Peterson’s (1986) concept of teacher thought processes supports understanding of “how and why the process of teaching looks and works the way it does” (Fang, 1996, p. 49). Although teacher thought process approaches are traditionally associated with teaching and teachers at the elementary and secondary levels, this model afforded an opportunity to mirror applications of this theory at the graduate level to gain insight into thought processes and implicit theories of faculty leaders as they create and implement graduate education abroad programming. The teacher thought process model entails various dimensions such as methods of inquiry, teacher thoughts and actions, teacher planning, teachers’ interactive thoughts and decisions, and teachers’ theories and beliefs. Most relevant to this study are teacher thoughts and actions, teacher planning, and teachers’ theories and beliefs as they present a foundation to explore dimensions of teachers’ general knowledge. To best examine the curricular and instructional pedagogical processes used in graduate education abroad, I extracted components of these areas for a strong foundational framework of inquiry. The first component of this model is of teacher thought and action (see Figure 2). Clark and Peterson (1986) define teacher thinking as “a set of moderating contextual factors that could influence substantially the outcomes of teacher effectiveness and curriculum effectiveness studies” (p. 127). Within this model, three main facets make up this model including constraints and opportunities of physical settings or external influences. Then there are observable parts (teachers’ actions and their observable effects), and non-observable parts (teachers’ thought 45 processes). For this study, I considered the teachers’ thought processes to help understand faculty leaders’ thought processes surrounding planning before a education abroad experience (preactive) and after (post-active). This planning, in the context of short-term education abroad, is influenced not only by curricular decision-making, but also logistical as the international context and logistics for navigating that context can play an integral role in the curricular decisions made for the experience. I also examined their theories and beliefs about pedagogy of graduate education abroad, and their interactive thoughts and decision making as they approached and carried out the experience. Figure 2. Faculty Leader Thought Processes modeled after Clark & Peterson’s (1986) Model of Teacher Thought and Action A second component of Clark and Peterson’s approach focuses on teacher planning. In the context of this study, examining faculty leader planning helped yield understanding of the “basic psychological processes in which a person visualizes the future, inventories, means and ends, and constructs a framework to guide [their] future actions” (Clark & Peterson, 1986, p. 18). 46 This approach uncovers the actions and what faculty leaders do when planning for a short-term education abroad program, what they plan, how they plan and what curricular tools they use to plan. The final component of Clark and Peterson’s model that guided this study is teachers’ theories and beliefs. This study sought to understand the implicit theories and pedagogical behaviors of faculty leaders. The theories and beliefs that faculty bring to education abroad planning and development influence their perceptions, plans, and actions. Exploring the implicit theories and beliefs of faculty leaders can help establish understanding of leaders’ practical knowledge and teaching perspectives supporting their role as faculty leaders in education abroad. This understanding could provide pedagogical foundations for future faculty leaders to support planning and development of new projects. Using Clark and Petersons’ model as a component of this study’s framework afforded an opportunity to establish a descriptive model of faculty leaders’ thought processes, planning behaviors, and how they approached the task of teaching graduate education abroad. This model yielded understanding of how faculty leaders perceive and make sense of teaching in education abroad settings and how they think about this distinct pedagogical setting. General Model of Teaching The second component of my framework of inquiry is Pratt’s (1992) notion of teaching perspective, as he defines and elaborates this concept within his general model of teaching. Teaching is directed by thought wherein decisions and actions in teaching stem from how events, people, environments, and phenomena are perceived and interpreted (Pratt, 1992). Pratt highlighted conceptions of teaching which are “anchored in cultural, social, historical, and personal realms of meaning” (Pratt, 1992, p. 203). Exploring what it means to teach, Pratt (1992) 47 extracted five main elements of teaching including “content (what was to be learned); learners (the nature of adult learners and the learning process); teachers (roles, functions, and responsibilities); ideals (purposes of adult education); and context (external factors that influence teaching and/or learning)” (p. 205). Figure 3, following a general model of education abroad pedagogy, highlights the elements of a education abroad experience. Figure 3. General Model of Education Abroad Pedagogy modeled from Pratt’s (1992) General Model of Teaching Pratt (1992) explained that the five conceptions of teaching are composed of some combination of three interdependent aspects of commitment in teaching: actions, intentions, and beliefs (see Figure 4). Pratt distinguishes these three aspects as interrelated, flexible variables that interact with and inform the five elements of the general model of teaching. Actions focus on a teacher’s use of routines, activities, and/or techniques in teaching and how they structure and prepare for teaching. Intentions include a purpose or agenda, in other words, what a teacher is trying to accomplish in their teaching. Finally, beliefs are the underlying values and assumptions related to teaching and are viewed as ways of thinking, feeling, and acting as a teacher. Beliefs inform intentions which then influence actions. Actions, intentions, and beliefs then are the basis for understanding what it means to teach and teaching in general (Pratt, 1992). 48 Figure 4. Faculty Commitments in Leading Education Abroad modeled after Pratt’s (1992) Indicators of Commitment in Teaching These eight components of the general model of teaching are interrelated and dynamic in describing what it means to teach but are not prescriptive of effectiveness of teaching or indicative of the relationship between teaching and learning. They lend insight to teaching practices within higher education and yield direction to reflecting on the teaching process by providing a starting point of information and model of describing teachers’ beliefs about teaching, learning, and the role of teacher (Pratt & Collins, 2001). This model is reflective of teaching “as a personal activity that is socially mediated, culturally authorized, and historically situated… by describing a set of elements and relationships that are neutral with respect to the form and context of practice as well as the ends one wishes to achieve through teaching” (Pratt & Collins, 2001, p. 360). In the context of this study, this model lent itself to help gain understanding of faculty leader approaches to teaching in an international context and their actions, intentions, and beliefs about leading short-term education abroad. Additionally, this model emphasized the importance of the context in teaching. In the case of this study, context includes the international nature of the environment, culture, group dynamics, teaching, and learning. 49 The combination of these models created a framework of inquiry to guide this research to respond to the identified research questions structured to understand how faculty members perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their role as leaders of graduate education abroad. Summary of Chapter Two In this chapter, I reviewed existing literature on the contexts for graduate education abroad in higher education. The literature reviewed included the internationalization of higher education as a response to increasing forces of globalization, the internationalization of graduate education, graduate education abroad as a particular and expanding form of internationalization within graduate education, the pedagogy of education abroad, and the role of the faculty leader in short-term education abroad programs. Lastly, I described the conceptual constructs that provided a framework of inquiry for this study including Clark and Peterson’s (1986) model of teacher thought processes and Pratt’s (1992) General Model of Teaching. 50 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to explore how faculty members perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their positions as academic leaders of graduate education abroad. In this chapter, I provide the methodology and methods used to conduct this study. First, I discuss the overview of methodology and the research design. I then review the methods for data collection, participation selection, and data analysis. Lastly, I discuss my role as the researcher, considerations for trustworthiness, rigor, and reflexivity, and limitations of the study. Research Paradigm, Research Design, and Methodology I used a qualitative approach for this study. In qualitative research, “researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning the attribute to their experiences” (Merriam, 2009, p. 5). Thus, to understand how faculty members perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their role as leaders of graduate education abroad programs, a qualitative approach was used to address the following research questions: o What do faculty want to accomplish when leading graduate education abroad? o What beliefs, assumptions, and values guide the work of faculty members in their role as a faculty leader of graduate education abroad? o What do faculty leaders do in their role as a faculty leader of graduate education? As a qualitative researcher, I draw on interpretivist and constructivist paradigms to strategically guide my inquiry and analysis. Using this approach, “the goal of the researcher is to rely as much as possible on the participants’ views of the situation being studied… [and] to make sense of (or interpret) the meanings others have about the world… to generate or inductively develop a theory or pattern of meaning” (Creswell, 2009, p. 8). Descriptive in nature, an interpretivist paradigm assesses “others’ interpretations of some social phenomenon and 51 [interpret] themselves, and other’s actions and intentions” (Glesne, 2011, p. 8). Often used interchangeably with interpretivism, a constructivist approach assumes that “individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work. Individuals develop subjective meanings of their experiences – meanings directed toward certain objects or things” (Creswell, 2009, p. 8). This study is constructivist as I pursued understanding of the theoretical perspectives, beliefs, and values of faculty leaders that inform their role in graduate education abroad, how they go about constructing these experiences, and how they understand their role to support goals within graduate education for internationalization. Generally, with qualitative research, the process of collecting data, designing protocols and establishing relevance for the study are driven by a theoretical framework (Merriam, 2009). The combination of the research paradigms above with the conceptual framework as described in Chapter Two provided a theoretical framework to methodologically guide the data collection and analysis of this research to explore the perceptions, beliefs, values, and experiences of faculty leaders in graduate education abroad. Context and Setting This study was conducted at two sites. Both sites were located at doctorate granting research universities and were part of a previous study (Dirkx et al., 2014a) which gathered information on 172 faculty-led group experiences from 17 institutions. This study aimed to “understand the landscape of international learning opportunities offered at the graduate level” (Dirkx et al., 2014a, p. 14) by using online surveys, documents, and website reviews. From this study, two doctorate granting universities were selected that represented a broad variety of wellestablished, graduate education abroad programs. I selected these institutions because they have administrators or faculty that participated in the prior study (Dirkx et al., 2014a) surrounding 52 graduate level international education and afford existing relationships to gain access to faculty for data collection. Furthermore, as doctorate granting research universities, both institutions present an opportunity to gather a diverse sample of faculty to interview for this study that intentionally includes faculty of color, both men and women, and various levels of faculty experience. To further hone in on the selection of faculty leaders, I focused on short-term programs that are one to five weeks in duration, programs that represent a variety of disciplines, and faculty leaders from a variety of career phases that have experience leading at least two graduate level international experiences but no more than nine. Participant Selection Data for this study was purposefully collected from a variety of faculty from two, doctorate granting research institutions. For this study, to gather rich, thorough descriptions of how faculty members perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their positions in graduate education abroad, I used purposeful sampling which is common when trying to better understand personal experiences and gain a variety of perspectives (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). Purposeful sampling helps extract a sample “from which the most can be learned” (Merriam, 2009, p. 77) while describing “different perspectives on a problem, process, or event” (Creswell, Hanson, Plano, & Morales, 2007, p. 75). To select participants purposefully, I targeted faculty leaders who participated in a prior study (Dirkx et al., 2014a) which gathered information on 172 faculty-led group experiences. I examined the data pool from this study and removed any programs represented that target undergraduate student populations or combination programs serving both undergraduate and graduate students. The remaining programs were then analyzed and the two universities offering 53 the most diverse array of short-term, faculty-led programming options for graduate students were targeted for this study. Once the institutions were determined, I used a strategic process to recruit participants for this study. I consulted with the Office of Education abroad and a faculty advisor at my institution for assistance in developing lines of communication with appropriate officials at each selected university. Then, through these relationships, I contacted the identified faculty or administrators to explain the purpose of the study and to request recruitment assistance of faculty leaders. Next, I utilized these contacts to gather a purposeful sample of faculty leaders to interview from each university with a range of faculty leaders from different career phases, disciplines represented, leadership experiences, and program duration. As faculty leaders responded to my inquiry, I determined their eligibility per the guidelines set forth for the study (only graduate level programs and number of times leading short-term programs). In total, I made direct contact with 56 faculty leaders of which I selected 21 for interviews, 10 at one institution and 11 at the other, for approximately 60 – 90 minutes each. I targeted faculty leaders who had led at least two but no more than nine graduate education abroad experiences and purposefully targeted faculty leaders from five general disciplines that were identified after examining the range of disciplines of contacted faculty leaders. The five disciplinary areas included education, health professions, social sciences, law, and business. The faculty leaders interviewed this study entailed ten associate professors, four full professors, three clinical professors (professor of practice), two program directors, one assistant dean, one instructor, and one administrator. Data Collection The primary source of data for this study was in-person, participant interviews which is a principal method used in qualitative research (Merriam, 2009). Upon receiving approval from the 54 Institutional Review Board (IRB) for human subject’s research, I reached out to contacts at the target institutions to assist with identification of potential interviewees. I then sent out inquiries to identified faculty leaders via email, explaining the study and requesting participation (Appendix C). Each voluntary participant was provided a formal consent form (Appendix B) and was asked to read and sign it before participation. Each individual was given the option to select a pseudonym for their interview. Those who did not self-select were assigned a pseudonym. Interviews followed a semi-structured interview protocol intended to take 60 – 90 minutes to conduct (Appendix A). Each interview was digitally recorded and was transcribed verbatim. In qualitative research, semi-structured interviews are used to prompt reflective descriptions of experiences from interviewees to allow for interpretation by the interviewer (Marton & Booth, 1997). This format allows for consistency in interviewing all candidates but fosters interviewees to provide additional information or for the interviewer to ask follow up questions. To test this protocol, I conducted a pilot interview with a faculty leader who fit the criteria for the study. Based on feedback from the pilot interview and analysis of the interview responses in relation to the focus of the study, I made revisions to the protocol for future interviews. The interview instrument was designed to align with the research questions (Creswell, 2009). Participants were first asked to talk broadly about their personal upbringing, educational background, career directory, and international activities. Then, following the conceptual framework for inquiry, I asked questions pertaining how programs were planned for and designed (Clark & Peterson, 1986), and what was done as a faculty leader during graduate education abroad programs (Pratt, 1992). Lastly, I asked participants how they perceive graduate 55 education abroad in terms of process of internationalization for their department, institution, and graduate education. In addition to interviews, another data collection method was the analysis of institutional websites and program documents (syllabi, program agendas, etc). I searched university and academic school websites as well as requested that interviewees provide me with programspecific documents. These documents aided understanding into the structures and planning behind graduate education abroad while presenting an opportunity to provide more thorough description of the data collected. Data Analysis In qualitative research, data analysis inductively builds “from particulars to general themes…focus[ing] on individual meaning, and the importance of rendering the complexity of a situation” (Creswell, 2009, p. 4). I used the data analysis software, Dedoose to upload and code all interview data. Using the conceptual framework as an initial guiding frame for reviewing the transcripts, I initially read through each transcript to familiarize myself with the data. I then began with open coding wherein I didn’t begin with an initial set of themes rather; I identified emergent themes throughout the coding process. Once themes or categories emerged, I utilized those themes to thematically code the remainder of the interview transcripts and documents (Merriam, 2009). Efficient analysis included organizing descriptions of the relationships between individuals and phenomenon into categories as guided by the identified research questions (Marton, 1986). To conduct a thorough analysis, I employed a seven-step strategy defined by Sjostrom and Dahlgren (2002) for analyzing the collected data. These steps encompass: 1) familiarization by reading each transcript thoroughly, 2) compilation of similarities and differences, or emergent themes, from the transcripts, 3) identification of themes or categories 56 that are relevant and meaningful to the study to assist in the coding process, 4) preliminary analysis to group similar themes and review of the themes to reveal categories, 5) preliminary comparison of categories and themes to establish boundaries amongst categories, 6) naming the categories to emphasize their essence, attributes, and features, and 7) final outcome space to highlight the experience of subjects in a specific context or phenomenon. Each interview transcript or document was reviewed multiple times to best interpret the meaning and extract themes or categories for understanding (Entwistle, 1997; Merriam, 2009). The analysis of all data was iterative and involved “the continual sorting and resorting of data, plus ongoing comparisons between the data and the developing categories of description” (Åkerlind, 2012, p. 117). I also used triangulation through the analysis of multiple sources (interviews, documents, websites, etc.) to support the trustworthiness and credibility of my research findings (Glesne, 2011; Merriam, 2009). Role of the Researcher and Reflexivity In qualitative research, it is essential that the researcher reflect on the ‘self’ as the research instrument, commonly referred to as reflexivity as well as make transparent personal connection to the topic being studied (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Merriam, 2009). Reflexivity occurs when “inquirers explicitly identify reflexively their biases, values, and personal background… that may shape their interpretations formed during a study” (Creswell, 2009, p. 177). Reflexivity allows me to illuminate who I am and how I personally approach this study by sharing any personal biases or experiences and to clarify how these may influence the study (Merriam, 2009). In this section, I describe the experiences and identities that influence my biases and assumptions. 57 I have been involved in international educational contexts for over 15 years. As an undergraduate International Studies and Spanish major, I participated in three different types of education abroad and engaged in coursework with international focus. Through these experiences I began to gather ideas of what an education abroad program should look like in regards to the types of activities, structures, and experiences. I experienced both for-credit and not-for-credit content, explored independent travel and group travel, and participated in international internships in addition to living with host families as well as experiencing cohort living. These experiences peaked an interest which led me to volunteer and work overseas for several years after receiving my bachelor’s degree. Three years after receiving a master’s degree in education, as a higher education administrator, I was given the opportunity to take on the role of faculty leader for a short-term education abroad with a service focus for undergraduate students which I led for five years. Though my role in this position followed prescribed content, I gained experience working with a diverse group of students (race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, etc) for a short-term (10-day) education abroad program. My perceptions of short-term programs were grandly shaped by this experience in the complexity of facilitating the program, overseeing the experience of participating students, promoting reflection, monitoring and evaluating the experiences of students, and building relationships with community partner. More recently as a doctoral student and scholar, I have participated in three different graduate level education abroad experiences (study tour, short-term education abroad, education abroad professional collaboration) and worked on various international consulting projects. Though similarities arose with prior international experiences, I have gained insight into unique components of graduate level education abroad, particularly short-term programs. My experience 58 in these programs guide my approach to this study. Although there was the chance that ethical complications may arise from researching a topic closely entwined with my personal and professional experiences, I was confident that the combination of my professional, academic, and personal experiences positively contribute to the understanding of the role of the faculty leader in graduate level education abroad. To minimize any influence of personal bias or prior assumptions on the topic, I used the process of bracketing (Bamigbola, 2011; Tufford & Newman, 2012). Bracketing is an approach that guides the researcher to identify, recognize and set aside biases that may influence the data collection and analysis process of the research (Bamigbola, 2011; Tufford & Newman, 2012). Rigor and Trustworthiness In addition to practicing reflexivity throughout my research process, I also took measures to enhance credibility and ensure trustworthiness of the study. While qualitative research is not intended to be generalizable across broader populations, themes emerge that highlight or cross boundaries of phenomenon that guide categorical understanding between situations and occasions or particular experiences (Marton, 1981). Thus, this study aimed to understand overlapping conceptions of experiences of the participants (Marton, 1981). Credibility This qualitative research intended to “identify and describe individuals’ conceptions of some aspect of reality as faithfully as possible” (Sandbergh, 1997, p. 204). Credibility focuses on the sufficiency and systematic analysis of the collected data (Charmaz, 2006). In order to establish credibility in gaining understanding of the phenomenon of how faculty leaders perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their positions as faculty leaders of graduate education abroad for graduate students, I employed three main strategies. 59 Cross-checking. I utilized cross-check coding. I requested that a colleague review and code a portion of transcripts separately, and discuss the process with me, to verify the appropriateness of codes, consistency of application of codes, and clarity of the meaning and interpretation of the codes (Creswell, 2009). This process helped “determine the level of consistency of the coding” (Creswell, 2009, p. 191). Member checking. In order to check for accuracy of the findings I established credibility by using member checking (Creswell, 2009; Glesne, 2011). Member checking is described as sharing “interview transcripts, analytical thoughts, and/or drafts of the final report with research participants to make sure [I am] representing them and their ideas accurately” (Glesne, 2011, p. 49). I provided opportunities for member checking after the initial interview by emailing the completed transcripts to each interviewee for review and clarification of any areas of misinterpretation or misunderstanding. Additionally, I offered follow-up interviews, phone or Skype conversations, and email correspondence to all interviewees who desired clarification of any information from the interviews or further presentation of data. Triangulation. The use of triangulation in this study allowed analysis from multiple sources to help “validate claims” or gain confidence in gathering multiple perspectives from multiple sources (Glesne, 2011, p. 47). In order to triangulate I analyzed participant interview transcripts, institutional websites, and program-related documents such as syllabi, program agendas, etc. The process of triangulating supported collection of rich data with thick description, complex understanding, and consistent interpretation and the analysis of different views and experiences to “reveal new dimensions” and “reveal the complexity of a situation” (Glesne, 2011, p. 47). Additionally, I chose to interview faculty leaders from two different universities that lead a diverse array of similarly structured graduate education abroad programs. 60 Analyzing the experiences and perspectives of faculty leaders from two universities increases the trustworthiness of any identified themes (Glesne, 2011). Transferability The intent of qualitative research is “not to generalize findings to individuals, sites, or places outside of those under study” rather it is to provide rich “description and themes developed in context of a specific site” (Creswell, 2009, p. 193). As qualitative does not seek generalizability, one criteria for trustworthiness of research is transferability (Schwandt, Lincoln, & Guba, 2007). Thus in order for this study to be transferable, “the burden of proof lies less with the original investigator than with the person seeking to make an application elsewhere. The original inquirer cannot know the sites to which transferability might be sought, but the appliers can and do” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Thus, as the researcher, I strived to offer “sufficient descriptive data” for any reader to fully understand any possibility of transferability (Merriam, 2009, p. 225). Limitations Several issues pose the possibility of limiting this study. First, I reached out to request interviews with a purposeful sampling of faculty from institutions which participated in a prior study (Dirkx et al., 2014a). Some of these faculty leaders had since moved to other positions or left their role with their international program thus making it difficult to connect with them or extract current information. Some other leaders did not meet the requirements for participation for the study with more than nine leadership experiences. Furthermore, by utilizing the data pool from this prior study, it was difficult to purposefully select leaders with consistent diversity of discipline or background of faculty leaders. 61 A second limitation is that data was only be collected from faculty leaders leaving out perspectives of student participants in these experiences. Previous studies (Dirkx et al., 2014a) have considered outcomes for graduate students in graduate education abroad without full engagement of similar questioning of the faculty leaders of these experiences. By only examining the faculty leader of these programs, I potentially missed valuable content to support the role of faculty that may be perceived differently than from the faculty perspective. Another limitation arose from the small sample size of the study and the selection of examining only one specific type of education abroad program (short-term, faculty-led). This choice could have failed to capture how the role of faculty may or may not vary with diversity in program type. Lastly, due to the broad spectrum of institutions, disciplines, and program focus in the original study used as a potential data pool, it could have limited broad extraction of conclusions from the data that could have supported deep understanding of the topic. Summary of Chapter Three In this chapter, I described the research paradigm, research design, and methodology used to conduct this study. I also described the context and setting for the study, participant selection, data collection, and data analysis processes. Lastly, I discussed my role as the researcher, indicators for rigor and trustworthiness, and limitations of the study. In Chapter Four, I outline the findings from this study focused around faculty leader beliefs, assumptions, and values about and manifested in action in graduate education abroad. 62 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS – FACULTY LEADER BELIEFS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND VALUES ABOUT AND MANIFESTED IN ACTION IN GRADUATE EDUCATION ABROAD Overview of Chapter The purpose of this study is to determine what faculty want to accomplish, what they do, and what beliefs, assumptions, and values guide their work when leading (henceforth graduate education abroad programs). In chapters 4 and 5, I explore the analysis of findings in relation to the study’s central research questions including: o What do faculty want to accomplish when leading graduate education abroad? o What beliefs, assumptions, and values guide the work of faculty members in their role as a faculty leader of graduate education abroad? o What do faculty leaders do in their role as a faculty leader of graduate education abroad? Graduate education abroad encompasses a wide array of international learning experiences for graduate students. For this study, all graduate education abroad programs entailed academic objectives and were faculty-led. Some programs followed a strict curricular guide while others were creatively structured, yet consisted of academically oriented experiences. Two main program models emerged as guiding models for graduate education abroad: subject-based programs and project-based programs. In reality, a continuum of approaches used by faculty emerged within these two models with some blurring between the two models. For the purpose of this study, however, each graduate education abroad program was identified using the model with which it most aligned. With subject-based programming, typically faculty leaders modeled the experience from an existing curricular course or requirement and reconfigured the course to fit the international context. For example, a course that exists within a program at West University over the course of 14 weeks was modified to take 63 place in Brazil over a 3-week period. Within this course, the academic requirements remained the same (tests, papers, readings) but the course was modified to integrate the international context (speakers, site visits, industry visits, culture, etc.). In project-based programming, faculty leaders selected a general theme or “project” and then created the graduate education abroad experience to fit around and foster experiences relating to that theme. For example, at East University, one faculty leader selected a focus of diversity in social work. Then, stemming from this topic, the leader designed the education abroad experience with professional interactions, presentations, site visits, collaborations, and academic assignments, pulling from the international context in support of the desired topic. Within both program models, for-credit and not-for-credit options were provided through a variety of program types which are discussed later in this chapter. Of the 21 faculty leaders interviewed for this study, 13 identified projectbased programs and 8 identified subject-based programs. Of these programs, 14 were offered for-credit, 5 were not-for-credit, and 2 offered both options. 18 programs took place during the summer, 2 occurred over winter break, and 1 was offered over spring break. Table 1 presents an overview of the faculty leaders and programs examined in this study and the institution, discipline of the graduate education abroad program, and duration of the program. The programs studied lasted between one to five weeks with four programs lasting one week to ten days, seven programs lasting two weeks, eight programs lasting three weeks, one program lasting four weeks, and two programs lasting five weeks. Each program typically hosted between 10 to 40 graduate student learners, though one program noted a group of 87 participants. Disciplinary programs represented in the study include education (five programs), business (five programs), health professions (four programs), social sciences (six programs), and law (one program). Though not shown in Table 1 to ensure confidentiality, the faculty leaders interviewed 64 this study included ten associate professors, four full professors, three clinical professors, two program directors, one assistant dean, one instructor, and one administrator. Table 1 Summary of Faculty Leaders Pseudonym Institution Discipline Program Duration Leslie West Education 3 weeks James West Business 10 days Charlize West Business 1 week Jacob West Medical/Health 2 weeks Connie West Social Sciences 10 days Ezra West Education 3 weeks Fred West Law 4 weeks Devon West Education 3 weeks Scott West Medical/Health 2 weeks Ronald West Business 2 weeks Anna West Social Sciences 2 weeks Isabel East Education 3 weeks Barb East Social Sciences 2 weeks Ben East Business 3 weeks Michael East Social Sciences 3 weeks Shane East Business 2 weeks Julie East Medical/Health 5 weeks Simon East Education 3 weeks Greg East Social Sciences 10 days Katherine East Medical/Health 5 weeks Natalie East Social Sciences 12 days Note. Countries of focus are Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, England, Finland, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Peru, South Africa, Sweden, Tanzania, and United Kingdom. In seeking to understand the pedagogical roles of faculty leaders, this study included analysis of perceptions of graduate education abroad program purposes, structures, and outcomes as well as curricular components from concept to post-implementation. In chapters 4 and 5, I present the results of these analyses and describe insight into the pedagogy of graduate education abroad. These findings are organized around four main themes that emerged from the data: (1) faculty leader beliefs, assumptions, and values about graduate education abroad; (2) faculty 65 leader beliefs, assumptions, and values about graduate education abroad manifested in action; (3) perceived outcomes of graduate education abroad; (4) the influence of graduate education abroad on the internationalization of graduate education. Faculty Leader Beliefs, Assumptions, and Values about Graduate Education Abroad In this section, I report on the faculty leaders’ motivations for being involved in graduate education abroad and the perceived purposes they hold for graduate education abroad. Next, I discuss faculty leader perspectives on how they prepared and learned to be a faculty leader, beliefs about characteristics of graduate education abroad, and assumptions about graduate learners. Lastly, I conclude this section by exploring what aspects of graduate education abroad faculty leaders like most, like least, or find most challenging. Faculty leader motivations for involvement in short-term education abroad. Some faculty came to lead graduate education abroad programming through serendipitous interactions. For example, James shared, “Actually somebody else was going to do it and then somehow backed out of it. Since I do [the subject], they said, ‘Oh, maybe [you] will do this,’ so they asked me to fill in for a program already started. That was serendipity.” Relatedly, Katherine described how her program “was started by a former chair. From what I've heard, it was an accident. She ran into somebody at a conference, and they started talking. It led to the development of this program. They needed someone to lead it. So now I lead it.” For some, another faculty fell ill or had last minute reasons for requiring a replacement. Leslie explained how “the person who was running the program suddenly just dropped out of running that program and nobody picked it up. There was all this interest on the part of students, looking forward to being part of this program and, suddenly, they have no one to run it. I said, ‘Oh, I'll do that.’” 66 Similarly, faculty leaders shared how they got involved in graduate education abroad because they were in “the right place at the right time.” Barb shared, “Once I did have the opportunity to start leading education abroad programs, I was like ‘Yeah! Sure! Why not?’ The chair asked me to do it. I said yes.” Simon described an experience shared by several other leaders wherein his department “rotated the responsibility of leading short-term programs each year so everyone has a chance to participate.” Similarly, Natalie expressed how her institution had expectations of faculty to “get involved” in global initiatives. “There was more, I don’t know if I want to use the word ‘pressure,’ but it became something that the deans were being asked to think about very seriously; to develop courses and experiences that were really utilizing the notion of the global perspective.” For other faculty members, their involvement reflected a more intentional approach. Several faculty leaders went through application and approval of concept processes within their colleges or departments. Julie elaborated, I thought it would be a very interesting opportunity to learn how [other countries] have understood and provided services for similar issues. It was all about developing training for a range of issues. I put that in as an option for developing that kind of a course internationally, and it was accepted, so I was on my way. Alternatively, some faculty leaders desired to “deepen research initiatives” or “enhance existing professional relationships in a country.” Despite differences and beliefs shaping motivations of faculty leader involvement, five common reasons for their involvement emerged. Benefit professionally and personally. Faculty leaders identified professional and personal benefits, noting personal growth, personal learning, and engaging in new professional contexts. Charlize expressed her personal learning and growth by stating, 67 I think that’s important that I learn and grow as well and that’s the message that I try to push onto our students as well as to why they should [education abroad]. It’s not a vacation. It’s not a trip. It’s really a way to have a very rich learning experience that helps you to grow as a person and have a bigger, broader perspective of your place in the world. Similarly, James highlighted opportunities to “develop a taste for learning about other cultures” while Fred illuminated how “[the experience] gives me a very different view on the opposite of the person who looks at a culture and says, ‘Oh, that’s what this culture is.’ I look at a culture and say, ‘Wow, what are the many viewpoints within that culture?’” Many faculty leaders embraced graduate education abroad as a travel and learning opportunity for themselves. For example, Ronald shared, “I saw it as an opportunity for me to see new places” and Julie mentioned, “I wanted to have a chance to go abroad.” Others were motivated by the opportunity to travel and share international experiences with their families or children. Leslie elaborated, “My children were old enough so they could come with me” and “It was a prime opportunity to immerse my family in a new culture which otherwise we wouldn’t have been able to afford.” For some, professional benefit was a deciding factor. Ben stated, “It adds options I didn't have before.” Deepen relationships with students. Getting to know students on a more personal level motivated some faculty leaders to participate in graduate education abroad. Described as a hands-on, experiential learning opportunity, Katherine described an opportunity in “getting to know these students in a much deeper way and having that kind of connection and that kind of community that we’re building together.” Several leaders noted the difficulty in developing the 68 “depth” of relationship that is possible during graduate education abroad in other, more traditional learning contexts. Leslie mirrored this sentiment when sharing, Watching the students have this unfolding understanding and attachment, enthusiasm, and all of that. The way that I connect with them, the metaphor that I often use, is it's like a paint-by-number because you can't actually teach another person in a linear, chronological way about another culture, environment, institution, etcetera. We learn together through experience and relationships. Invigorate creative teaching. Pedagogically, faculty leaders were motivated by an opportunity to enhance their teaching through the unique context of graduate education abroad. Faculty leaders had to develop a new curriculum or rethink methods to transition curriculum to a new context, and many were invigorated by the change and challenge of creative teaching. For example, Greg expressed, “I love teaching. I love their thinking. The writing. The grading. The engagement and dynamic performative aspect of [graduate education abroad].” Ben stated, “It makes my life easier [to teach] because it's easier to explain stuff if you have these examples on hand, right in the mix of learning.” Connie explored the notion of depth in the teaching and learning process when immersed in a cultural context. The depth piece is important. People have had a meaningful moment in their life [during graduate education abroad]. Any of us can go through a lot of years of being fine. It doesn't mean there's depth or meaning attached. I think that when there's opportunities for those moments. Those are invaluable. That you can provide that through this experience. Expand research agendas. Faculty leaders also pointed to the opportunity to apply or expand research areas and work. From exploring already defined research to searching for new research topics, to using the international context to conduct research, faculty leaders engaged in 69 research as both an opportunity and an outcome of their participation as a faculty leader. Shane elaborated, “I have a lot of different ways of approaching what was going on in [the country] and it fit beautifully into my theorization—my globalization theory and how I was developing those and how I was trying to extend those as part of the research itself.” Scott, a faculty leader from a medical-focused program emphasized, “We started looking at inconsistencies or just things that we found interesting to start trying to develop a research project. Rather than clinical medicine going down and providing treatment for things, we were trying to look for preventative ways to have sustainable medicine.” Other faculty leaders discussed selection of countries for education abroad stemming from current or past research, collaborative research conducted with students or international colleagues in topics of focus during the experience, or novel ideas for research stemming from their graduate education abroad experience. Provide diverse learning experiences. Faculty leaders emphasized the opportunity to immerse students in diverse learning experiences and contexts. One benefit emphasized was the ability of graduate students as professionals to be able to work with diverse populations in their disciplines and being able to confront personal and professional assumptions they may bring to their work. Ezra described, [Graduate education abroad] was very intriguing to me because one of the areas that I’m interested in is thinking about cultural competency in practice. In other words, how do we prepare [professionals] to be able to work with diverse populations, and diversity defined broadly. It could be disability. It could be sexual orientation. It could be religious background. It could be ethnicity, cultural background, geographical, language, lots of different ways to think about that. Having thought about the best way to try to promote that kind of thinking, I thought that this might be a way where you immerse people in 70 some completely different environment. Doing so, I found myself in a very transformative experience because it makes you realize some of the assumptions you have about the world and helps you really rethink those assumptions and try to adopt other perspectives. Similarly, some faculty leaders focused on communities or cultures that could be influenced through immersion of graduate students within a specific culture, contextualizing the international experience within local work. Connie expanded on this area, A key issue of course, is within our communities, and with local work. We have Latino and Latina people seeking services from very diverse corners of those communities. We have students that are not adequately trained to work with them. In going to Mexico, there is an interest in exposing students to culture. The Mexican culture. Doesn't capture everything, but an initial exposure, or an affirmation of community. We have Latino/Latina students in the program who are not always affirmed. An opportunity for them to be in an affirming environment that is highlighting the work and accomplishments of the Mexican community. Also, in our discipline, we are not a very diverse student population. We want students who have no background to get down and get some exposure. Get some learning. Initiate. Create some interest and commitment to moving forward to apply it here at home. Perceived purposes of graduate education abroad. Faculty leaders were also asked to identify main purposes for developing and offering graduate education abroad opportunities. Six main purposes of graduate education abroad emerged. Application of disciplinary learning within a global context. Almost unanimously, faculty leaders identified the opportunity to apply disciplinary learning in varied contexts as a 71 main purpose of graduate education abroad. Anna described it as a hands-on experience for graduate students to apply theoretical knowledge more broadly with the opportunity to “deepen understanding of international issues and disciplinary focus within a global context.” Natalie supported this notion when she said, “It really brought problems out, implicit knowledge, things that we take for granted that are culturally determined and how services or even how symptoms get to be discovered.” Also, focused on changing patterns of thinking by situating learning within international contexts, another faculty leader expressed that graduate education abroad presents an opportunity to “think differently about issues and topics discussed in disciplinary classes.” Despite the differences in each program’s disciplinary focus or structure, the potential for graduate student thinking about their field in broader contexts was a common theme. Charlize demonstrated how graduate students engaged in the process of learning during short-term programming through a disciplinary lens when she said, Suddenly, there are a different set of questions that come forward for students. Students in [graduate] programs are already thinking about something that they want to follow. If they have a question already that they're thinking about in their own graduate work, carrying that question into a different context often helps them think about that in different ways as well. Michael noted how graduate education abroad can support disciplinary learning. He expressed the importance of having a space to deepen understanding of the “community of practice” as well as building disciplinary skills and research methods. It’s about understanding more about the people who are in the community of practice in that particular space. In this particular case, that they are having some initial skills at developing either research methods or deepening their disciplinary understanding. There 72 are skills-oriented and research-oriented components. Again, [the duration] is very short. It’s not going substitute for a Ph.D. field work kind of experience, but it gives people a taste of that. Leaders perceived short-term education abroad opportunities, though diverse in the way they are structured and developed, as presenting an opportunity for graduate students to effectively explore their disciplinary knowledge, thinking, and learning within global contexts. This change of context allows students to apply theory in new ways, explore disciplinary-based topics in relation to global issues, and deepen understanding of the ways in which other scholars or professionals confront similar topics. Opportunities for experiential learning. Leaders reported that graduate education abroad extends an opportunity to access learning that is not available or accessible in a classroom setting. Reflecting extant literature that short-term programming affords an opportunity for experiential learning (Engle & Engle, 2003; Lucas, 2009; Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingrich, 2007), leaders highlighted experiential learning as another purpose of graduate level short-term education abroad. Faculty leaders emphasized the importance of graduate students being able to observe different contexts that are “hard to teach in the classroom.” Ben shared his thoughts surrounding the interplay between academic learning, traveling internationally, and experiencing life and learning within a new context. It's more than just a course. There's also the experiential learning of traveling with the course and the synergy between the two. Just studying you learn some. Just traveling you learn some. If you do both together, it's more than the sum of the parts because you bounce off the ideas you're learning, from what you're seeing and what you see forms the questions you ask in the classroom. It makes it very synergistic. 73 Barb shared a common sentiment, “[Graduate students] need the chance to be within a new culture and context. Seeing it, feeling it, smelling it, and all of that to be able to really understand.” Numerous leaders relayed concern that without short-term education abroad opportunities, many graduate students would fail to receive the contextualized, rich, experiential learning experiences afforded through these programs. Comparative analysis and experience. Faculty leaders also highlighted the opportunity for graduate students to engage in comparative analysis through a first-hand comparative experience. Through focused, short-term, education abroad programming, graduate students can “compare their home culture with another culture and a variety of perspectives within that culture.” Through the process of comparative analysis and reflection, graduate students can “reevaluate life in the US or domestic context to deepen understanding of issues confronted through their studies and experiences.” Greg elaborated on the importance of comparative analysis when he shared, At the highest conceptual level, you look at a completely different place, different from the United States. This idea that when you go to a very different place, you learn something about that place. You also learn something about the place you left, where you come from. That was always, in some ways, the American experience. Turning the experience into something not invisible surrounding us. In fact, turn it into something analytical and gain insight about it. Supporting the importance of making comparisons, Barb focused on the ability to identify similarities and differences to form understanding. Most [graduate students] only have experience in the United States. So, you’re seeing similar patterns, similar elements, going on in a different country. There’s always going 74 to be changes, and there’s always going to be differences. Being aware of that helps you understand about your own place as much or more as your understanding about this new place. Greg discussed the value added to his students education abroad experience in terms of productivity. I had clearly developed the sense that in a comparative sense, this immersive experience is productive. It is pedagogically productive, epistemologically productive, productive in transforming our conceptions, and our understanding of everyday life. I was committed to it. I had to fashion a syllabus and work with it. Then try to draw in experiences and how to manage those experiences for my students, and include traveling, and writing, and writing papers. It was both a challenge but a fantastic experience. Thus, graduate education abroad programs extend the opportunity to engage in comparative analysis to make sense of one’s disciplinary knowledge and personal learning within multiple contexts. Development of cultural and global competencies. Another purpose for graduate education abroad reflected in the leaders’ beliefs was the development of cultural and global competencies, reflecting their presence as long-standing topics within higher education and education abroad (Lewin, 2009; VandeBerg, Paige, and Hemming Lou, 2012). At the graduate level, faculty leaders have demonstrated importance of students’ ability to be able to contribute to the international and global world. According to the leaders, graduate education abroad presents professional, academically-oriented contexts to develop new perspectives and begin to construct deeper understandings about culture and global environments. Charlize explained, “It’s 75 not a vacation. It’s not just a trip. It’s a way to have a very rich learning experience that helps you grow as a person and have a bigger, broader perspective of your place in the world.” Many faculty leaders stressed the importance of graduate students’ ability to interact and work with professionals within their disciplinary fields both inside and outside of higher education. They illustrated a need to develop cultural and global competencies within their students to best prepare them for their professional endeavors and viewed short-term education abroad as a method to meet this goal. Isabel stated, “That is the ultimate goal that I want students to learn; to be able to make a basic human connection in spite of such cultural differences and language difficulties.” Part of supporting graduate student development of these competencies is offering programming and learning experiences that offer contexts for this development. Putting short-term education abroad in a global context, Ezra explained, Another goal was to help prepare our graduates to work as global citizens in diverse settings. When you go overseas, I think it really enables you to take a perspective that you might have never have taken before. It helps you to confront the kinds of assumptions that you have. It helps you in understanding diversity and understanding your place within that diversity and how it influences relationships with other people. Similarly, Fred explored how the short-term experience fostered understanding of others and an opportunity to contextualize the development of global and cultural competencies. [The short-term education abroad experience] gave us a view of the world of understanding, not just diversity, but diversity within diversity. To me, anything that was adding any additional perspective, even if it was simply through the requiring people from the mainstream to engage with people who are different than them. Even just at a basic level, to me that was valuable. 76 Therefore, graduate education abroad is viewed as an effective tool to foster the development of cultural and global competencies in graduate students. Exposure to international professional perspectives and networking opportunities. Professional interactions were another prominent purpose for graduate education abroad. Through graduate education abroad programming, faculty leaders identified opportunities for graduate students to gain exposure to and engagement with professionals within a variety of international contexts. Anna shared, “Professional identity is really important because you’re interacting with other professionals.” Through well-structured programming, faculty leaders viewed the interactions with professional colleagues and leaders in international contexts as a critical growth opportunity for graduate students. Though these interactions may not always directly lead to long-term professional networks, almost all graduate participants were exposed to professional networking opportunities. James specifically designed the experience to facilitate this purpose. “A main objective [in-country] is to get them to meet people from a variety of industries and from a variety of perspectives within a culture and field.” Immersion within a culture or industry as a means to glean new perspectives was also emphasized by Simon. “Overall the purpose is to immerse the students in the culture and to learn from the people who are doing the work and learn from them.” The majority of faculty leaders explicitly aligned their programming to include interaction between their graduate student participants and professionals within a variety of fields or contexts internationally. Exposure to international professionals and intentionally constructing opportunities to engage with these professionals was viewed as a critical component of short-term education abroad programming for graduate students. Enhance internationalization of graduate student thinking and broaden understanding of diversity. Finally, various faculty leaders acknowledged the opportunity to internationalize 77 graduate student perspectives and increase students’ “understanding of the diversity of diversity” as another purpose for graduate education abroad. To reach goals of internationalizing students’ perspectives and fostering exploration of new insights into diversity, Ezra emphasized immersive, intense, short-term experiences. I thought that [short-term education abroad] might be a way to immerse people in some completely different environment. In doing so, I found a very transformative experience because it makes you realize some of the assumptions you have about the world and helps you really rethink those assumptions and try to adopt other perspectives. Broader understanding of diversity for more internationalized thinking was identified as a critical component of the development of graduate students in preparation for their professional positions. Opportunities to engage with professional colleagues and peers while collaboratively connecting to a professional discipline within an international context led to discussions, reflection on, and better understanding of diversity of perspectives as well as diversity of diverse contexts. As Connie asserted, “this understanding can only enhance their potential to better connect with clients or colleagues when the get out in the work force.” Other faculty stressed how education abroad options helped educate graduate students think about broader global issues and the influences of globalization. For example, Devon shared, “We’re looking at all of these policy issues and the impact on the state and the impact on the national government. You can’t overlook the international influences. You can’t overlook the influence of globalization and the impact of that.” In summary, six main purposes of graduate education abroad as perceived by faculty leaders emerged in the data. These purposes included application of disciplinary learning within a global context, opportunities for experiential learning, comparative analysis and experience, 78 development of cultural and global competencies, exposure to international professional perspectives and networking opportunities, and enhancement of internationalization of graduate student thinking and broadening understanding of diversity. Preparation for and learning to be a faculty leader. This research also sought to develop a better understanding of what it means to be a faculty leader. Respondents focused on two main areas, how they learned their role as a faculty leader and what they understand as the responsibilities of that role. Learning the faculty leader role. None of the participating faculty members received any specific training to be a faculty leader of graduate education abroad. However, in describing how they implicitly and explicitly learned the role of faculty leader, three main ways emerged. One method was “trial and error” or “trial by fire” wherein for the first experience, the faculty leader brainstormed in advanced what might be needed, asked questions of others, and made changes as needed along the way. Shane shared how he felt “thrown in” to the experience, I had the idea. I knew a little bit. But I was just told, ‘This is what you have to do. This is what’s involved. These are the legal aspects, the health and safety aspects. You are in charge of the academic stuff. We will be in charge of everything else.’ It was a bit tricky to pull off at first because you aren’t familiar with the context and [our institution] doesn’t have an office or a building or an outpost in [the county]. I just had to dive in and do it. Most faculty who employed this method were somewhat inexperienced abroad and reached out to others, both domestically and internationally, to both plan for the program and learn about their role as a leader. These faculty leaders often referenced a “heavy workload” and “time 79 constraints” with both the amount of work to prepare for the experience as well as the “on the ground responsibilities” in leading students. Another method was a “mentor method” in which a new faculty leader worked collaboratively with a more seasoned leader to “learn the ropes” of programs and leadership processes. These faculty led the experience collaboratively and partnered in decision making and job responsibilities. Leslie expanded on her experience, For me personally, I was surprised by how much work it is and how exhausting it is the first time. Going back is never exactly the same itinerary, it's never exactly the same people, and it's definitely not the same group of students. But at least there are some pieces that are already familiar that I can rely on and I was able to rely on [my colleague] and international partners for guidance. Many leaders referenced either working with a more experienced faculty leader or hiring one or more graduate assistants who are experienced within or come from the target country. Barb explained the support she received from a teaching assistant, “The TA that I got, and this is the key, is to get someone who knows what they’re doing, she was a doctoral student who had lived in [the country].” Finally, leaders drew on their own prior personal experiences of either participating in education abroad themselves or from personal international travel or research. These faculty could apply various experiences to the new context and pull from “what worked and didn’t work” to develop the program and understand their personal role as a leader. Devon explained his experience, “Born from experience and over time, for these things to be successful you figure out where you can get support. There is a support team that I’ve created over time, of a little bit of time from someone here, a little bit of time from someone there, to develop this.” Majority of 80 faculty leaders intentionally pulled from their faculty teaching or administration roles within their home university to develop their understanding of their role as a faculty leader. Responsibilities of faculty leaders. The responsibilities of faculty leaders varied greatly depending on experience, discipline, and institution, some common themes arose. Leader’s perceptions demonstrated a continuum of responsibilities that continually shifted and evolved. On a more intensive end of the responsibility spectrum, some faculty leaders emphasized their role as a “parental figure” who is “always on” and is responsible for all participants at all times throughout the program. Shane described this intense responsibility as, On call, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week… It was me and 28 graduate students, and I had to range them the whole time. Like, everyone has to be in the hotel lobby at this time to get the bus to take us to this place. Everyone has to turn up to the class on time. These leaders felt responsible for ensuring all participants were knowledgeable about the daily itinerary, assignments, activities, travel schedules, meals, etc. It was typical for these leaders to spend most of their time with students, housed at the same location, guiding them, following up on topics, themes or observations, troubleshooting student obstacles or challenges, mentoring, and teaching. Anna noted the pressure of having broad responsibilities as a faculty leader, It's going to be three weeks or a month in this other location. But that's not the extent of it. I think that's the part that people who don't do this work don't recognize. That, oh, I'm teaching a course while I'm there. I'm teaching two courses while I'm there, but unlike the model where all I did was flew in and walked into a building and taught, when you're doing an education abroad, you're on all the time for three weeks. Anything that happens, any visit to the doctor, any interpersonal stuff, any people who don't like their homestay, any of that stuff is all you—and it needs to be lined up all the time ahead of time. Yeah, 81 you're teaching, but you also have all this other stuff that has happened and that does happen. In contrast, several faculty leaders focused their role as “academic teacher”. Connie expanded on her belief of her responsibility surrounding the curriculum of the short-term program. My role is more as translator to the established curriculum. How can that or does that translate into what we can do in a short-term context. Because it is different. What's possible in short-term and what's possible in long-term. With our hosts. Appropriate culturally. There's all those factors. Our initial goal had been that we were able to design something that could meet required criteria for the students. One leader illustrated her belief of her role as an “academic teacher” when she said, “I’m here to teach this course and do the work for the course, and outside of the course, I will not do any other work.” Faculty leaders who adopted this role stressed their responsibilities as teaching, grading, and ensuring local speakers or out-of-class experiences took place without challenge. Ronald shared this sentiment when he stated, “I feel purely responsible for the academic side of things.” This role adoption was more common with faculty who identically mirrored courses from a home institution to an international campus or context or whose students lived in a separate location or whose schedule only required engagement with students within the classroom. More common though, faculty leaders identified roles and responsibilities in between these two ends of the spectrum. Shane explained, “Whether it works academically is my responsibility. Having said that, there are also definitely logistical aspects of it that I have to deal with.” Many leaders took on a facilitator role, guiding students through their daily coursework or 82 site visitations, leading reflections or debriefings to check learning and processing, and to logistically ensure all participants are present for all program components. Devon described his expansive responsibilities as a guide, facilitator, and parent, I try to connect with as many students at the beginning of the day, at breakfast, as I can, to test their energy level, check on their health condition, see who’s having a problem, if anybody’s having a problem. Then, for some of the students that haven’t paid attention to what the itinerary is for the day, just reaffirming here’s what we’re going to do today, and checking on, if we are on the same page and appropriately dressed. Just checking on things like that. Then, having the schedule worked out, and the night before, letting everybody know our bus is going to pick us up at this particular time, and making sure that we’re prompt, we’re on time, reinforcing that, on an almost continuous basis. Several faculty leaders noted this role as “a facilitator of learning” or “experiential guide” requiring a balance between teaching, guiding, supervising, and leading. Faculty leader beliefs about characteristics of short-term education abroad. Despite institutional or disciplinary differences amongst the interviewed faculty leaders, five overlapping themes emerged surrounding beliefs about the characteristics of short-term education abroad. Intensity and rigor. A general belief among faculty leaders was the potential for graduate education abroad to provide students with a more intense and rigorous experience than possible in a traditional classroom over time. Ronald demonstrated this opinion, I think [students] learn more. I think that having it all thrown at them very hard, very fast, in a short period of time actually produces some intense learning experiences that they may not if they’re turning up on it every Tuesday having worked the whole day. For two weeks that we’re in [country], nothing else happens except the course and just living in 83 that country. I think that that produces a very effective and memorable learning experience. Other faculty leaders stressed the rigorous nature of condensing a traditional semester-long curriculum into a two to five-week experience. The very nature of condensing the curriculum resulted in an intense schedule and workload. Similarly, leaders elaborated on the intensity of traveling and learning together as a cohort during a short-term experience as “the learning doesn’t stop when the presentation or class session stops.” Shane elaborated on the intensity of the faculty leader role, Group leaders are on duty, on call, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is no break. For people that think that leading these groups is you’re going on a vacation, or this is a holiday, or as the Brits would say, it’s a jolly, this is constant work. It takes a lot of work to engage a group of students in such a condensed period of time. Short-term experiences can lead to quite rigorous schedules with intensive interactions between students and colleagues. Valuable experience for all learners and independent learning. Another overarching belief about graduate education abroad was the value of the experience for all participants and the opportunity for independent learning through the experience. A majority of leaders supported short-term education abroad as a chance to “open students’ eyes to cultural differences” and helping students “come to their own epiphanies, understandings, and aha moments.” Likewise, faculty expressed inherent value in the short-term experience for every learner to support professional growth and preparation for practice, such as when Fred said “It is a really good chance to open people’s cultural horizons, which will only help them in practice.” Though faculty members expressed some limitations from the short-term nature of some education 84 abroad programs, the general sentiment of the curricular opportunity that was iterated by Julie was that “everybody should education abroad.” Pedagogically unique. Faculty leaders also shared the belief that graduate education abroad is pedagogically unique in contextualizing learning within a different cultural context. Ronald directly supported this when he stated, “Education abroad, of course is a class, so that, it is certainly teaching, but it's quite different pedagogically.” Expanding on this idea, Natalie described the pedagogical opportunity behind short-term education abroad to influence students’ perspectives through interactive international experiences. She noted, “Going abroad is not colonizing and not taking an American point of view, but rather developing this culturally aware interactive stance, and [considering] how would that influence education.” Pedagogically, graduate education abroad afforded an opportunity for faculty leaders to create and engage in learning environments to provoke new kinds of learning for graduate students. These experiences yielded opportunities to learn within and from the international context through self-reflection as well as comparatively with the surrounding environment. Greg explained, “I had seen with my students, very good students, very talented students. They could never look at their own experience in a distant comparative way. Education abroad helped them think comparatively.” Permeate departmental and program experience. Many faculty leaders expressed that graduate education abroad experiences afford an opportunity to permeate into other courses or work. This occurs when graduate students who have studied abroad share their changed perspectives with non-participating peers to enhance learning within departments or classes. Leslie expounded on this idea, 85 We want them to still be taking classes because the idea that these experiences would permeate the whole college is really important. So, when they come back, they have a perspective that when they go and take their next classes, they can bring to bear on the things they're reading, the conversations they're having, the presentations that they make, etcetera. In that way, the students who haven't gone on this particular trip or have this particular set of experiences may actually benefit secondarily from hearing these different perspectives. This belief of experiential influence also extends to areas of research and teaching. Anna described how graduate education abroad can permeate research and teaching, We want it to impact their research, perhaps, and the scholarship that they do. Also, many of [the graduate students] are TAs, and in that way, it would even impact our undergraduate programs because they come back with a different perspective and may draw on some of those experiences when teaching. Thus, faculty leaders believe in a learner influence model wherein the experiences and growth developed during graduate education abroad can permeate thinking within other contexts, specifically within each student’s academic pursuits, and enhance research and teaching and learning environments. Potential to lack substance. Another common belief that emerged was somewhat cautionary in nature about the substance of some short-term programming. Each faculty-led program was established with unique purposes, objectives, and activities for learning. As will be discussed later in this chapter, there are many types of program structures, durations, and disciplinary focuses. Some faculty leaders discussed that precautions must be taken to ensure program substance, rather than to fall into a trap of merely re-contextualizing a course by 86 inserting it in an international context or not fully integrating learning experiences within that context. Isabel explained this concern, The concept [of short-term education abroad] is great. I think the students must get a visual of what’s going on in the world and learn culturally. The way it’s done sometimes, I have question. The reason is sometimes the idea sounds wonderful that [our institution] wants to be part of cross-cultural things and they’re spending a lot of time and money expanding. Sometimes it gets sort of mixed up with this idea that going to another country to learn is a great idea but they sometimes miss substance, meaning students go to some other country but they may never leave a campus but just study cultures there and are just physically there. That level of assimilation fails to foster understanding of truly how people live, truly, on another level of understanding the way of living in that particular culture and to develop empathy. Some programs I kind of have a question about it. Faculty leader assumptions about the graduate learner. To better understand faculty leader beliefs about graduate education abroad, faculty leaders shared about their beliefs, assumptions, and values regarding graduate students as learners. Commonly shared statements about graduate learners included “a higher level of maturity,” “self-motivated,” “professionals,” “ability to transition in new contexts,” “flexible,” and “independent learners.” Ezra supported the notion of maturity when she said, “I think that one of the assumptions is that if you’re in a doctoral program, you’re going to be more mature so that you’d be more prepared, and more responsible.” Similarly, Barb expressed her thoughts on graduate students within graduate education abroad, “Their maturity sets them apart. Theoretically, they are at a developmental stage where they’re not going to do something stupid and are more engaged.” Ben expanded on 87 the idea of maturity in the context of graduate students as adults with professional and personal responsibilities that influence their experience. Dealing with a group of [graduate] students, mostly who work full time, it's already also very self-selective, mature crowd. The trip is not cheap and they have to pay. They want to make the most of it. Nobody was there to sabotage or to goof off or to over-enjoy. You're beyond that. These are all mature professionals. Faculty leader assumptions also support existing knowledge about graduate students as more experienced professionally and with extensive life experience supporting complex cognitive and developmental abilities (Dirkx, Janka Millar, Berquist, & Vizvary, 2014). For example, Connie demonstrated her views, “[Graduate students] handle themselves extremely mature and professionally. They take their job very seriously and they all work so hard to prepare every day. Just being graduate level, age-wise, I think it’s a different level of maturity and commitment.” Further, faculty leaders revealed an awareness of commitments of graduate learners and the need for unique, short-term options to provide opportunities for international learning and cross-cultural learning. Anna shared her perspective, I would say that from our perspective, the school’s perspective, and my perspective, that short-term education abroad is key for access. Our students, and I assume this is true of other graduate students, our students have kids, have jobs, have very complicated lives, and just can’t take off a semester to do a full semester education abroad. Along similar lines, Isabel shared, There are a lot of extended interests from the graduates and the current students to do more cross-cultural work. Clearly, it’s part of the incentives [of short-term education 88 abroad]. This isn’t the only reason that they do it, but it seems to be there are more independent interests in doing the cross-cultural things. By better understanding faculty leader beliefs about graduate learners, we can begin to develop a lens to understand how faculty leaders manifest their beliefs and assumptions in action through the development and implementation graduate education abroad programming. What faculty leaders like most about being a faculty leader of graduate education abroad. Five main themes emerged about what faculty leaders like most about being a faculty leader of graduate education abroad. Interaction with graduate students in new contexts. A common reason identified by faculty leaders of what they like most about graduate education abroad was the opportunity to interact and engage with graduate students in a new, intensive context. Michael appreciated the opportunity to “be able to interact with students in an informal way.” Highlighting what she liked most about being a faculty leader, Leslie valued “getting to know these students in a much deeper way and having a kind of connection and a kind of community that we're building together.” Greg described the increasingly intimate interactions with students yielded from the education abroad experience, What I like about it is the intensity of everyday experience. You are with 18, 20 people, all the time. A lot of my students came back and said, ‘No, we have never talked about our bowel movements with our faculty ever as much as we did when we went there, because that was a crucial question.’ ‘How're you feeling? How's your tummy?’ That's the first question I start every day with. Something I never thought I would. That kind of a proximity. Kind of an intimacy in some way. Both beautiful, powerful. We're not used to it. 89 With an intensive, short duration, combined with logistical structures of group travel, study, and living situations, most faculty found themselves intensively interacting with students in ways that otherwise would not be possible in a traditional classroom or departmental setting. Observation of learning in action. Another frequent response regarding what faculty leaders like most about short-term education abroad was the ability to observe students learning in action. Leslie described this as “watching people come into consciousness about things that I find great pleasure in. [To be able] to watch other people get it.” Similarly, Jacob was enthralled with “seeing students enjoy activities and locations and interacting with people that wouldn't have had otherwise.” Fred expanded on learning in action, What I like most is watching the light bulbs go off as they see things and understand things about cultural differences. Watching them just grow as people. It’s amazing how much they grow from—sometimes people have never been outside of the state or the only place they’ve been outside of their home state is to go to college, to people who are now world citizens. You see it. You see the change. In general, the ability to literally witness learning with students was a positive attribute of the experience for faculty leaders. As explained by Ben, learning in action was the capability “to see how excited everybody was about learning, seeing new things, making connections, and experimenting with different ways of looking at the world at the intellectual level.” Learning in action was a tangible point of fulfillment for faculty leaders. Application of disciplinary knowledge. Witnessing students’ application of disciplinary content within the international context was another highlight shared by faculty leaders. Faculty leaders also found excitement in being able to observe their own disciplinary work being applied 90 in international environments. Ben aligned himself as a learner, a positive attribute of graduate education abroad. It was also fun for me to see how things work. That's what I study, how governments operate and how they can operate better. I learned a lot from the field visits as well, so I was in a sense, I was an additional student in the class because I got to go to see these places and talk to these people that it's almost like doing field work, but in a coupled capacity as teaching a class, which is idea. It's your research and your teaching converge. Exploration of an international context. Many faculty cited the opportunity to “go abroad” or “to travel” as what they liked most about short-term education abroad. This response supports the professional and personal benefits and goals as identified by many faculty leaders. James stated that the ability to “see a different country and culture for the first time” was a motivating factor for faculty leaders. Ezra supported this notion by stating, “Being able to go overseas and confront some of my own assumptions helped me learn about myself and life in a way that can only strengthen my abilities as a faculty member and for my students.” A unique pedagogical opportunity. A final emphasis was placed on the pedagogical uniqueness of “leading and teaching” education abroad. Many leaders were enthusiastic to have an opportunity to either re-create a course within an international context or to develop an entirely new experience encompassing a desired topic or theme of interest. The “pedagogical flexibility” and “opportunity for pedagogical creativity” was both “inviting and invigorating” for many faculty leaders. Michael described the unique opportunity to take curricular concepts and apply them outside of a traditional classroom, What I like most is the opportunity. I just love being and doing education outside of a classroom setting, and having it be much more about people’s experiences, reflecting on 91 them. Having education be a more ‘whole body’ experience, so that it’s not, ‘Let’s talk about the reading’ and whatever. But it’s more, ‘This is how I’m feeling. These are the smells that I’m confronting. These are the sounds that I’m confronting.’ It is just a much more visceral reaction, and ‘How do we make sense of that?’ Faculty leader challenges and dislikes of graduate education abroad. Seven main themes emerged from the data about what components faculty leaders liked least about their graduate education abroad experience and what was most challenging as a faculty leader. Managing interpersonal relationships and challenging students. Though interacting with students was the top reason faculty leaders liked leading graduate education abroad, interacting with challenging students was emphasized as a top area of contention for faculty leaders. Most leaders identified “difficult student dynamics” or “dealing with some of the interpersonal things or difficulties between students” as major dislikes about the education abroad experience. Being closely involved with students over an intensive period made challenging group dynamics or student behaviors seem even more difficult. Devon described his experience, One of our challenges—is to, in a collective culture, try to behave more collectively than individually. It’s when people, at some point, feel the need to assert their individualism that it is disruptive to the rest of the group. It’s either because they can’t seem to get to the bus on time, or they are uncomfortable and complaining, or they want to have some special arrangement, or alienates others, or they’re doing something that then delays the rest of the group, or interferes with the planned agenda. Flexibility is always something you must be available or willing to do, and that’s one of our watch words of our experience. We’ve got to be flexible. Some people push the envelope on that. 92 In a group experience, in a new context with many unknowns requiring flexibility, discomfort and difficult group or individual dynamics can add an additional, often challenging layer to the experience for faculty leaders. For example, Connie shared, A real challenge is when I watch small groups start to form that seem like they are missing out on the richness of engaging with other people on the trip. It's very hard for me to know when is the right time to be involved in that. Taking on the responsibility for ensuring a quality experience for all participants can add stress on top of an already intensive experience. Balancing boundaries between faculty leaders and students. Related to the challenge of managing difficult interpersonal relationships or group dynamics, faculty leaders identified challenges in maintaining professional and personal boundaries with students. With an intensive program with participants and faculty leaders in close quarters on busses, staying at the same hotel, dining together, and learning together, the informality of the situation can make it difficult to uphold the official, professional roles of faculty leaders. For example, Greg shared this challenge of balancing boundaries with students, [The experience presents] a much more informal space. That is both the strength and the biggest challenge, how to manage that proximity, intimacy all the time. I cannot check out for a minute. It is both exciting and the teaching opportunities are fantastic while the burden is excruciating. The emotional burden is excruciating. I would say the same thing that is a strength is also the weakness. Likewise, Anna expressed difficulty in “keeping that sense of camaraderie and group cohesion and being able to maintain that [professional] boundary a little bit, and figuring out when there’s issues.” Furthering this idea, Leslie stated, 93 There are these competing demands that— for me, I think the interpersonal is the hardest part of these because three-and-a-half weeks is a long time to be navigating how close is the right closeness and how distant is the right distance. No faculty leader offered a solution for this challenge. Though all leaders expressed thoroughly maintaining appropriateness in their interactions with students, ultimately it presented a challenge. The leaders gained pleasure in being able to develop deepened relationships with graduate students while at the same time they faced the continual pressure of a need to manage professional boundaries. Managing program logistics, administration, financial constraints, and ensuring health and safety. With most faculty leaders reporting that administrative and program logistics fell upon their shoulders, administrative preparation, program development and logistics, financial concerns, and management of health and safety emerged as challenges for faculty leaders. Many leaders noted a burden of balancing “preparation required for program logistics” and the details required on the administrative side of programming such as “budgeting, paperwork, and other administrative requirements through campus and international partners.” For some leaders, planning and development had to occur prior to approval of the program or prior to enrollment of students. With most work being completed on the front end, a few some faculty leaders experienced frustration as their programs were either not approved, didn’t receive sufficient funding, or did not meet minimum university enrollment numbers. Describing this experience, Natalie expressed, It took a lot of time to prepare and there was no guarantee. I mean, I spent all that time lining up lecturers and if I didn’t get a minimum of 11 students to sign up, it wasn’t going to run. It’s somewhat of a gamble or risk that you’re developing a course. It isn't just like 94 writing a course as you would do at home where you can set what you want students to read and learning objectives, but this is about finding agencies and lining up experts and working with developing things to do on the weekends that are clearly outside of what normal academic responsibilities are. The time commitment in preparing and implementing short-term programming was a common theme amongst leaders. Julie shared, “It takes so much work at the start to set up and there is so much to learn that it can be pretty daunting.” Moreover, establishing international relationships and planning site visits or presentations takes time. This planning “must be balanced with day-today responsibilities teaching, research, advising, and all we have to do.” Related, some leaders disliked how cost became a limitation when creating a short-term program in a less commonly traveled to country to support a specific learning objective or context. For some, “elevated costs were prohibitive of even creating the program” or program costs “caused barriers for students who wanted to participate but couldn’t afford it.” For example, Michael described, It’s too expensive, in that it’s an obstacle for a bunch of people who can’t actually afford it. I don’t think the University is as committed in practice as it is rhetorically to giving students that kind of experience ─ and so, there are people who I think would be great participants, who would provide a lot, who would contribute a lot, who would gain a lot, and can’t do it because it’s too expensive. Following this same idea, a few faculty leaders expressed the challenge of budgeting for an international experience without prior knowledge of specifics within that country. Some leaders faced overspending issues while others were challenged with having to cancel components of their itineraries due to unforeseen costs or circumstances. 95 The workload of getting a short-term program “up and running” came as a burden for many faculty leaders. Ben stated, Getting this off the ground, there's a lot of fixed costs in getting the partnerships ready and getting the logistics ready, and making sure that everybody knows that they need to get a Visa and the logistical administrative oversight of getting the procedures and the structures and the people to make it up and running. It's a lot of work. In addition to logistical or administrative challenges, various faculty leaders also commented on the need to manage and safety issues. Faculty leaders mostly worked with their home institutions to set up international insurance and use existing structures for in-country health or safety procedures. Ultimately though, the responsibility of ensuring safety and helping students in the case of a health issue fell on the faculty leader. Each leader had to balance facilitating the international experience for their group while managing any issues that arose. Devon commented, “Those are challenges that the leader has to be aware of, paying attention to, a set of health and safety issues, but also a set of these things can’t interfere with the experience of the group members, their understanding.” Working with contextual unpredictability. Despite the excitement of engaging pedagogically and experientially in an international context, some faculty leaders expressed discontentment with the unpredictability of leading a program in an unfamiliar context. The challenges of navigating an international setting with different norms, processes, and expectations, posed difficulty for some faculty leaders. For example, “there are many unexpected things that emerge” and “the hardest thing is when unexpected things happen that have very little to do with curriculum.” Trying to balance a quality program, maintaining logistics, and ensuring student contentment in an unpredictable context, faculty leaders at times felt overwhelmed or 96 frustrated by being “responsible for dealing with it all.” Simon commented on the very nature of unpredictability and being responsible for making decisions, modifying plans, or accommodating changes with a moment’s notice. “In the moment, having to make decisions and having the experience and the capacity and the communication tool to be able to do all of that, fairly shortterm and quickly.” Reconciling academic challenges and scholarly, institutional, and culturally appropriate contexts and expectations. When creating a new course for the graduate education abroad experience or transitioning an existing curriculum to a condensed, short-term context, faculty leaders often encountered frustration. Many leaders emphasized the “lack of time to implement all required components” or “difficulty keeping up with grading with such a condensed format.” Similarly, Julie shared, What I liked least was the fact that I’m a little concerned that the course suffered because [the students] didn’t have time to do the work, or they did the work, but they may have felt rushed, and I wish that that wasn’t like that. Having time throughout the education abroad experience to maintain the academic workload, process readings, or produce writing or other assignments was a notable limitation academically for many faculty. For some programs, the weight of the academic readings or assignments was placed before and/or after the in-country experience. With that said, some faculty leaders felt this was challenging as the students may have read supportive content months before experiencing something first hand. The disconnect between academic preparation and experiential learning made it challenging to establish connections between content and experience. Embracing the international and culturally appropriate context, while balancing institutional expectations was also noted as a challenging aspect of graduate education abroad. 97 Helping foster student understanding and responses to sometimes seemingly contradictory appropriateness between two cultures can pose challenges for leaders. Leslie described her experience, As a researcher, it can be really challenging. I've had it happen in several contexts now where something has happened in the culture that I'm in that is really inappropriate from a U.S. standpoint. It's also come into play in cultural ways where the culture in [a country] is in conflict with some of what our students have a right to expect and values that we as an institution have in place for good reasons. When those two things come into conflict, it's very challenging for me to know how to honor the culture, how to be grateful of the culture of the host institution, to be grateful to our hosts, and at the same time to be true to my own perspective as a human and a scholar and the institutional commitments that we have toward diversity of ability, race, religion, etcetera. Similar challenges were shared in terms of faculty leaders’ observations of students engaging with the host culture in locally inappropriate ways thus faculty leaders had to find methods to intervene between a local culture and institutional culture with their students. Balancing the burden on family. Though affecting less faculty, the burden that was placed on faculty leader families due to their participation in graduate education abroad was a prominent concern for those who were affected. Barb stated, “to participate, I had to leave behind my family and real-life responsibilities.” Mirroring this sentiment, Ben felt pressures of “forcing my wife to pull double parental duty for three weeks while I was gone.” Beyond the additional “burden” placed on spouses or family members when a faculty leader is out of country, consistent communication was also noted as an impediment of the experience as time changes, technology, or internet access can be limited in certain areas. 98 Articulating program value. A final challenge discussed by faculty leaders was the ability to articulate the value of graduate education abroad. Leaders touched on the many facets of each program and how the many moving parts of each experience all intertwine to create an overall experience. Trying to elaborate on the value of the program she leads, Connie stated, I think the challenge to cleanly articulate to leadership and other people the benefits and strengths of the program is hard to articulate. It's really hard. How do we honor this stuff that's often about different ways of learning? Experiences and changes in thought. These incredible things. I think sometimes there's these experiences, things that happen, that are really hard to articulate. It's not an easy survey-able checkbox. When making comparisons or statements of learning or growth with traditional courses, faculty leaders found it difficult to capture. There was no “easy way” to gather data around individual learning and transformation gains within the short-term programs. Many faculty mentioned how gains in learning and growth in each individual may show up much later in life, maybe even after they leave the program. In summary, faculty leaders identified seven prominent challenges or components of graduate education that they most disliked. These challenges include managing interpersonal relationships and challenging students, managing program logistics, administration, financial constraints, and ensuring health and safety, working with contextual unpredictability, reconciling academic challenges and scholarly, institutional, and culturally appropriate contexts and expectations, balancing the burden on family, and articulating program value. Summary: Faculty leader beliefs, assumptions, and values about graduate education abroad. In exploring the role of faculty leaders in graduate education abroad, various beliefs, assumptions and values emerged that influence what it means to be a faculty leader. 99 Overwhelmingly, faculty leaders believe in the inherent value of graduate education abroad in terms of learning, personal and professional development, and applying disciplinary knowledge in an experiential context. However, there are some concerns about ensuring academic rigor and substance when transitioning content to an international context or when constructing short-term learning experiences. The use of graduate education abroad is a pedagogically exciting opportunity that generates creativity in teaching and stimulates new or expanded research initiatives. Faculty leaders uphold graduate education abroad as having a positive influence on their academic departments while yielding increased depth of interaction with students. Faculty leaders also hold strong beliefs about graduate students as mature, professional, independent thinkers with personal and professional objectives for studying abroad with minimal need for supervision. Examining the benefits of short-term experiences, leaders view opportunities for graduate students to thrive through professional interactions, personal transformations, application of disciplinary knowledge, and adaptability to and learning within an international context. Most faculty leaders had not previously intentionally reflected on their role as a faculty leader. However, the majority were able to reflect on their responsibilities and identify what being a faculty leader means to them, resulting in a continuum of responsibilities. Faculty leaders laid out their typical daily responsibilities and how they believed they should interact with students as a leader within the international context. Finally, faculty leaders explored their beliefs about graduate education abroad in relation to their individual experiences by illustrating most and least liked experiences as faculty leaders. 100 Faculty Leader Beliefs, Assumptions, and Values about Graduate Education Abroad Manifested in Action To better understand what faculty leaders actually do in their role as a faculty leader, this section addresses how faculty leader beliefs, assumptions, and values were manifested in action within graduate education abroad. Four main themes emerged from the data including a) institutional logistics and planning affecting pedagogical variability, b) curricular approaches to short-term education abroad, c) components of graduate level programming, and 4) assessment of graduate education abroad. Institutional logistics and planning affecting pedagogical variability. For this study, faculty leaders from two separate institutions were recruited for participation in a variety of professional disciplines and colleges (see Figure 1). Institutional logistical and planning influences arose as important contextual factors when examining the intentions, ideals, and contexts of faculty leaders. Key structures surrounding planning and logistics emerged as important when leading graduate education abroad. One key influence was institutional logistical and planning support. At the first institution (henceforth, West University), graduate education abroad programming was decentralized from the central university education abroad office. Though faculty leaders had the option to use resources from the education abroad office including risk management training, health insurance access, and budget planning support, the majority of logistical planning and implementation fell on the faculty leader. Many West University faculty leaders expressed how this system added “an immense additional workload” and “an exhausting phase of preparation” to their already heavy workloads. Charlize explained how she used as many available resources as possible to lessen her logistical responsibilities. “The education abroad team has been really helpful in 101 giving us insight on things like visas, how to make sure that that piece works, and paying bills on our behalf… helping to set up a budget and to do the exchange rates of paying the vendors that are international.” James used another strategy in his approach to planning a short-term experience. He shared that his program uses international or external vendors to assist with logistical planning such as establishing “suggested itineraries, booking the hotels, and all the facilities, accommodations, buses, guides, all of that.” However, Leslie shared her sense of responsibility as short-term program “planning entirely rests on the faculty member.” The decentralized nature of graduate education abroad leadership and planning influenced how faculty leaders approached the development and implementation of short-term programs in that they felt they had to “seek out resources and support” which resulted in “much trial and error”. Thus, each program’s structure, duration, purpose, and academic orientation varied greatly with minimal overlap from department to department. At the second university (henceforth East University), unlike West University, the university had a broad, well-developed structure for education abroad and international education initiatives for both undergraduate and graduate level programming including central support offices in each college, international campuses or partnering campuses, and logistical support. This centralized support provided foundations for program creation and a model for faculty leaders to follow. Michael elaborated, [They] handle the logistics of scheduling, when the class is actually going to be, and figuring out the financing of the whole thing. Then the University handles the student registration. There are briefings for the students on the obligations for travel that are handled by the [office]. They instruct the students how to get their visas, and what kind of shots they need, and of that kind of stuff. 102 This centralized structure revealed institutional value for graduate education abroad, facilitating the process for faculty leaders to create or engage in these experiences and lessening some of the logistical and planning burdens from faculty leaders. Another key institutional influence for logistics and planning is for-credit and not-forcredit program decisions. All faculty leaders at East University reported for-credit options for their students as their short-term experiences were credit bearing courses reflective of similar or mirrored courses within their disciplinary curriculum. Even courses that were not mirrored provided up to three to six credits for participants to support eligibility for financial aid assistance, which was a policy encouraged by the University. Of the West university programs studied, six were for-credit options, two offered both for-credit and not-for-credit options, and three were not-for-credit experiences. For the law, business, and social work disciplines at West University, departmental strategies drove decisions to offer for-credit options. Though both West and East University faculty leaders reported varying degrees of departmental or institutional support for logistical planning, making international contacts, and some financial support for students, leaders at both institutions expressed need for additional support. West’s faculty leaders discussed the desire for collaboration with another faculty leader and/or the assistance of one or more graduate student teaching assistants in planning or assisting with local language or logistics. For example, Anna described, “If something happened that forced one of us to respond and be absent for a few hours, or a day away from the group, at least we had the other person to be able to be there and keep everything moving.” Ezra shared her experience using a graduate student assistant, “I had a TA who had a lot of experience in [the country], and he basically did a scouting trip ahead of time and set up a lot of the tours. We were responsible for everything, getting buses and all of that, logistics.” This support was essential to 103 the perceived success of graduate education abroad as faculty leaders often described starting programs “from the ground up” with little or no international support. Similarly, East University faculty leaders hired teaching assistants and often worked collaboratively with a second faculty leader to support program logistics, help with cultural or language transitions, and co-share in teaching responsibilities. Barb shared, “This is the key, to get [a TA] who knows what they’re doing. She was a doctoral student who had lived in Ireland when she was young, so knew a lot… of those logistics things.” Though there were similarities in curricular approaches of the faculty leaders from two institutions, the institutional structures and values supporting graduate education abroad influenced the faculty leader approaches to developing and implementing short-term programming. Curricular approaches to short-term education abroad. Faculty leaders discussed various approaches to planning and developing curricula for their graduate education abroad programs, including two curricular models about how courses were created, credit and non-credit options, and six types of graduate education abroad. Subject-based vs. project-based models. Two curricular models emerged that help build understanding of the ways in which faculty leaders conceptualize their short-term programs and the types of graduate education abroad. A continuum of approaches exists between the two types emerged, but generally, characteristics of faculty leader approaches aligned with one type over the other. Thus, for this study, the two broad approach types are defined. First, is a subject-based, disciplinary focused model as was followed by eight faculty leaders in this study. Programs following this model are focused on a pre-existing, approved curricular course. These programs often have a specific, disciplinary purpose or subject-based curricular theme about which the 104 short-term experience focuses and is designed around. The other model is a project-based model which was followed by thirteen of this study’s faculty leaders. This model presents an opportunity for faculty leaders to select a broad theme or issue to explore within the international context. Then, the graduate education program is designed around that theme, seeking opportunities and experiences that will reinforce learning around that theme or issue. These two models help guide understanding of the types of graduate education abroad. Credit vs. non-credit. Within the various types of short-term education abroad discussed in the next section, graduate education abroad was offered as both for-credit and not-for-credit options. There was no standard identified by faculty leaders for identifying when a program would be for- or not-for- credit, but there was a general “rule of thumb”. Faculty leaders had specific beliefs about graduate learners as mature, professional adults with responsibilities, jobs, family demands, etc. Katherine verbalized what many faculty leaders discussed, highlighting not only academic or curricular reasons to consider in making credit decisions, but also a need to offer for-credit options “so graduate students can qualify for financial aid.” The goal of making financial support an option for the graduate education abroad provides access to more students, as was described by Connie, removing limitations on participation due to financial constraints. For-credit options were prominent in several program types including identical courses, revised or altered courses, and embedded experiences. For new courses and professional collaborations, for-credit options were available in most programs. Of the faculty leaders interviewed, most that did not provide for-credit options received some financial support for participating students from their department or college or their students engaged in strategic fundraising efforts. In considering these two options, the question of planning arose. Does faculty leader planning differ for not-for-credit versus for-credit short-term programs? The findings present a 105 similar approach to planning for the identical courses, revised or altered courses, and embedded experiences program types. With curricular components mirroring already established courses with approved content and assignments, identical courses required little curricular planning. Ben elaborated, I didn't really plan in advance. I didn't know exactly how it was going to go. My plan was to stick to the program as much as possible, make it as similar to what was happening here [at East University] as possible… We had the repertoire of pedagogical tricks, and then, well, we decided on which ones we should deploy. Similarly, Levi echoed, “There’s not that much to change. There's a whole procedure of how this course gets approved and why it's required and what they're planning to achieve with this course. I tried to keep the course as intact as possible.” For other faculty leaders of revised courses or embedded courses, time was spent on “integrating site or cultural visits, local speakers, and making connections.” With new courses and professional collaborations, much of the planning process involved researching the international location, working with international partners to plan content, and designing the course around a topic or theme. As opposed to an already established curriculum, some used a backwards design. Leslie discussed how she designed her course. “We had to see what our options were before we could design the doings and specific activities. I knew the topic or main objectives, I just had to go backwards to see how we would reach them.” Thus, there was much more groundwork and planning required for the not-for-credit and the new course options. Types of graduate education abroad. In discussing curricular approaches with faculty leaders, in contrast to Engle and Engle’s (2003) taxonomy for short-term education abroad, six 106 specific curricular types of, or approaches to, short-term programming emerged for graduate education abroad: identical course, revised or altered course, embedded experience, creation of a new course, professional collaboration, and study tour. Identical course. This type of course consisted of faculty leaders teaching an already existent course that is ordinarily taught on a home campus within an international context; all content (assignments, readings, tests, etc.) remain the same. Ben reinforced this type of shortterm program approach, “it was the exact same course with the exact same requirement, the exact same readings.” He went on to explain, Rather than having 14 weeks to read and prepare and do assignments, they have to do that before and after—we'd change a little bit the classroom also. The way we run the classroom to allow for a little more discussion, more questions, because I mean it would be unreasonable to expect that they read everything, or even if they did, that they remember everything as fresh as I just read it and read it to the class. We had to adjust the running of the class to be mindful that students were getting a lot of what would happen here that was not happening there. There's a lot that was happening there that would not have happened here. They wanted to ask questions about the field visits and integrate what they saw in the readings, so there's a different—the classroom dynamic was a little bit different. Katherine also shared this approach, We teach two courses that are required on campus. We have to make sure that the students who take these courses during the education abroad program, get the same content and the same challenges that the students get, who are taking those two courses here on campus. 107 Revised or altered course. This type of short-term education abroad programming consists of using an already existing course but revising content, pacing, and requirements to adapt to and accommodate the international context and schedule change. Transitioning a 14-16week course to a 2-4-week course can be challenging. Additionally, Katherine discussed, as faculty leaders, “we have an opportunity to engage in the local culture and industry to enrich our course context in [the country] with visits, speakers, or tours.” With the intensity of the condensed scheduling, as Levi discussed, “it can be challenging to fit in and absorb all of the readings and content.” With contextual opportunities for curricular enrichment and time limitation challenges, revising or altering course content presents an alternative type of program. Embedded experience. The embedded experience includes an existing, semester-long course with a short-term international experience embedded within the course. For example, Connie described how she is a faculty leader for an embedded graduate education abroad experience within an online course. It is a four-credit hour online course. Semester-long. Throughout the whole semester. The online course can only be taken by students who are doing the education abroad. It's integrated with that. There's additional content too, not just the experiential piece. The education abroad, we do ten days over the spring break. We leave on a Thursday, come back on a Sunday. We do not have them online or doing online stuff when they're abroad. It's bookended. There’s specific preparation for the experience abroad and it’s connected to the course afterwards. Both academic and personal. Another example of an embedded option was described by James. In his program, all graduate students are required to participate in a graduate education abroad program at some 108 point. Though the country of the program may vary, the required course structure is the same. He elaborated, We actually have a specific course that everybody has to take. They’re required to do an international course—it’s a three-credit course—regardless of which location they’re in. Those students are required to do it. It’s not an elective. The experience is linked within the course before and after they travel for the week internationally. Creation of new course. For other faculty leaders, graduate education abroad presented an opportunity to create a new course with a distinct contextualized content. This approach typically consisted of a faculty leader identifying a location, purpose, learning objectives, and logistics and then presenting the course or experience idea to their department or college for approval. Leslie explained her process for creating her course. I worked with two doctoral students who were [native] who were [in the country] for the summer. We went to different sites, trying to imagine, what would a program look like? How long would it be? What are the experiences our students would have to have for what reason? What's a theme that we would choose? Who would our partners be and in what capacity? It just felt like I could not—the first time that I met these people couldn't be the first time with students. I did that, and then we built the program. Then, I wrote a note to the dean that said, ‘I think we should have this—I think we should have an education abroad to [the country] for these reasons,’ and I laid out what [the country] offers. It's this, this, and this. And that I wanted to go on this exploratory trip to do this exploratory work and develop this course opportunity. 109 Michael created a course stemming from demand from students for international opportunities. He responded to the demand, came up with the topic of interest, and then identified a country that fit the topic. He shared his process, We had some demand for students to do some courses at ‘education abroad’ sites. I’m particularly interested in [my discipline] and [the country] was going to be a perfect place to do that kind of class. The opportunity just kind of emerged to be able to do that. We just said, ‘We’re going to do this’ and [the administration] said ‘Ok.’ We spend very little time in the classroom there; we’re traveling around talking to people. We spend three weeks in [country] and they have a seven-week course prior to their trip. There are a couple of additional sessions for the students. Professional collaboration. Professional collaboration is inclusive of engagement with professionals within the international context. In some instances, this included a “buddy system” wherein graduate students were paired with professionals or other peer colleagues in the country abroad. For others, graduate students were given a professional role to give presentations, facilitate workshops as “experts in their fields”, engage in research dialogues, or engage with employees at professional business sites. This approach, was described by Anna, “[The students] are in the room with leadership. That is expecting collegial dialogue. That they're able to give as well as receive information about the field.” Additionally, Ezra discussed the use of a symposium to allow graduate students and international colleagues to engage in depth academic dialogue surrounding research areas. The biggest difference is their chance to talk about their research and collaborate with others. In the academic symposium that we had, they have read deeply about a particular area. In many cases, they were reporting their research that they did and connecting it 110 back to the literature. I would say they were all pretty polished presentations about research. It was scholarly. It is important to note that many of the short-term program types were inclusive of opportunities for professional collaboration and interaction, often including presentations or sharing of research. A differing factor is the intentional objective or purpose of the specific program as an experience for professional collaboration or an experience with a professional collaboration embedded. Study tour. The study tour is the final type of short-term programming identified by faculty leaders. A study tour consists of a program that moves periodically throughout the experience between cities and sites. This type of program uses “field trips” and “cultural and professional site visits” to explore one or more themes within an international context. Study tours often do not consist of deep cultural encounters and can resemble a more touristic approach to the education abroad experience. As Barb shared, site visits go beyond learning about the site itself to an opportunity to engage learning within the international context in different ways at a deeper level. Using a “study tour” model for, Barb described, We just traveled all over the country. We did tours. We looked at small producers. We looked at the big dairy industry. Then, we had about seven or eight lecturers from different universities come and talk to us, and they were just amazing. It was really drawing on the expertise of the place, but then also the experiential learning. Then, you can combine that with that camaraderie of the group experience, where you’re just thrown together for 24 hours a day for several weeks. I mean, that can be dicey, but it also could be an incredible learning environment. 111 In summary, faculty leaders noted a variety of curricular approaches use to approach short-term programming. Leaders identified two main models of programming, subject-based and project-based, that are offered as both for-credit and not-for-credit options. Additionally, six main types of graduate education emerged including identical courses, revised or altered courses, embedded experiences, creation of new courses, professional collaborations, and study tours. Components of graduate education abroad. Within the various types of short-term programming discussed, faculty leaders discussed a variety of components that support the successful implementation and facilitation of graduate education abroad. The identified components of graduate education abroad are diverse and vary from program to program. However, faculty leaders recognized some general commonalities took place before, during, and after the experience. The commonalities that emerged as “critical components of graduate education abroad” include: timing, logistics, and placement of program; flexibility; institutional and personal relationship building; strong curriculum; clear expectations; pre-trip orientations; positive group dynamics; facilitated experiential learning; professional and collaborative sharing of research and knowledge; site visits; cultural exposure; reflective debriefings; post-travel meetings or gatherings; formal post-travel writing assignments or exams; post-travel presentations; and blogs. Timing, logistics, and placement of experience. Timing, logistics, and placement of the experience were reinforced by Ben to include “consideration of the weather and time of year in the country, academic schedules, and academic and personal conflicts of students, for example in the summer.” Greg also summarized the importance of logistical details, “Logistics have to be really well managed so you’re not wasting too much time.” 112 Flexibility. In addition to intentional planning efforts, the necessity for flexibility throughout the entire process of creating and leading a graduate education abroad experience was also emphasized widely by faculty leaders. Scott shared his thoughts on flexibility, “we have to have, no, we need flexibility in being able to adapt both for the student that's participating in it and for the program.” Flexibility permeated all of the components of graduate education abroad. Institutional and personal relationships. To best plan for the international experiences, leaders highlighted the need to develop institutional and personal relationships in the country of travel. These relationships were viewed as essential for planning, logistics, support, and troubleshooting. Katherine highlighted the need for “planning and organization by somebody who actually as a good connection with the site.” Similarly, Devon strongly advocated for the development of international partners. We had an institutional relationship, which I think is fundamental, around [planning]. We had a knowledgeable person who had been at [our institution], gotten his doctorate here, who was in a leadership role at [our partnering] institution, who we could trust and count on. He had an office staff and a team that worked with us to develop the logistics and some of the planning and coordination. Those were three key elements. Connections with international partners and/or international institutions or agencies was essential for successful planning of graduate education abroad. Strong curriculum. Though each faculty leader had individual approaches to program design, curriculum was viewed as a critical component of graduate education abroad. The program curriculum was “the backbone of the experience” and “essential for learning.” Simon discussed curriculum, 113 The curriculum is the most important thing. The actual workshops, what is being set up, what is being taught. For our students, [graduate education abroad] is very participatory. It’s not like—it should never be a chore for them to—it’s not as though they go and listen to lectures all day. It’s about give and take. It’s about active work. Engaging graduate students through curriculum was also discussed by Fred. He emphasized the importance of ensuring a rigorous, graduate level curriculum, despite the short duration of the experience. He described his perspective, Avoid the temptation to make it education-light. In other words, avoid the temptation to dummy things down and lower the educational expectations. Also, learn to be flexible, so that you can require very strong academic performance, but understand that these kids are in an environment they’ve never been in before and that everything is new for them. By planning in advance and taking the time to consider contextualized influences on a graduate education abroad curriculum, faculty leaders can maintain high academic expectations and provide a clear, organized academic plan for graduate student participants. Clear expectations and goals. In addition to establishing relationships and planning logistics, the clarification and communication of expectations, learning objectives, and goals with graduate student participants was the most prominent component of pre-trip planning. Faculty leaders emphasized clearly communicated expectations to “make sure everyone is on the same page” and “ensure there are no misunderstandings.” Anna expressed this importance, “Really clear goals. Really clear communication upfront with students about what they’re gonna be doing and what we want them to get out of it.” Sharing this perspective, Charlize elaborated, “I think it’s important for students to have time to think in advance about what they’re going to experience, what they want to get out of the program and how they’re going to be a part of that.” 114 Devon expanded that graduate students should have a general understanding of the purpose behind the experience to be able to meet the expectations. Part of setting and communicating expectations is reflected in the purpose. It is this combination of academic experience, cultural understanding, building an awareness of globalization, what it is, how it’s defined, how it’s impacting another culture, how it impacts our culture, and then opportunities for immersion. It’s multifaceted. They must understand this to be fully engaged in the experience. Similarly, Natalie commented on the need to help students understand identified expectations or objectives. She said, You need to lay out the objectives very clearly, and then you need to come up with tools that are going to provide students with ways to accomplish the learning objectives and maximize the trip experience. There’s just so much and so many stimuli, but you want them to take away specific learning objectives. You must communicate these clearly. Pre-trip orientations. To communicate program expectations and determine the expectations of participants, pre-trip orientations were commonly used. Though they varied in duration and content, almost all faculty leaders used orientations before traveling to “discuss logistics,” “get to know one another,” “communicate expectations,” and “answer questions.” Ezra expanded on the importance of the orientation, The pre-trip orientation is vital. We had three… The purpose of the pre-trip orientation for us was to help students understand what to expect so there was a lot of clarity of expectations in terms of behavior, in terms of what the trip would be about, to keep them as informed as possible so that they’d be prepared for what would happen and for their 115 role and responsibilities, but also to help them to start to read and think about [the country and cultural context]. Some faculty leaders led a single orientation session that lasted several hours while others held multiple orientations sessions of a few hours each. Others noted how the graduate education abroad experience was nestled within a bigger course so orientation activities were embedded within the course class sessions. Nonetheless, regardless of how the content was transmitted, all leaders emphasized the use of meetings and orientations as critical for an effective, wellcommunicated experience. Positive group dynamics. To set an effective foundation for a short-term experience, all faculty leaders identified the importance of building positive group dynamics. Group dynamics were viewed as a positive, rewarding aspect of graduate education abroad as well as one of the most challenging parts of the experience for faculty leaders. Thus, intentionally building positive group dynamics clearly emerged as a necessary pre- and during- travel activity. Barb reinforced this when she stated, “You can never emphasize enough the importance of good dynamics.” Sharing this sentiment, Isabel relayed, Preparation of students emotionally, psychologically is necessary. I have to really supervise and meet with them every day because in many ways it’s confusing and it’s overwhelming because they have to adjust not only to the people that they work with but their own personal issues of it in different countries and that they’re open to find out about themselves that they didn’t even know, adaptability, flexibility, fear, etc. Barb elaborated, “[Short-term education abroad is] a group experience. Part of the assumption is you’re just going to be a full participating member, contributing, enthusiastic member, and 116 you’re going to do what’s required, and that is a lot.” To build and maintain a cohesive group, Isabel discussed the need to prepare, engage, and follow up with the participants. Preparation of students emotionally, psychologically is key. I have to really supervise and meet with them every day because in many ways it’s confusing and it’s overwhelming because they have to adjust not only to the people that they work with but their own personal issues of it in different countries and that they’re open to find out about themselves that they didn’t even know, adaptability, flexibility, fear, etc. The group becomes a support network and conduit for learning. Illustrating the necessity to know your students as well as maintain a pulse on the group dynamic across all facets of the program, Shane expressed, “I think contact with the students is critical. Having time in the same room with the students and for them to spend time on their own and with their colleagues, all important factors.” Comfortable group time, whether pre-travel or midtravel debriefings or relationship building, was viewed by Ezra as a positive part of the overall experience. She explained, At night, it became common practice on the trip that we all went on to gather in the women’s suite because it was bigger. There was no formal agenda. It didn’t necessarily process the day. It was just a time where it was more social, more bonding, building of community. Anything could come up in the discussion. Another aspect of building positive group dynamics extends not only to the program group, but also to people that interact with the program group. Devon emphasized the broad definition of “group” and the influence of the broad community surrounding the graduate education abroad. 117 It’s the networking opportunities that occur, through the faculty mentor relationships, the student buddies, the student connections on campus, as well. Then, it’s the learning community that we take with us. This is another element of this because this year, for example, we had two students from India, a student from Indonesia, a student from South Korea, and then we had eight US passport holders. I’m always valuing the perspectives and the comments that the international students bring to this, either around their own backgrounds or what they’ve pursued professionally in their own countries. These perspectives influence the development of the group. Intentionally building positive group dynamics before travel and during the in-country experience was argued as the best opportunity to lay a strong foundation for a positive graduate education abroad experience. Facilitated experiential learning. Faculty leaders also emphasized the opportunity to facilitate experiential learning opportunities for graduate students through engagement in disciplinary learning through “a variety of experiences on multiple fronts” within an international context. James elaborated on the essence of how he used experience learning to expand his students learning when he stated, It’s not a teachable learning objective so much as it is an objective where you want to give them the opportunity to fill it in themselves. The specific goal is to give them something above and beyond. Give them learning experience that expands their horizons. We try to put everything we teach in the courses, which they were taking here, we've tried to put them into the context of how it can be done differently. Describing how facilitating experiential learning opportunities in short-term programming are an important pedagogical component of graduate education abroad, Connie shared, 118 I am constantly trying to work to connect the experiential component to the academics. The experiential piece was the key component to have students offered an opportunity to actually meet, see, feel, and begin relationships. All the affective stuff that we know brings depth to any of the learning they could get sitting here in the classroom. Mirroring Connie’s statement, Ezra showed how the experiential components of her program supplemented more formal, academic aspects. She said, “That was a really important time to understand practices and observations in an informal way, rather than being in an academic setting. We did that. That was really, I think, an important part of the experience.” Another approach to facilitating experiential learning was the idea of “shock therapy” as Michael stated, or a way to show students the realities of the world. He said, At some level, you can tell people about experiencing poverty or having people be incessantly asking you for money, you can only tell people about what that’s like. If they haven’t experienced it before, they need to experience it, and then deal with that particular kind of experience. So, I value that ‘shock therapy,’ for the lack of a better word, to just kind of smack people upside the head a little bit with the fact that there are people who live in different realities, and that there’s only so much about seeing a movie, or talking about it, or reading about it can communicate. The experience is priceless. Jacob also discussed the integral role of experiential learning for development in his short-term program. We were looking at growth and development, so we could come up with preventable solutions rather than just going down there and treating disease one time a year. Usually we have students, that're involved as hands-on leadership positions in the project. Each of them having a project of their own to take ownership of that. Under that, they get other 119 students involved with their research projects so they can get experience and help build their resumes. There's a very pyramid structure to the whole breakdown of the group. I'm teaching the leadership. The leadership's teaching the other students. Through it all, we all gain valuable, real world experience. Professional and collaborative sharing of research and knowledge. As a professional experiential learning opportunity, faculty leaders pointed out that graduate education abroad also provides a platform for professional and collaborative sharing of research and knowledge. Examples of this type of activity include giving “academic lectures,” “participating in an organized symposium,” “joint, collaborative work with international colleagues or graduate students,” “presentations, seminars, or symposiums,” or “industry presentations.” Ronald described how his students “prepared their research, and then we send that to the company before we go. Once there, we present it to the company and engage in questioning and discussions with employees from the company.” Engaging academic colleagues and students, Devon’s students were split into partners or groups to prepare to give academic lectures surrounding an issue or disciplinary research topic. Leslie also shared how the collaborative nature of sharing research or giving presentations to invite dialogue or debate created an effective tool for learning in graduate education abroad. She elaborated, We've really tried to think hard about not just what do we learn but what do we help our colleagues in-country learn so that it's more collaborative and an exchange of learning and perspectives. We want to ensure that we are providing something to the sites that we partner with instead of it simply being that we go there to have something provided to us and then we move on. We have seminars. 120 The various forms of sharing research or doing presentations aligns with the professional development goal of graduate education abroad identified by faculty leaders. Site visits. Another commonly identified component of graduate education abroad is the use of site visits. The opportunity to engage in the local culture, build relationships, and “be a part of an international context” were all identified as reasons site visits are so useful in shortterm programming. As James said, site visits help us “ensure breadth by the types of places we visit.” Michael explained how site visits support the learning experience, We try to minimize lecture time in [the country]. Like, they could be in a lecture room anywhere. They should not be, by and large, spending most of their time there while in [the country]. It’s going out to organizations, going to farmers’ fields, spending time in markets, getting out and about, and to maximize that opportunity. Faculty leaders also shared the importance of selecting relevant sites to support the intended academic curriculum. Katherine described how critical careful selection of sites is for a quality short-term experience. You must carefully choose the sites that you're going to visit, and really communicate with the people who are going to conduct the activities, so that the level is right, and the speaker or the leader of that activity understands the level of existing knowledge about those students. Targeting specific sites that link to a disciplinary topic or theme was also prevalent in leader responses. Devon exemplified this by stating, The school visits are another key component of this. It’s to expose the students to everything from different teaching styles, different school environments, to physical facilities, the design, the maintenance, the construction, the layout of what’s different, 121 what’s similar. A lot of this, around the experiential activity, is evaluating what’s similar, what’s different, what’s familiar, what’s unfamiliar, in thinking about another culture and another system. As shown by these faculty leaders, though site visits can take on different structures and purposes, they can be a useful pedagogical tool in graduate education abroad. Cultural exposure. Faculty leaders also noted the importance of exposure to the local culture. Ray shared, “Some of the most important things of our culture, or other cultures, are hidden in plain view. We can't see them, because we're surrounded by them like fish in water.” He went on to explain how immersing students within a new culture may yield an opportunity for graduate students to begin to understand their own culture or profession better. Integrating the local culture and utilizing its resources to reinforce learning was viewed as an essential tool for creating a well-rounded, engaging graduate education abroad experience. Devon detailed how it is difficult to understand a culture or industry of interest without understanding or at least gaining awareness of the surrounding culture and history. He shared, In addition to the academic lecture, key components of [graduate education abroad] are the cultural visits and cultural tours. You really can’t understand a culture as rich and historic as [the country], without experiencing some of its world heritage sites… These are must-sees and must-experience, to really understand [the country]. Expanding on cultural visits, Michael contextualized his use of exposing graduate students to culture through his program. The other side to [the experience] was having some things that were not specifically about the topic, but were relevant to having an understanding of the history and culture of [the country] itself. We spend half a day at the oldest slave castle in [the country] where 122 there’s a tour, and a discussion about the historical context of slavery, and how we see the contemporary legacies of slavery. We go to a kingdom that was the largest kingdom in [the country], and we go to the original palace… and hear a little bit about the history of [it]. We go to some cultural centers where people are doing art, and so forth. While most of the time we’re talking to people who are, in some sense, directly related to the topic of the course, we’re also trying to provide some other historical stuff. Even though they’ve had some exposure to [the history] before [the trip], to have some other things that are really about understanding a little more of the history in context of where they are. Cultural exposure is a critical component that overlaps and works in conjunction with other components of graduate education abroad. Reflective debriefings. A component of graduate education abroad shared by almost all faculty leaders is the use of reflective debriefings before, during, and after an experience. From informal reflections with large or small groups, to formal “debriefings” on specific topics or experiences orally or in writing, most leaders discussed using reflective debriefings in some form. Michael described his use of a commonly shared format of daily debriefings or reflections as a group. He shared, We had every day, more or less, a debriefing session where people could talk about, ‘what did they see, how did they understand this, or questions that they had.’ We were trying to maximize the reflection with their direct experiential part. Much like Michael, Leslie discussed the use of targeted reflections to encourage collaborative learning and processing of the intense experience. She explained, We ask students to keep a journal, and in these daily meetings that we all have together, sometimes we'll ask people, ‘What questions do you have? What's really at the front of 123 your mind now?’ Then sometimes those get picked up by the group. Sometimes there will be a more focused question that we'll want to think about. ‘How does this compare to what you were thinking about at the last site?’ ‘Where are you now with the question that you came into this experience with?’ They all come in with a question that they want to be thinking about. ‘Okay. Where are you with that now? Are you finding ways that your experiences are enriching that question?’ Not answering but ‘enriching your thinking about that question.’ Those kinds of things. Using a similar format, some leaders discussed having “reflection sessions” during bus rides. However, with the environment on the bus, this type of reflection was not viewed as effective as quality and depth of discussions were difficult to achieve because of difficulty hearing and a spread-out layout of the seating arrangement. Both James and Ronald used a strategy of guided reflections wherein graduate students were responsible for targeting specified days or activities and leading a group reflection. James explained, “We had individual students get up and try to summarize each visit that we had to reconstruct the visit and then facilitate sharing of our thoughts and experiences on that visit to get them talking formally.” Similarly, Ronald assigned students as leaders for each day of the experience. He commented, “[Students] are responsible for the flow of each visit with a different team responsible for each visit. [They are responsible for] facilitating that day’s visits, leading a debriefing afterwards, and making sure everyone is prepared and engaged.” Post-travel meetings or gatherings. All faculty leaders discussed using different strategies to conduct post-travel meetings or gatherings with various levels of success. A few leaders talked about limitations with post-travel activities as, “there are no formal classes after the experience” since students directly enter other coursework or internships, or upon return, 124 even with a formal meeting “the group is so excited to meet and discuss their experience, it is difficult to focus into an intense experience or reflection.” However, the majority of faculty leaders described a “formal debriefing” or post-experience meeting as an essential component of the short-term experience. Isabel described her debriefing process, “after they come back I process with the students a month later and maybe a few months later, to just go through the experience more objectively that’s basically it.” Using a similar strategy, Connie explained how she encourages her students to debrief, There is just so much to process and absorb. For some this comes later, even years later. It’s just, we have to talk about it, share how we are processing. It helps understand what we just went through together and individually. Helps pull it all together. As discussed, many leaders integrate debriefing strategies during and after the experience. For a closure activity or reflective practice, formal debriefings were often used “at the end of class to kind of close out the experience,” as was shared by Natalie. Gathering the graduate students together, Scott also had a post-experience meeting. “We typically meet at the end of the year. I just ask them about feedback. Things they like and they don't like.” Formal post-travel writing assignments or exams. Various faculty leaders required their participants to write a reflective essay, academic paper, or final, with a specified time after returning from their short-term experience. Faculty who followed a course curriculum identical to an on-campus course included a “final exam” or “final paper” assignment after the experience. Both Ben and Ezra described “post-trip” writing assignments wherein students were required to “integrate their experience with academic course components.” Anna assigned students to select an issue or topic of interest to examine throughout the international experience and context to analyze and report back after their return. Likewise, Natalie “gives them a paper that allows them 125 to pursue the side of comparing and looking at cultural influence.” Another form of written assignment was a reflective essay. Leslie required her students to maintain a journal throughout their experience. Then they were required to “reflect on the overall experience and include content from their journals.” Scott also required his student to maintain journals to “identify pretravel questions, experiences while in-country, and then tie all of it together afterwards.” Post-travel presentations. Another type of activity used was the oral presentation. One form of presentation, as Michael shared, was focused on “presentation of research”. Ezra also commented how after the experience she required her “students to prepare an academic presentation about their research.” Similarly, focused on research topics, Barb explained her program’s post-travel meeting “where the students will do presentations on the research. Because we did them during the trip.” Leslie shared that at East University, some faculty leaders used program participants to conduct “oral presentations to students who [were] thinking about graduate education abroad for the next year as a form of recruiting.” Blogs. A less commonly used activity was the use of group or individual blogs. Ezra explained how her students were required to maintain blog accounts documenting their learning and reflection. She elaborated, I also have, to varying degrees of success, tried to do a pre-trip blog and post-trip blog. A few times, I created a photo blog that asked people to post pictures of life here that represented some aspect of culture and explain what that was about…The blog is a way to capture some of the student’s swirling thoughts right away and to post those with pictures of what’s going on in their head. Three other leaders discussed the use of group blogs to encourage “sharing of ideas,” “reflection on others’ learning,” and “documentation of ideas and experiences.” 126 In summary, faculty leaders highlighted sixteen critical components of graduate education abroad that take place before travel, during an experience, and post-travel. These components include appropriate timing, logistics, and placement of the experience, flexibility, institutional and personal relationships, strong curriculum, clear expectations and goals, pre-trip orientations, positive group dynamics, facilitated experiential learning, professional and collaborative sharing of research and knowledge, site visits, cultural exposure, reflective debriefings, post-travel meetings or gatherings, formal post-travel writing assignments or exams, post-travel presentations, and blogs. Assessment of graduate education abroad. Strategies around assessment of learning within graduate education abroad were also discussed by all faculty leaders. Both formal and informal strategies were identified. From “no formal review system or questionnaire” or “general observations” to “precise documentation of who’s contributing what” or a “holistic approach to the grade,” methods and purposes for assessment varied greatly. However, as Leslie noted, “Unfortunately, one of the challenges of these types of programs is sometimes [realization of learning] happens six months later, a year later, when something jogs that and it fits together and that ‘Oh!’ moment happens. Sometimes it happens 30 years later.” With short-term programs, the influence or outcome of the experience may not be assessable immediately. Regardless of the challenges in assessing some of the experiences, some common strategies for assessment emerged from the faculty leader interviews. For some programs that followed an identical course, revised or altered course, or an embedded course, faculty leaders identified more traditional forms of assessment tools used including final exams, research papers, reflection papers, final papers, journals, or blogs. Barb commented on her use of research papers and presentations to assess learning. 127 They were each assigned a research topic. They could choose their own and while we were on the trip, at an assigned time, they did a preliminary presentation of their assignment. They needed to come having already done some research about their topic. It added their voices to our information and discussions. They each did a presentation while we were there, and we scheduled them in. It provided a chance to do some reflection and some analysis. ‘What are we seeing? What’s going on?’ Then they had a final paper, which they turned it in a couple months after the trip. Formal reflection papers were used by Charlize to assess how student learning related to the short-term program objectives. She shared, “The reflection papers also help to give us some sense of how it related to what we were trying to accomplish and then, we’ve got the deliverables where we can measure ‘Did they learn or not?’” Katherine also used cultural reflection papers and described her intention for assessment, They get about a week or a week-and-a-half after the program's over to write a cultural reflection paper and send that to me. That paper is supposed to be more about their thoughts about the whole experience, and what they've learned, and what they have reacted towards. Other faculty leaders used assessment strategies which included the use of surveys or an assessment tool called “cultural quotient.” James noted his use of surveys and how he felt they were somewhat lacking to assess depth of the student experience. We give the students surveys on their experience but I think that the surveys aren’t as useful as observing how the students interact. The surveys are something that you can show somebody and say, ‘Look. We surveyed this and this worked and this didn’t.’ But I think if you have a faculty member, they’re observing things and the discussion afterward 128 and so forth. I mean these students are talking to each other on the bus about what they saw. That’s probably the more informative bit of information. I’m not sure how much this survey information actually influences us on that. Using a formal assessment tool, Charlize elaborated on how her program assesses growth through pre- and post- assessments. Since all students in her program are required to participate in graduate education abroad, she could apply the assessment tool consistently. She stated, We have done an assessment that’s called cultural quotient, CQ, and all of our students do that when they start the program before they actually have classes and really get to know their teammates. They do a T1 at the beginning of the program, and then after this global experience, they do a T2. We’re looking at if there is change in how they see—this is obviously self-perception, but how they see their drive, their strategy, their knowledge, or their actions related to cultural competency. For other program types that followed a more non-traditional academic approach to learning, assessment strategies varied. A few faculty leaders described assessment of short-term experiences as “difficult” as they believed there is no “one size fits all” way to assess experiential learning. Leslie explained, “There's no way to assess across the board one measurement of ‘this is how everyone's learning,’ but you see it in different ways for each individual at different times and different points.” Barb described her frustration with assessment due to the time constraints and intensity of scheduling during the experience, “That’s been a frustrating thing in some trips. We seem to pack so many experiences that we don’t really have time to discuss and analyze, and so we’re missing a really important intellectual piece.” 129 The most common pedagogical strategy for assessing student learning was in-person meetings or contact. This included tutorials, or one-on-one or small group meetings, personal contact and observations, formal debriefings, and formal questioning. Ronald emphasized the ease in asking students about their learning as “it was easy to ask some macro-type questions that really were pretty meaty as to the differences between what they were seeing and observing and what they had seen or observed here at home.” Fred also illustrated the use of in-person contact to assess students through tutorials and how this provided him insight to students throughout the experience. Tutorials are meeting one-on-one with the student, or small group too. Meeting with them and getting a sense of what they’re taking away. Giving them some questions to consider and talk about it. Tutorials are a way of finding out what questions are bubbling for the students and how they’re processing the work. You can really get in depth even with only 10 minutes or 15 minutes. Like Fred, Ben commented on the value of personal contact with the students to assess “how they are doing” and “the depth of what they are learning.” He shared, It's easy because we are so in contact with people. Even if they are shy and don't ask a question in class, they ask you during breakfast. They ask you during the bus ride. They ask you during the breaks or you're so in touch with people, so close to them. They come and tell you what you see or sense. We had the formal assignments and submissions and group exercises and presentations that you see in the classroom, but you are all thrown together in the same space that it becomes easy to see what's going on. Though some faculty used debriefings informally, sometimes called “reflections”, Michael provided an example of a more formal use of debriefings for assessment when he described that, 130 The debriefings are assessment. The conversations are very different after an intense experience. That’s the kind of experience I’m looking for in terms of, you can read as much about [a topic] as you want, and we can’t recreate the experience; but there’s something fundamentally different about being in the very location that it occurred. And to hear the way this guide tells the story of what it’s like first hand, it feels different. That’s what tends to come out of the debriefs. It’s a mixture of observing. From the evaluations, where we try to get a sense of the course as a whole; but it’s really the debriefs where we’re trying to get a sense, and where we to choose to change. Many faculty leaders used trial and error to see what was effective to best assess learning objectives and outcomes. No single strategy was identifiable to support successful assessment of graduate education abroad. Faculty leaders revealed the diversity in programming and student experiences which requires diverse approaches to assessment. Summary: Faculty Leader Beliefs, Assumptions, and Values about Graduate Education Abroad Manifested in Action In exploring how faculty leader beliefs, assumptions, and values about graduate education abroad are manifested in action, various institutional logistics and planning influences, curricular approaches, and components of graduate education abroad emerged. Though leaders from East and West Universities identified varying levels and structures of support within their institutions, institutional support and resources were highly valued as critically important for the success of graduate education abroad. However, at both institutions, faculty leaders revealed a need for further support with logistics, planning, and implementation of the international components of their programs. 131 With varying curricular approaches to graduate education abroad, faculty leaders described two guiding models: a subject-based approach, mirroring education abroad content from existing curricular content or coursework, and a project-based approach, designing a shortterm experience around an identified theme or issue. Within these two models, either for-credit and not-for-credit options were available, with some programs offering a choice. Regardless of which model or credit option followed, six main types of graduate education abroad were identified by faculty leaders including identical courses, revised or altered courses, embedded experiences, creation of new courses, professional collaborations, and study tours. Though each program discussed by faculty leaders was structurally and pedagogically unique, many common components of graduate education abroad emerged highlighting activities before, during, and after a short-term experience. From appropriately timing the program to accommodate graduate student schedules to planning logistics and curriculum, faculty leaders believed that much of the planning and implementation of short-term programming was their responsibility. Another priority focused on building positive relationships with international partners as well as within the program’s group of students and staff. Pedagogically throughout the experience, faculty leaders emphasized the use of experiential learning activities, opportunities for students to share research and knowledge, professional site visits, cultural excursions, and reflective debriefings. Leaders also identified various post-travel components that helped round out their short-term experience including formal or informal meetings or gatherings, writing assignments, exams, presentations, and blogs. Finally, leaders discussed assessment of graduate education abroad as an important component for reflecting on and developing short-term program but identified difficulty in assessing some of the experiential aspects of their programs. 132 Conclusion The findings presented in this chapter provide an in-depth description of the pedagogy of graduate education abroad and offer an understanding of faculty leader perspectives about motivations for becoming a faculty leader, purposes of graduate education abroad, what it means to be a faculty leader, how faculty leaders learn to lead these programs, and beliefs about shortterm education abroad and graduate learners. Additionally, the findings show what faculty leaders do within their roles as faculty leaders and how their beliefs are manifested in action in terms of their curricular approaches to and critical components of graduate education abroad. In Chapter Five, I will present additional findings focused on the faculty leader perspectives surrounding outcomes of graduate education abroad for faculty leaders, students, and disciplinary departments or institutions and faculty leader perspectives on the internationalization of graduate education. 133 CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS – FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF OUTCOMES OF GRADUATE EDUCATION ABROAD AND THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF GRADUATE EDUCATION Overview of Chapter The purpose of this chapter is to highlight findings about outcomes of graduate education abroad and faculty leader perspectives on the internationalization of graduate education. First, I describe the outcomes of graduate education abroad, specifically leaders’ perceptions of outcomes for themselves as faculty leaders, faculty leader perceptions of outcomes for students, and outcomes of graduate education abroad that leaders describe as contributions to their disciplinary departments or institution. Then, I present findings of faculty perspectives surrounding the influence of graduate education abroad on the internationalization of graduate education. When discussing outcomes of graduate education abroad, whether for faculty leaders, graduate students, or graduate education, faculty leaders generally approached the development and identification of learning outcomes using two broad strategies. One strategy consisted of setting learning objectives with intended learning outcomes from the experience, or using a preexperience design approach such as the ADDIE model (Branch, 2009). For example, in designing the experience, leaders identified learning objectives for the experience and then measured the outcomes of the experience in relation to the learning outcomes. The second general strategy reflected an emergent approach to identifying objectives and outcomes of the learning experiences (Dirkx & Prenger, 1997). In this approach, emphasis is placed on creating “educative environments” in which learners develop the objectives or outcomes they desire or seek from the experience. For example, objectives are set prior to departure as well as throughout an experience as new learning occurs. Then, after an experience, 134 through reflection and analysis of the experience, learning and experiential outcomes are identified. Faculty Outcomes from Graduate Education Abroad Leaders were asked about their perceived outcomes of graduate education abroad for themselves. Five common outcomes emerged from the faculty leader perspectives: professional development and benefits, personal growth from a comparative experience, develop selfawareness, increased creativity in teaching, and personal learning. Professional development and benefits. The deepening and development of professional skills, research, or experiences was an outcome identified by almost all faculty leaders of graduate education abroad. Mirrored by various faculty leaders, Devon explained the value of this experience as a faculty leader for his professional development. I have developed, over time, a set of skills around this work that is valuable to people. It’s continued as ongoing lifelong learning for me. It’s some outstanding professional development, this situated learning, experiential learning... It’s my own ongoing professional development, my own ongoing learning. I enjoy the working with younger people, students and international students. There is a lot of learning in that. Likewise, Shane discussed how interacting with professional colleagues and partners internationally helped him build professional relationships and learn about himself as a professional. As these international relationships evolve, develop, it’s about creating the relationships and more. It’s about cultivating those relationships, and supporting them in multiple ways, that things evolve. The level of trust, level of confidence, level of understanding of 135 people and personalities professionally that cause these things to evolve. Within that, you as a professional evolve too. Personal and professional benefits of graduate education abroad was also highlighted by faculty leaders. Leaders described outcomes including gaining access to new professional opportunities and experiencing life in new, powerful ways. Fred expressed a sentiment shared by other leaders, “Quite honestly, I’m not gonna lie. It benefitted me. I was able to open up doors that I would have otherwise been unable to open.” Ronald reflected on the experience in relation to his professional career. “It's been very rewarding. I'm sure that when I think back on my career here, it'll rank pretty high as one of the more satisfying things that I've done.” Looking at a physically and emotionally difficult experience abroad, Jacob described the influence of the intensity of a short-term experience on him personally. We’re in the clinic for ten hours, and I’m tired. You’re at 11,000 feet. It’s cold. You gotta remember, when you’re 11,000 feet, and it’s their winter, it’s like 50 degrees all day. Your nose is running. You got a little skull cap on. You’re seeing patients. I’m like, ‘Man, why am I still here? Everyone’s back at the hotel. Everyone’s probably [resting] right now.’ This little girl comes in with a burn on her foot, and I got to dress it and take care of her. That just changed it all. It was like, ‘This is why I went into medicine. This is what I wanna do. This is someone that has nowhere else to go.’ It’s just this great feeling, and I was like, ‘If this wasn’t here, this little girl would just—be way out of luck.’ That, for me, really changed me. I had that moment. Personal growth from a comparative experience. Having an opportunity to engage in a comparative experience, both as a faculty leader and learner, was another commonly identified outcome for faculty leaders. This outcome was emphasized by Fred when he said, 136 It really opened my eyes to the incredible importance of, not just globalization, but what I like to call relatable globalization. Rather than just being an American who thinks everybody should be like us, actually immersing yourself in another culture, in another society, and coming to understand the benefits and going beyond the stereotypes that people tend to have of different cultures. Really understanding things. The good, the bad, the ugly, the great. It not only expanded my horizons on [the country], but also on America. I started appreciating some of the many issues that we have beyond the ones that I was studying and researching. [This realization] very much helped me open doors. Also, exploring the comparative nature of her experience Ezra described how making observations in a different country can influence your own perspectives and learning. Just those kinds of observations that make you realize how differently a whole country can be because they share these norms. To see the ways in which they live that are so different, but also you see a lot of commonality, too, in ways that you can connect and find a real sense of community even though some things may be very different. Expressing comparative experience in the context of teaching and leading, Devon expressed how he learned through sharing his knowledge within the international context. “I enjoy the opportunity to show people new cultures, new experiences, different countries, what these countries have to offer in their education systems, and rich heritage. Partly, it’s that comparison that affords educational value.” In examining the influence of graduate education abroad on her work, Anna described the influence of her short-term comparative experience on her academic research. Well, certainly my research is influenced. I wouldn’t be doing the international comparative piece that I’m doing. It definitely influences how I—if not the overall 137 agenda, at least how I think about my [research] results. I think about them differently now than I would have if I had not been talking to people in [the country] so much, because you can see this other system and the challenges that they face. Then look at these challenges in relation to my research. Whether influencing personal perspectives, teaching, or research, faculty leaders emphasized the opportunity to engage in a comparative experience as an outcome of graduate education abroad. Develop self-awareness. Faculty leaders identified the development of self-awareness as another outcome from their short-term experience. Self-awareness was highlighted by Ezra when she described her own growth and learning. It’s always a growing experience for us as leaders. As much as we hope students will find it to be a way to grow, we grow, of course. That’s the best part is that we constantly are putting ourselves in new situations. Trying to be a model for the students forces us to really be humble. It’s a very humbling experience. It’s just such a wonderful experience, I think. Travel for me has been such an important way to step outside of my own ways of thinking and ways of being. I just find it so powerful to understand myself in development, but also to think about what I’m learning about the new culture. Charlize also commented on her personal exposure to new experiences and how that exposure influenced how she viewed herself within the world. She stated, I find that the more I am able personally to see and get exposure to different things, the more I realize what I don’t know. It’s that opportunity to be a bit humbled by the fact that the world is a really big place and we are in a tiny little microcosm of it right here. 138 “Reflection on self” is another commonly shared sentiment when discussing outcomes of graduate education abroad. Leslie summarized what many faculty leaders discussed when she expressed, I love the traveling myself. I love getting to know the people that I've gotten to know. As a writer, as a poet, I love seeing things in new ways myself, and I strongly believe that I pay attention in completely different ways, and that that makes me reflect on myself and my own context in completely different ways as well. That part of [the experience] is really interesting to me. Increased creativity in teaching. Having the opportunity to creatively develop and teach a short-term program abroad was another outcome for faculty leaders. For Ben, being able to “be creative in teaching a course” was a highlight of graduate education abroad. He expanded when he shared, “It also makes my life easier because it’s easier to explain stuff if I have direct contextualized examples on hand.” Similarly, James illuminated the opportunity to creatively expand his teaching both abroad and at home when he said, “It influences what I do academically in the classroom because I tell stories that are enriched from the experience.” More broadly, Devon outlined how teaching graduate education abroad experiences influenced him, A lot of what we do is look at informal or non-formal ways of learning. It’s looking at how does a culture educate its people who are maybe just peasants from villages. Yet, they come to [the big cities] and they have an opportunity to visit a world-class museum and see their heritage represented in ways that are really positive and professionally done. A lot of ways of understanding how people approach a set of ideas or a set of experiences 139 that are maybe a different lens than I would look at it from. I use this opportunity to engage my students in new ways academically and theoretically. Many faculty leaders discussed using their personal networks, knowledge, or experiences to enhance the creative development and teaching of graduate education abroad opportunities. Katherine exemplified this when she highlighted her personal experience, I like showing these places to the students. Teaching them. I have come to understand that it does make a difference to [students], if they go with somebody who has the connection, versus if they go with somebody who is visiting just like they are. I'm able to tell them interesting facts that they would never be able to get if the person who was not a native from that country didn't share it with them. Personal learning. A final outcome identified by faculty leaders was the opportunity to engage in the experience as a learner as well. Most leaders initially described the importance of graduate education abroad for their graduate students to learn, grow professionally, and engage in a global context. However, after reflection, learning as a leader, professional, and student emerged as a positive outcome for leaders as well. Connie expressed how she learned through her role as a faculty leader, “For me, it’s always been just a great learning experience. If you are a faculty member, learning is part of what is the joy for us.” Simon reiterated this sentiment wherein his role as a faculty leader was interchangeable with his role as a student. “Like I said, it was one of the best things about this program was the education abroad opportunities I experienced as a student myself.” As faculty leaders, teaching and learning is inherently integrated into the faculty leader role. However, some faculty leaders expressed surprise at how much they learned through the short-term experience. As Natalie elaborated, “I learned as much 140 as the students did meeting with all of these amazing people that I have tremendous respect for. It’s a wonderful learning opportunity for the faculty as well as the students.” Faculty Leader Perceptions of Outcomes of Graduate Education Abroad for Students This study focused on the beliefs, assumptions, and values of faculty leaders surrounding graduate education abroad thus student perceptions were not considered. However, though not a direct focus of this study, when faculty leaders shared their perceptions about general outcomes of graduate education abroad, four themes emerged; interdisciplinary connections, changed perspectives, personal growth, and learning from and with peers. These outcomes align with some of the purposes for graduate education abroad identified by faculty leaders. Interdisciplinary connections. An outcome for graduate students was the building interdisciplinary connections between their learning experience and professional or academic contexts. For example, Ezra explained, Looking at how my students talk about what they learn and connect it with their current learning, I think that it does provide them access to important ideas that connect with other content areas that they wouldn’t have made otherwise. They read about a lot of these issues. They observe it here in the field. Then, having access by being immersed in that cultural context gives them another way to connect with that. I see that in terms of our program. [Students] are just more successful after the program, a lot more successful academically as well. Similarly, Charlize described how one of her students applied skills and knowledge gained during graduate education abroad to a business endeavor. It was really an interesting way of not only being very reflective of what did she get - I think she got a tremendous amount out of this experience from her own personal 141 learning. And then also as a way of taking a business, this fledgling business that she’d been doing, and really pushing it in a new direction, from both an academic and from an applied perspective. Many faculty leaders noted how graduate students approached graduate education abroad with “specific questions” in mind or “areas of inquiry” to explore. Because of the short-term programming, faculty leaders identified “shifts in student questions” and “increased connections to disciplinary fields”. For example, Leslie expressed, “When [a student] came back, she applied that lens, she had a lens that she brought with her that did a flip while she was there and, suddenly, she had a different set of questions because she had taken the initiative.” Changed perspectives. Another outcome for graduate students participating in graduate education abroad was changed perspectives. Simon illuminated the ideas of changing perspectives when he stated, “the idea is that their questions shift and their ways of looking at things shift.” Ezra elaborated on student perspectives changing, I think it really enabled them to take a perspective that they might had never taken before. It helped them to confront the kinds of assumptions that they had... Helping people to move from their current place of thinking, of expectations. Anything they grew in that domain was gonna be a real bonus. Reinforcing this idea of “seeing the world in different ways”, Fred expounded, People get very uncomfortable and that became good conversation. We found things that walked the edge between being briefed enough about what things are so they can put things in context and have some aspect of it that’s going to just be unfamiliar and different. We challenged them a bit about who they are, whether it’s their position of privilege or their assumptions. Just being challenged about something, either in the 142 experience itself or being directly challenged by questions from people. The way [the students] responded to these challenges… it changed their perspectives on many things. Though some graduate students had some international experience before engaging in graduate education abroad, the experience was entirely new to others. Faculty leaders noted changes in perspectives within both experienced and inexperienced travelers. Michael described some powerful outcomes for his students. [This student] was never going to work abroad, or anything, and had never traveled abroad. After the [program], he just came to me and said, ‘I can now read the newspaper and think about discussions of what happens in [the country] and other countries in the world in a very different way now. I’m never gonna work there, but I just feel like I have a different lens on the world.’ That’s all I can ask for. There are other [students] who, what they really got out of [the experience] was the analytical skills that connect to broader topics. For another group, they’re able to build on their existing experience. They can hone their analytical skill to be in a position to play a constructive role in the world. Personal growth. Almost unanimously, faculty leaders identified personal growth as a prevalent outcome for graduate students. Connie described how all students experience personal growth in that “however they move, everybody moved in some way” such as how one student confronted her assumptions about the program country when stating how “she was surprised that she found a thriving metropolis when she got [to the country] and there weren’t lions at the airport” or how another “shared how he confronted some of his personal biases about diversity.” For other students, as Ezra highlighted, learning about themselves through the short-term experience “helps them have courage to try next experiences… They might have courage and 143 less pre-defined expectations knowing what they experienced through this program can be applied into other settings.” Shane discussed how the intensity of the short-term programming fostered growth beyond what may be experienced in a traditional classroom. The intensity of the being embedded there, being in the country where what you’re talking about and everything’s taking place, meeting the people that live there and work there, it just produces a stronger set of memories and, I think, growth than a regular classroom setup. For many faculty leaders, personal and professional growth is part of the intention of graduate education abroad. Isabel explained how she personally witnessed the growth of her students through the short-term experience. I’ve seen over and over the bottom line of their experience is not only the [academic learning] but to go to another culture and see their way of life and to learn from their resilience and internal strengths. I mean I’m telling you the students learn more from [international partners] than we can give to them. That’s how enriching the human connection is in three weeks, such a short period of time. It does happen and I witness this every year. That is clear evidence that even the short three weeks, whatever they experience is very short lived but it becomes part of who they are. In other words, it’s not going to be a waste. It’s the intensity in what we do. Greg fostered an exploration of the context of leading graduate students into new, unfamiliar situations wherein they were forced to “be an outsider” and encouraged “to reflect on their thinking and feeling in new ways.” 144 You need to leave your own pond to go elsewhere to realize, ‘Wow. This was invisible to me.’ Then it becomes a reflection about—of where you come from and where you are. I saw this with my students, very good students, very talented students. They could never look at their own experience in a distant comparative way until they went abroad. It's a beautiful example of what is it to be turned into an object of analysis. From a subject. That capacity to flip between being a subject looking, watching, engaging, to an object of analysis and watching was, I would say, explosively powerful. Ezra pointed out that outcomes and personal growth for students are not always identifiable immediately rather, occur at different times for each individual, “It was interesting to me how they referenced the trip as we talked about these issues. Some of the immediate effects of the trip are different than the long-term effects as they continue to draw on that and grow.” Learning from and with peers. Learning from peers, as an interdisciplinary experience and within a new context, was another outcome of graduate education abroad for graduate students. Learning from their peers became an important facet of learning for graduate student participants. Shane shared how “spending time with the [international colleagues] but also knowing that [the students] are spending time with each other – away from the classroom but always learning, from their environment and each other.” Within each program, diversity of participants was often highlighted as an opportunity to meet new people and foster integration of varied student perspectives. Devon talked about diversity in his program and how this enhanced interpersonal engagement between students. I like the diversity, having the students from [varied disciplines] and all of the programs. We don’t restrict it at all. In fact, I like the variety. That cuts across all of my work, the policy fellows work, the global work. It’s getting people from as many different 145 perspectives engaged in this learning as possible. The broader your learning community, I think the deeper the opportunities for engagement and learning from one another. Leslie noted how interpersonal peer learning occurs simultaneously with individual learning in graduate education abroad. Graduate students are also learning from each other, but they're not having the same experience at all. What feels super exciting and transformational is that what one person is hearing and learning may to another person either be old hat or it may feel irrelevant. It may feel very interesting but very far from they are thinking about. That's happening all the time in ways that I think are very engaging. Disciplinary and Institutional Outcomes of Graduate Education Abroad Most faculty leaders linked outcomes of graduate education abroad as contributions to their department and institutions, reflecting four main themes. Linking theoretical knowledge with experiential learning. Graduate education abroad programs contribute to the disciplinary departments by diversifying academic offerings and experience to engage students both theoretically and experientially simultaneously in a natural extension and application of learning. Faculty leaders recognized the opportunity to expand access to unique short-term experiences to enhance student learning, in turn, improving graduate student skills and learning. Faculty leaders discussed how the development of graduate student skills and learning directly supports the goals of most departments and institutions. Natalie explained, The number of programs that have been developed are all very exciting in terms of being able to expose students to things, skills and topics, that they wouldn’t ordinarily see, also within a context of graduate thinking, really developing the kinds of questions and 146 observations that you would want a graduate student to take into their career. This development is critical to our institution. Thus, as Connie shared, short-term abroad offerings “put substance in the field’s rhetoric” in new, more experiential, contextualized ways contributing variation in offerings and diversity in teaching and learning to disciplinary departments. Ronald expanded on this by stating that shortterm programs “offer many different types of experiences in a condensed period of time with exposure to many new ideas quickly.” Diversity in exposure and expanded learning experiences provide opportunities for departments and institutions that can be used to market programs and recruit future students. Recruitment value. By offering an assortment of short-term education abroad programming, faculty leaders highlighted recruitment value for their departments. In recruiting new graduate students, the opportunity for students to engage in short-term education abroad and diverse learning experiences was viewed as an asset for the department. Shane explained the recruitment value of short-term education abroad when he said, At first, [short-term education abroad] was a way to just expand offerings to the graduate students. But, it makes us look good. It makes the program look good. It looks great on the literature to perspective students that we can say we do these things. Whenever I mention it to a perspective student, they get very excited. I think it makes us look good in the school and in the department as a whole that we can say we do these things. Fred supported the notion of graduate education abroad as a recruitment tool as he stressed that departments must develop and highlight experiences that will best prepare and support student learning when recruiting. He elaborated, 147 I am firm believer that when you’re running a program and trying to showcase that program, the most important thing you can do is support your students and give your students the best environment and opportunities you can give them. This environment and the opportunities it affords students will sell itself. Increase skills and ability for hiring. Several faculty leaders discuss how the participation of graduate students in international experiences can lead to enhanced attractiveness for employers. Even in short duration, education abroad provides opportunities for the development “of concrete, transferable skills” for graduate students making them more prepared candidates for professional positions. Michael expanded on this when he said, “[Short-term experiences give] graduate students, developing professionals, a sense of a different context and how different contexts influence policy outcomes, and how to just be more effective global citizens at the macro level.” Most faculty leaders shared how their disciplinary departments highlighted education abroad offerings as an attribute to student development and preparation for the job force. Michael stated, “[Graduate students] can hone their analytical skills and be in a position to play a really constructive role in the world.” As pressures on departments to report hiring trends of their graduates to remain competitive for grant funding or rankings, the development of graduate students through education abroad will continue to be important. Expand research opportunities and collaborations. Graduate education abroad contributed to disciplinary departments by expanding research and collaboration opportunities. Graduate students and faculty gained access to engage in professional networking, with some gaining access to new professional networks, possibilities for collaboration for research, or for the development and implementation of future graduate education abroad programming. 148 As mentioned previously, professional networking was an important factor in short-term education abroad. To develop quality programs, often faculty leaders reached out to international partners and colleagues to plan components of the programs. These relationships often evolved into professional working relationships surrounding international exchanges, partnered publications or presentations, or research collaborations. These relationships and networks, in turn, add value to home departments. Additionally, graduate education abroad extended opportunities to explore topics first-hand and deepen understanding to support teaching, learning, or research. Several faculty leaders reported that various graduate students returned from their short-term experience with renewed ideas for their coursework, research, or future research. Finally, short-term education abroad afforded faculty leaders and graduate students an “opportunity to meet people they would ordinarily never meet and see places they otherwise could probably never see, enriching their experience all around.” Understanding the Influence of Graduate Education Abroad on the Internationalization of Graduate Education Faculty leaders were asked about their perspectives surrounding the role of graduate education abroad in the internationalization of graduate education at their institutions and more broadly across graduate education. Though some faculty leaders were cautionary in making generalizable assumptions of the influence of graduate education abroad for graduate education in a general sense, most gave positive opinions of the role of short-term programming toward internationalizing their department’s graduate students. In this section, I first explore how faculty leaders define the internationalization of graduate education based on their experiences as faculty leaders. Next, I discuss faculty leader perspectives regarding the role of graduate education abroad for the internationalization of graduate education more broadly. Lastly, I present the 149 characteristics identified by faculty leaders of graduate education abroad that denote these experiences as graduate level education. Faculty Leader definitions of the internationalization of graduate education. To better situate understanding of graduate education abroad within the broader internationalization of higher education, more specifically graduate education, faculty leaders were asked to define the internationalization of graduate education. Though the provided definitions were diverse and were often contextualized to individual disciplinary experiences, five general themes emerged as guiding definitions of the internationalization of graduate education: developing and preparing graduate students to be global citizens, developing abilities to appreciate global influences, engaging in reciprocity of learning through and with culture and people, establishing global relationships, and understanding global contexts. Since these themes are overlapping and integrated, I will present the findings jointly. Together, these definitions reinforce general beliefs from faculty leaders of the role of graduate education abroad in developing graduate students. The most common response by faculty leaders included “developing and preparing graduate students to be global citizens.” Greg expanded on the idea of global citizenry, “A university college student is already expected to be a global citizen.” Building from the development of global citizens, another part of the definition includes the “ability to appreciate global influences.” Devon explained how this includes “not to just be exposed to Western thought and Western influences. It would be appreciating global influences on some of the disciplines.” Adding to this idea, Leslie stated that it encompasses “drawing something from those perspectives that might influence individual scholarship.” Faculty leaders defined the “ability to reciprocate learning through culture and people.” This means, according to Simon, “exposing students to learning what other people are learning 150 and vice versa and exposing them to multiple cultures.” Natalie elaborated on this idea to describe reciprocity in learning and knowledge. The idea of learning as much from the countries you visit and the scholars and practitioners that are working there. It’s certainly not a colonization effort where we bring what we do to another country and think that that’s the best. It’s not that at all. It’s about becoming anthropologists who question, who become aware of the wider influences of culture and history and context in developing policies and actual clinical approaches, and looking at the role and development of [discipline] as a procession in different countries. Stemming from this reciprocal approach to learning, culture, and global citizenry is the “establishment of global relationships.” Faculty leaders highlighted the importance of relationships for truly internationalized perspectives. Simon explained, “The essence is about students having cross cultural experiences and learning from each other.” Reinforcing the need to establish global relationships, Devon added, There is a need for an ability to work well with people from other cultures, to have an understanding of what it means to be from [a different culture, race, or ethnicity], to work with or to collaborate with students or professionals of other faiths, other nationalities, other belief systems. Global relationship building led to the final facet of faculty leader definitions of the internationalization of graduate education which includes “understanding global contexts.” Anna posited that the internationalization of graduate education “is a need for us to understand what we do in a global context. Whether that means going somewhere else or having international, or even multi-cultural, students in our school. I don’t think we can do what we do without understanding larger global contexts.” Centering the faculty leader role within the 151 internationalization process, Charlize contended, “It is our responsibility to help our students to have a better understanding of global context, global cultures and what that means and the fact that the world is not the United States and that everyone doesn’t think like we do is an important piece of it.” Combined, these five themes make up a working definition of the internationalization of graduate education. To summarize, faculty leaders define the internationalization of graduate education as: The development and preparation of global citizens to appreciate global influences, reciprocate learning through culture and people, establish global relationships, and gain understanding of global contexts. Role of graduate education abroad for the internationalization of graduate education. To understand how faculty leaders integrated their definition of the internationalization of graduate education into their beliefs towards graduate education abroad, leaders were asked what role graduate education abroad plays in the process of internationalizing graduate education. Four general themes arose from the data including: developing global citizens, building global networks, professional and career preparation, and bridging to a global community of practice and global scholarship. Developing global citizens. Faculty leaders believed that graduate education abroad plays a crucial role in developing graduate students and faculty leaders as global citizens. Michael explored this idea, [Graduate education abroad] presents an opportunity at being clearer about being a ‘global citizen,’ so beyond your community of practice. but the idea is that there are plenty of things, even if they’re not related to your profession, that you should be 152 concerned about in the world because you’re a human being, and you recognize that your life is interconnected with lots of other people’s lives. By engaging graduate students within international contexts, exploring new topics and integrating those topics in diverse contexts, students and faculty leaders are encouraged to view the world through new lenses. These lenses can “begin to develop thinking more globally and acting more globally.” Building global networks. Leaders also noted that graduate education abroad plays an important role in presenting opportunities to build global networks. Though the notion of “network” may be used broadly, meaning graduate students may not necessarily leave a shortterm program with a distinctly new professional network, they are “introduced to new dimensions of their field and are involved with other professionals.” This involvement presents opportunities to learn and reflect on disciplinary work within a broader context. Greg shared his thoughts about the “global network” within which higher education exists and the importance of this network for internationalizing graduate education. It also happens to be intellectually and pedagogically appropriate for the future of American higher education is that we are globally networked. Our students have to be both experienced, capable of experiencing and thinking about in the global context, solutions, presumptions about whatever field they're working on. Professional and career preparation. As mentioned throughout the findings section, faculty leaders believe that graduate education abroad supports the professional and career preparation of participants. A few faculty leaders discussed the enhancement of skills resulting from short-term experiences to support preparation for “global employment and interactions.” Katherine expanded on this preparation through involvement in graduate education abroad as 153 “beneficial to their career prospects to have international experience and knowledge.” Showing how graduate education abroad adds to the professional and career preparation of graduate students, Shane elaborated, The graduate students will meet people, make new contacts, and have knowledge of a place that they wouldn’t have otherwise, and they can take that knowledge and experience to whoever they’re interviewing with for an actual job. I know that a lot of people graduate and go into the international side of [their field]. My perception is the education abroad [programs] that we do for the graduate students are strongly beneficial to their career prospects. Bridge to global community of practice and global scholarship. Faculty leaders identified the opportunity to bridge graduate students to a global community of practice and global scholarship. Professionals within disciplines “no longer exist and work within silos,” rather they are interconnected globally. As Connie stated, “What we do, or have done, in our fields can’t function no without considering the broader, or global, implications of our work.” Michael describes graduate education abroad as an opportunity for graduate students to “find their community of practice.” He expounded on the community of practice, [Graduate students] have a sense that they are members of a ‘global community of practice.’ You’re doing education, mental health. Whatever it is you’re doing, there’s other people elsewhere in the world doing it, and you think of yourself as being able to contribute to and learn from that. And, being aware of how the impact the different contexts have on shaping those practices, and being able to articulate and talk about, ‘What are the factors that shape and influence contexts that influence your work?’ 154 Taking the idea of a “global community of practice” a step further, Connie describes the role of graduate education abroad in encouraging global scholarship. There's a lot of rhetoric and the branding energy that can go behind conversations [about internationalization]. That places a premium on globalization and access in that more and more international colleagues, faculty members, and students are coming into the department here. More and more students are having the opportunity to study somewhere else. That the research we're reading? Out of both American journals and international journals, are being done by international scholars. Both the student level and the scholarship is being more informed by people across the world. Short-term education abroad provides our graduate students a chance to start becoming part of that. The internationalizing of graduate education is a very circular process of interpersonal and scholastic efforts of the coming in and out of our American universities. Just we have a greater pace of entry and exit than we used to. These faculty leader perspectives begin to help provide understanding of how graduate education abroad can influence the process of and be a tool for internationalizing graduate education. Characteristics of graduate education abroad as graduate level education. The final question asked of faculty leaders focused on the characteristics of graduate education abroad experiences that constitute graduate level education. Most faculty leaders included reflection on graduate education abroad academically, professionally, personally, and pedagogically. Faculty leader responses yielded five main characteristics that support graduate education abroad as similar “rigor and level” as general graduate level education. Graduate level course content. Almost unanimously, faculty leaders pointed out that the very nature of graduate education abroad is centered around graduate level coursework. The 155 topics of choice, the pre- and post- work, and the academic curriculum are all centered around graduate level requirements. Ben noted that he had no hesitation of the short-term experience being graduate level work as, “it was the exact same course with the exact same requirement, the exact same readings.” Similarly, Katherine reinforced, It's a graduate-level course. It's not less rigorous because we're teaching it over there. If anything, it involves additional features, because you can put what you teach in those courses in more of a global, international context. You can tie it to what people are doing in that country, with the guest lecturers and the visits. The courses weren't created for this [study-abroad] program. Thus, the very content included in the graduate education abroad programs as identified by faculty leaders literally, is graduate level content in depth, quantity, and engagement. Depth of engagement. Another characteristic of graduate education abroad illuminated by faculty leaders is “the exchange of ideas and independence of inquiry. Faculty leaders noted how graduate students engaged at multiple levels including amongst their peers, with professional partners, community members, and the faculty leader. As Devon mentioned, this engagement “promoted a depth of learning and inquiry that is consistent with other graduate level coursework.” Further exploring the depth of engagement of graduate students in short-term abroad experiences, Anna shared, “They just have a little more sophisticated understanding of the issues, and therefore can do that more sophisticated policy analysis.” Examining the experiences conceptually, Greg shared his belief surrounding graduate level work. “What makes that graduate-level work is higher level of conceptualization and connection. It is conceptual subtlety and epistemological agility. How do we learn what we learn? How do we process that? How do you make judgments about life?” 156 Professionalism. Faculty leaders highlighted a high level of professionalism as another characteristic of graduate level work. Katherine commented on how graduate students “take responsibility for their learning and their interests” while Jacob remarked on the students’ maturity of engagement and quality of work produced.” Reflecting on graduate level work in relation to his experience with undergraduate work, Shane argued that “graduate education abroad is typically more centered around professional or career skills development whereas undergraduate education abroad is more focused on educational goals.” A level of professionalism with graduate students was an assumed attribute of graduate learners. Leslie elaborated, I think that there is responsibility for one's own learning. There's a lot more openness in it to people coming in with things that they want to be thinking about and then their own need to make that happen. We can create environments that we think will be conducive to [supporting their independent goals], but the real learning happens inside them, and they need to take responsibility for it. Professionalism tightly linked to graduate level learning was prevalent among faculty leader responses. Ezra shared her opinion on the integration of professionalism within the graduate education abroad experience. It’d be a level of personal development that would enable you to benefit from the trip, contribute, behave. They bring certain ways of thinking in a particular area of study that they are imposing on this trip, or filtering the trip through, or they’re thinking about this. [Graduate] students are much more focused, or you expect them to be more focused. The level of reflection, intellectual inquiry, I might expect that to be deeper, at a higher level, because they’ve done this in class already. 157 Professional and personal application of concepts. Further exploring characteristics of graduate education abroad that support short-term experiences as graduate level education, faculty leaders discussed the personal and professional application of concepts learned during the experience. Additionally, they described how graduate students are able to “build their new learning upon existing experience and knowledge” and apply learning “with a new lens.” Greg specifically explained how some graduate students are able to extract from comparative analysis to make conclusions or ask new questions. He shared, [Graduate education abroad] is rich conceptually in the power of abstraction. The capacity to do comparative analysis. To think. You could feel it. I could feel after, the same that you feel when it's a satisfying performance of an amazing class with lots of questions and rich engagement. I would say that happened during lectures on the bus back, when we were trying to digest, ‘What happened? What did we do? What did we see? What did we notice?’ It was amazing. It was just amazing. Setting high expectations for learning was a strategy used by Natalie to foster graduate level application of concepts and abstract thinking. She stated, I have specific expectations for the level of reading and thinking, so there’s a different kind of level of inquiry. Clearly, I had expectations that students were going to read, that they were going to, in the first and third assignment, be able to connect the theory to what their own experience had been abroad, so there was an extensive bibliography for students to use. They were also guided into the level of abstract thinking that goes beyond just simply acquiring knowledge that is book learning. I think that in both ways, the level of abstract thinking, the exposure to existing research and knowledge and the ability to 158 really develop pretty complex responses to graduate level questions. There was no question I designed this on a graduate kind of level. Using a similar strategy, Connie shared her belief that graduate students need to be able to evidence their learning in an academically, professionally appropriate manner. She noted, They need to be able to speak to cultural context. They need to evidence that some of [the cultural context] sunk in, both academically and personally in how they're able to speak about policy. They need to evidence that they've done some level of comprehension around things that aren't just birds-eye view of, ‘This is what I saw.’ They need to show an understanding of the system and having had professional conversations, be able to apply it. Cultural and disciplinary adaptation. A final characteristic of graduate education abroad that evidenced graduate level work was emphasized by faculty leaders as an ability to adapt to new cultures and disciplinary environments. Students have an opportunity to engage in situations that are new, with first-hand experiences, “to gain understanding of something broad in the world, with a new world lens.” Several faculty leaders discussed this attribute. Michael contended that the ability of graduate students to “go with the flow” and “adapt quickly on their feet” truly set them apart within graduate level settings. He described how graduate students can “think more deeply” when thrown into new situations, We can put [graduate students] in a very uncomfortable social setting that there would be no other reason why [they] would be in it, and it becomes an opportunity to reflect on why, and that it can be a pedagogical experience from the psychological, ‘How did it feel and why,’ all the way up to the analytical of, ‘So why are people in this situation?’ 159 Summary: Outcomes of Graduate Education Abroad and Faculty Leader Perceptions of the Internationalization of Graduate Education In this chapter, I explored faculty leader perspectives on outcomes of graduate education abroad for faculty leaders, graduate students, disciplines and institutions, and the internationalization of graduate education. Leaders outlined five main outcomes stemming from their participation as a faculty leader in graduate education abroad including professional development and personal benefits, personal growth from a comparative experience, development of self-awareness, increased creativity in teaching, and personal learning. Outcomes for their students were summarized with the building of interdisciplinary connections, changed perspectives, personal growth, and enhancement of experience through learning from and with peers. Disciplinary and institutional outcomes encompassed linking theoretical knowledge with experiential learning, increasing recruitment value, increasing the skills and abilities of graduate students for the workforce, and expanding research opportunities and professional collaborations. To better situate graduate education abroad within the broader conversation around the internationalization of higher education, faculty leaders provided definitions of the internationalization of graduate education. Summarizing the faculty leader responses, a general definition is: The development and preparation of global citizens to appreciate global influences, reciprocate learning through culture and people, establish global relationships, and gain understanding of global contexts. Similar to the definitions provided, leaders expressed their belief that graduate education abroad plays a role in the process of internationalizing graduate education in four ways. This role includes developing global citizens, building global networks, 160 providing professional and career preparation, and bridging graduate students and faculty to global communities of practice and global scholarship. Lastly, faculty leaders identified characteristics commonly associated with graduate education abroad that denote these experiences as graduate level education. Identified characteristics of graduate level short-term programming encompassed rigorous graduate level course content, an intense depth of engagement, heightened professionalism, contextualized professional and personal application of concepts, and graduate students’ ability to professionally adapt to new cultural and disciplinary contexts. Summary of Findings from Chapters Four and Five In Chapters Four and Five, I reported the findings that emerged from interviews with 21 faculty leaders of short-term graduate education abroad programs. In Chapter Four, I presented findings related to faculty leaders shared their motivations for involvement in graduate education abroad, purposes of graduate education abroad, and outcomes of graduate education abroad to provide insight into what faculty leaders aim to accomplish when leading graduate education abroad. I also presented assertions about faculty leaders beliefs, values, and assumptions that guided their work as faculty leaders regarding qualities of short-term education abroad, responsibilities of faculty leaders, the nature of graduate learners, and the internationalization of graduate education. I described a spectrum of responsibilities of faculty leaders of graduate education abroad, subject-based and project-based models of graduate education abroad, and six main types of short-term programming. Examining components of graduate education abroad, I also highlighted experiences that leaders liked most, liked least, and found most challenging. I then described pedagogical strategies used by faculty 161 before, during, and after their graduate education abroad programs as well as forms of assessment. In Chapter Five, I outlined various outcomes of graduate education abroad for faculty, students, and disciplinary departments. I then illustrated faculty leaders’ beliefs that graduate education abroad plays a role in, or serves as a tool for, the internationalization of their disciplinary departments, institutions, graduate education, and students. I highlighted how faculty leaders defined the internationalization of graduate education and how graduate education abroad plays a role in the internationalization of graduate education abroad. Lastly, I included characteristics identified by faculty leaders associated with graduate education abroad that denote these experiences as graduate level education. In chapter six, I will discuss how the findings presented in chapters four and five respond to the identified research questions and how they fit with the study’s conceptual framework. Lastly, I will report on findings which I view as most revealing in representing the research questions and will provide implications for future research and practice. 162 CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION Study Overview The purpose of this final chapter is to interpret the findings presented in Chapters Four and Five and discuss their contributions to theory, implications for practice, and implications for future research and theory. The findings of this study are intended to guide faculty leaders of graduate education abroad in terms of how they perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their leadership positions. While there are modest studies about short-term education abroad at the graduate level (see Alon & McAllaster, 2009; Dirkx, et al., 2016; Dirkx et al., 2014a; Dirkx et al., 2014b; Ferguson, 2010; Hulstrand, 2015; Sinclair, 2014; Yarbrough, 2015), little is known about the faculty leader role in these experiences or how faculty pedagogically approach graduate education abroad. This qualitative study relied upon interviews with 21 faculty leaders of graduate education abroad from two doctorate granting, research institutions. Using a qualitative approach, this study sought to answer the following research questions: o What do faculty want to accomplish when leading short-term, faculty-led graduate level, education abroad? o What beliefs, assumptions, and values guide the work of faculty leaders in their role as a faculty leader of short-term, faculty-led, graduate level education abroad? o What do faculty leaders do in their role as a faculty leader of short-term, facultyled, graduate level education abroad? The findings of this study can be useful in multiple ways. First, the findings can help identify potential opportunities for professional growth and development for faculty leaders through graduate education abroad. Second, the findings glean insight into faculty leader pedagogical approaches to graduate education abroad through the illumination of two guiding 163 models and six types of short-term programming. Third, the findings can support the development of strategies and programming structures to support graduate level international experiences to expose more graduate students to disciplinary-focused, diverse global experiences. Finally, the findings reveal the central importance of the faculty leader in graduate education abroad which can support future program and faculty development. This study demonstrates that the faculty leader plays a prominent role in all aspects of graduate education abroad. This study holds implications for faculty, departmental, and institutional graduate education abroad practice, for theory, and for research. From idea to implementation, faculty leader initiatives drive the pedagogical and curricular dimensions of graduate education abroad. While some leaders develop programs that are intricately aligned with institutional missions or departmental goals, others develop programs that are morphed from curricular or professional disciplinary goals. In this discussion, I first briefly review the main findings of this study that are important to the literature and discussions surrounding graduate education abroad. I then discuss the findings about the faculty leader role in graduate education abroad and the value of the conceptual framework in understanding the faculty leader approach to graduate education abroad in relation to the study’s three research questions. Finally, I discuss implications of the current study for research, theory, and practice. Review of Findings In Chapters Four and Five, I reported the findings that emerged from interviews with faculty leaders of short-term graduate education abroad programs. In this section, I summarize the central findings. 164 Faculty leaders shared what they aim to accomplish when leading graduate education abroad through their motivations for involvement in and purposes, as well as outcomes, of graduate education abroad. Motivations centered around personal and professional benefits and engaging graduate students in deepened relationships and diverse learning experiences. Purposes of graduate education abroad included affording opportunities for graduate students to experientially apply disciplinary content comparatively in global contexts, develop cultural and global competencies, be exposed to international networks and professional perspectives, and engage in broader understanding of diversity and internationalized perspectives. Lastly, faculty leaders discussed a variety of outcomes that in retrospect, influenced what they hoped to accomplish through graduate education abroad. Most leaders reflected on prior experiences in their responses revealing opportunities for faculty leaders to engage in comparative experiences, gain professional development, develop self-awareness in an international context, creatively teach, and explore new parts of the world while learning. All of these outcomes played critical roles in faculty leader motivations for continuing as a graduate education abroad leader after their initial experience. Faculty leaders also asserted a plethora of beliefs, values, and assumptions that guided their work as faculty leaders. Leaders viewed short-term graduate education abroad as extremely valuable to graduate education by providing intense, rigorous experiences that are pedagogically unique, and that appropriately challenge graduate learners who are mature, professional, flexible individuals. Short-term programs provide opportunities for graduate students to apply disciplinary knowledge, independently explore professional topics and networks, and integrate their learning abroad in professional contexts and within their classrooms and programs. 165 Faculty leaders also identified a spectrum of leader responsibilities most commonly noting faculty as the drivers of these programs. Though some leaders noted departmental pushes for participation, most self-selected or volunteered to participate and were responsible for the most of their program planning, logistics, and implementation. From 24/7 responsibility of the overall experience to only leading the academic portion, faculty leaders varied greatly in their perceptions of leader responsibilities. Generally, leader beliefs included responsibility of ensuring the well-being of students, conveying culture, and integrating students into the experience. Leaders facilitated academic and experiential learning by ensuring graduate-level rigor, consistent reflection and debriefing, and interaction with students. Six types of short-term, faculty-led programming emerged as examples of graduate education abroad including mirrored courses, revised or altered content, embedded experiences, entirely unique courses or experiences, professional collaborations, and study tours. Faculty leaders asserted that graduate education abroad plays a role in, or serves as a tool for, the internationalization of their disciplinary departments, institutions, graduate education, and students through identification of a variety of outcomes. Leaders defined the internationalization of graduate education as the development and preparation of global citizens to appreciate global influences, reciprocate learning through culture and people, establish global relationships, and gain understanding of global contexts. Unanimously, leaders noted graduate education abroad as graduate level curriculum, consistent with graduate level course content with depth of engagement, high level of professionalism, professional and personal application of concepts, and access to new cultural and disciplinary environments. Graduate education abroad affords a context to develop and prepare graduate students to be global citizens, gain cultural experience, provide professional and career preparation, and begin to build a bridge between 166 practice and global scholarship within graduate education through experiences that can potentially permeate the boundaries of the classroom. For faculty leaders, perceived outcomes of graduate education abroad encompassed personal growth, professional development, selfawareness, creative teaching, and personal learning. Pedagogically, leaders discussed strategies used before, during, and after their graduate education abroad programs. Critical components included establishing clear expectations, providing a pre-travel orientation, building a strong, culturally and academically appropriate curriculum, building positive relationships and group dynamics, including site visits and cultural exploration, sharing research, facilitating experiential learning, integrating formal and informal reflective debriefing sessions, assigning post-experience reflective essays, research or experience papers, final exams, presentations, or group blogs, and convening post-travel meetings. Leaders discussed challenges assessing experiential components of learning during graduate education abroad noting that the development of cultural or global competencies, or the influence of an experience, may be delayed or develop and become realized over time. However, almost unanimously, leaders believed in the value of graduate education abroad to enrich the academic, personal, and professional growth and experiences of participants and leaders alike. Contributions to Theory In Chapter Three, I discussed the two closely related conceptual frameworks that guided this study, Clark and Peterson’s (1986) Teacher Thought Process Model and Pratt’s (1992) General Model of Teaching. During analysis of the study’s data, the Academic Plan Model (Lattuca & Stark, 2009) also emerged as a supporting framework for understanding the results of this study. Borrowing from all three models, combined with the perspectives of faculty leaders from this study, I have developed a model for the Pedagogy of Graduate Education Abroad. 167 In this section, I discuss how this model and the findings from this study contribute to theory about graduate education abroad and the pedagogy of education abroad. First, I discuss the two chosen frameworks and how they theoretically contributed to the analysis of data. Next, I note a third framework that emerged as a related conceptual model and was useful in the analysis of data and in making sense of the role of faculty leaders of graduate education abroad. Lastly, I present the model for the Pedagogy of Graduate Education Abroad which I have developed to provide a framework for exploring the faculty role of graduate education abroad. Conceptual Frameworks The framework of inquiry which guided this study was based off Clark and Peterson’s (1986) Teacher Thought Process Model and Pratt’s (1992) General Model of Teaching. These two models provided a theoretical foundation that framed the analysis of data as themes emerged which when combined support understanding of the pedagogy of graduate education abroad. When examining the findings regarding how faculty leaders perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their role as a faculty leader of graduate education abroad, various components of the two frameworks came in to play. Teacher thought process model. Clark and Peterson (1986) suggest that contextualized factors such as institutional values or institutional resources influence decision making (see Figure 5). 168 Figure 5. Faculty Leader Thought Processes modeled after Clark & Peterson’s (1986) Model of Teacher Thought and Action In this study, faculty leaders addressed contextualized factors influencing their decisions in graduate education abroad noting importance of knowledge of the international context, curricular constraints, or departmental practices. As leaders, beliefs and values about graduate education in general and graduate education abroad became apparent as critical facets of motivations to be involved as a leader and purposes for developing short-term international experiences. For example, Charlize explained the professional and personal development opportunity of graduate education abroad, “It’s really a way to have a very rich learning experience that helps you to grow as a person and have a bigger, broader perspective of your place in the world.” Faculty leaders were also guided by their beliefs about how graduate education abroad can influence the academic, personal, and professional development of themselves and their graduate students such as when Fred described, “It is a really good chance to open people’s cultural horizons, which will only help them in practice.” They were also 169 guided by their perspectives surrounding potential or desired outcomes of the experiences as related to personal growth, curricular objectives, or professional development, components they identified as important for their graduate learners such as when Anna discussed, “deepen understanding of international issues and disciplinary focus within a global context.” The process of making curricular and pedagogical decisions for faculty leaders included varied approaches. Similar to the varied approaches evidenced in the six types of short-term education abroad identified by faculty leaders, curricular and pedagogical decision making also followed varied processes. For some leaders, the course curriculum was determined by departmentally required coursework. For others, curricular development for the experience started from an idea with complete design discretion. There were factors such as for-credit and not-for-credit options that also influenced decisions. Two predominant decision-making models emerged with faculty leader approaches to curricular and pedagogical decisions (see Figure 6). Figure 6. Predominant Graduate Education Abroad Decision-Making Approaches In the first model, faculty leaders had a prescribed curriculum often provided by their department or through a particular course. Levi described this approach, “There's a whole procedure of how this course gets approved and why it's required and what they're planning to achieve with this course. I tried to keep the course as intact as possible.” Using the prescribed curriculum, the faculty leader looked to the international context to link in experiences, site visits, speakers, or other supplemental resources available within the context. The curriculum drove the decision making for engagement with the international context and often the 170 foundation for the international experience included an in-class experience within the international context. In the second model, faculty leaders selected an international context and then created or modified a curriculum to align with or maximize the resources available such as how Shane selected the country for his program around music. “Its strength as a country is through its cultural mixture, its political mixture, its ethnic mixture, and its music is reflective of all of that.” Once the country context was selected, he then developed the curricular content of the program. This model typically centered around a broad pre-identified theme or topic and then the curricular content and pedagogical decisions were made. Faculty leaders who followed the second model typically created programs that were less focused on in-class lectures or coursework while in the international context and more so on siteon-site visits, engagement with local professionals, cultural excursions, or academic presentations. Ronald exemplified this model, “I'm not real big on spending a lot of time in a classroom or with lectures because we could do that [on our home campus].” Barb also supported this model, “It was drawing on the expertise of the place and the experiential learning. Then, you combine that with the camaraderie of the group experience and curriculum, and it is an incredible learning environment.” Regardless of approach, faculty leaders unanimously shared strong beliefs that there is inherent value in graduate education abroad for graduate student development and international experience that cannot be solely achieved in a traditional classroom. General model of teaching. The General Model of Teaching (Pratt, 1992) also framed this study. Pratt’s (1992) model of teaching set forth a framework for the structure of short-term education abroad through its elements of teaching (content, learners, teachers, ideals, and context) (see Figure 7). 171 Figure 7. General Model of Education Abroad Pedagogy modeled from Pratt’s (1992) General Model of Teaching Faculty leaders in this study also discussed similar elements as central factors in graduate education abroad. First, leaders described their beliefs about graduate learners and the need for contextualized, disciplinary application within a new context to enhance their learning and preparation for their professional contexts such as how Connie stated, “put[ting] substance in the field’s rhetoric.” Next, faculty leaders noted the importance of critically selecting the international context so that it is relevant to the discipline and that it can yield experiences related to their profession for example, James shared, “In our discipline, it’s got to be a location where you can make a business case for visiting.” Faculty leaders also revealed a necessity for the leader to have some working knowledge about or experience with the international context selected for the short-term experience in order to lead a well-organized experience and deal with any challenges that arise while in country. Katherine exemplified this when she said, “I have come to understand that it does make a difference to them, if they go with somebody who has the connection, or if they go with somebody who is visiting just like they are.” Lastly, faculty leaders emphasized the importance of the context in terms of preparing learners for the cultural context or other contextual factors that may influence the experience and learning. Another facet 172 that aligned with Pratt’s (1992) model is ideals, or the purposes for the programming. As noted in Chapter Four, faculty leaders supported purposes of graduate education abroad to apply disciplinary learning, provide experiential learning opportunities, offer comparative experiences, develop cultural and global competencies, and gain exposure to international professional perspectives. Much of the content that aligned with the international context linked to these purposes as drivers for the experience. For example, Barb shared her ideals of graduate education abroad by sharing, Most [students] only have experience in the United States, so they’re seeing similar patterns, similar elements, going on in a different country… There’s always gonna be differences. Being aware of that helps you understand about your own place as much, or more as, your understanding about this new place. Finally, faculty leaders described their roles and responsibilities as consisting of much responsibility for the content which encompassed curricular development, logistical planning, student preparation, oversight, and leadership such as when Devon described, “Ultimately, it’s the group leader that is responsible for all facets of the program.” A third contributing framework. After initially analyzing the findings of this study, the Academic Plan Model (Lattuca & Stark, 2009) emerged as another complementary model to consider to further support understanding of how faculty leaders perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their positions as faculty leaders of graduate education abroad (see Figure 8). 173 Figure 8. Elements of Academic Plans (Lattuca & Stark, 2009, p. 7) This model “implies both intentional and informed choices among alternatives to achieve its intentions” (Lattuca & Stark, 2009, p. 4) and focuses mainly on planning. In developing international experiences faculty leaders revealed intentional decision making, often using a trial and error selection process when initially determining design and resources. Aligning with Lattuca and Stark’s (2009) model, faculty leaders noted the importance of graduate student learning and development as central to their approach to program and curricular design. Leslie supported this idea by stating, “the idea is that [the students] questions shift and their ways of looking at things shift.” The very nature of deciding to be involved in graduate education abroad as a faculty leader almost always centered around graduate students and the opportunity to engage and teach graduate students in new and unique ways. The academic plan “implies a deliberate planning process that focuses attention on important education considerations, which will vary by field of study, instructors, students, instructional goals, and so on” (Lattuca & Stark, 2009, p. 4). Regardless of education abroad type or discipline, faculty leaders were very intentional in their curricular approaches to graduate education abroad. The academic plan model 174 provides additional structure around the planning process of faculty leaders as they approach and implement each international experience and accounts for needed adjustments during or after the experience. What became evident in the findings is that there are multiple influences on each faculty leader’s planning process including institutional policies, departmental goals or regulations, disciplinary topic, size of group, duration of program, and program type. Model of pedagogy of graduate education abroad. Borrowing from the Teacher Thought Processes Model (Clark & Peterson, 1986), the General Model of Teaching (Pratt, 1992), and the Academic Plan Model (Lattuca & Stark, 2009), combined with the perspectives of faculty leaders from this study, I have developed a model for the Pedagogy of Graduate Education Abroad (see Figure 9). Components from the three frameworks above informed my model of the Pedagogy of Graduate Education Abroad. Clark and Peterson’s (1986) teacher thought processes afforded insight to the factors that influence programming such as faculty leader beliefs, assumptions, values, motivations, and approaches to planning. Pratt’s (1992) General Model of Teaching yielded structure around identified elements of teaching and reinforced the importance of the educational context. Applied with graduate education abroad, these elements, content, learners, faculty leaders, ideals, and context, emerged as a central focus in developing short-term programming. And lastly, Lattuca & Stark’s (2009) Academic Plan Model provided a guide for planning. 175 Figure 9. Model of the Pedagogy of Graduate Education Abroad 176 By pulling these highlighted components from each of the models, I was able to inform the Model of the Pedagogy of Graduate Education Abroad. However, when considering graduate education abroad, these models alone were unable to entirely frame the experience. With shortterm programming, the experience itself is condensed into a short period of time with much of the planning occurring in advance. Thus, Clark and Peterson’s model (1986) contributed to understand what planning took place before each experience and what beliefs, assumptions and values guided that planning but didn’t extend understanding for what occurs during or after a short-term experience. On the other hand, Pratt’s (1992) model provided structure around teaching, or in this case leading graduate education abroad, with consideration of the interplay of structure and context with the elements of teaching with faculty leader actions, intentions, and beliefs. This model yielded insight into what content, context, activities, roles, and actions occur in graduate education abroad as well as general understanding of faculty leaders’ reflection on their leadership in short-term programming. Like Clark and Peterson’s model (1986), Pratt’s (1992) model did not include reflective assessment or evaluation components on the actual implementation of teaching. Complementing these models, Lattuca and Stark’s (2009) Academic Plan contributed to planning for classroom learning. However, this model underestimated the role of the context, or out of classroom learning, that was identified by faculty leaders as a critical component for curricular planning for and implementation of graduate education abroad. Despite the curricular approach to graduate education abroad, the international context was intricately interwoven into the experience of faculty leaders and graduate students. The Pedagogy of Graduate Education Abroad model accounts for all contexts for teaching and learning with graduate education abroad. This model implies a process of practice for faculty leaders of short-term experiences and the factors and outcomes that influence each 177 program. In this study, all faculty leaders had led at least two short-term experiences, resulting in each leader’s ability to reflect on their practices and growth in planning for and developing graduate education abroad. Leslie explained why reflection was important in her leadership process, “Going back is never exactly the same itinerary, it's never exactly the same people, and it's definitely not the same group of students.” The process of reflection on planning processes, the influence of the international context and culture, and outcomes directly influenced this model’s cyclical process as learning influences program development which influences experiences and learning which influences outcomes which influence the internationalization of faculty leaders and learners and contribute to institutions and disciplinary departments. Central to this model is the interplay between faculty leader and learner within the context of the experience. Faculty leader and learner values, assumptions, beliefs, and motivations are central to involvement in graduate education abroad. Approaches to developing, planning, and implementing short-term programming largely stem from the faculty leader. Leader’s approaches emerged from their beliefs about graduate learners, benefits of graduate education abroad, professional contextualization of their disciplines, and the international context. For example, Leslie described her approach as a way to “learn together [with students] through experience and relationships.” Figure 9 shows how the beliefs, values, assumptions, and motivations are influenced by the institution (including college, department, and/or program), it’s values, resources, processes, and practices. Natalie exemplified the influence of her department, “It became something that the deans were being asked to think about very seriously; to develop courses and experiences that were really utilizing the notion of the global perspective.” Stemming from their beliefs, assumptions, values, and motivations, the faculty leader identifies purposes for a short-term 178 program and determines curricular content and an international context. Next, the learning experiences and activities take place which either encompass a subject-based or project-based approach. For many faculty leaders, the identified purposes for short-term programming aligned with the anticipated or desired outcomes of their program such as “exposure to professional development and perspectives” and “engagement in a comparative learning experience.” The model accounts for the influence of actual and anticipated outcomes on the identification of purposes, development of content, and selection of international context. Distinguishing graduate level programming, leaders emphasized purposes for and outcomes of graduate education abroad for both faculty leaders and graduate participants including experiential learning within graduate appropriate contexts, scholarly growth, opportunities to develop cultural and global competencies and perspectives, application of disciplinary knowledge in diverse contexts, and professional development opportunities. Throughout each step of the planning process as well as during participation of the experience, the international and cultural context influence the experience. For example, Connie shared, “At times, despite hours of planning and designing, you find yourself throwing out well-intentioned plans to accommodate something that happens while you are in-country or maybe it doesn’t fully fit culturally.” These factors all influence, and are considered in, the planning of short-term, facultyled experiences. At each step of the process of developing and implementing graduate education abroad, assessment and evaluation plays a role. From concept when faculty leaders are thinking about curriculum and their learners’ needs, to post-experience follow-up, faculty leaders engage in formative and summative assessment and evaluation strategies. Though these strategies differ depending on the type of experience, discipline, group size, international context, institutional 179 priorities, etc, each program designed and used tools to assess and evaluation the experience, academic components, and personal growth of students and leaders, and even international partners at times. In considering these components, the experiences result in varying levels of internationalization of the learner (including the faculty leader), and a wide array of contributions to the home institution, college, or department. This model provides a structural foundation for understanding graduate education abroad. Faculty leaders can use this model to situate and frame their ideas for graduate education abroad within a process based on the experiences of other graduate level faculty leaders as well as pedagogical models. As most faculty leaders shared, leaders often start from scratch when designing international learning experiences and are challenged with a trial and error approach to designing and structuring experiences. This model affords guidance for this process and can support faculty leader’s understanding of and approach to designing short-term experiences for graduate students. This model, pulling from each of the three supporting frameworks, reveals critical components for planning and implementing graduate education abroad. Implications for Practice The extensive findings that emerged from this study yield many opportunities to explore graduate education abroad. In this section, I discuss six predominant issues that arise from this work and their implications for practice. Institutional Influence on Faculty Involvement in Graduate Education Abroad One implication for practice that emerged from this study relates to the institutional role in supporting faculty leaders in graduate education abroad. Typically, policies for faculty involvement in international activities are set at the organizational level (Childress, 2010; Knight, 1999) which was reinforced by faculty from the two institutions represented in this 180 study. However, as faculty leaders noted, international activities are often created and facilitated from the bottom-up through the work of faculty members (Wotila Croom, 2010; Sinclair, 2014). Literature supports that faculty often play key roles in internationalization efforts at higher education institutions (Childress, 2010; Green & Olsen, 2008; Helms & Asfaw, 2013; Hudzik, 2010; Sinclair, 2014) which was further reinforced by the faculty leaders of this study. However, for many leaders, the role of a faculty leader is added on to their contractual work assignments, adding overload time and responsibilities (Knight, 1994; Navarro, 2004; Wotila Croom, 2010). Despite the additional workload, most faculty leaders in this study revealed that they approached their institutions with their idea for graduate education abroad and initiated the leadership process. A great deal of the flexibility and motivation needed to be involved in graduate education abroad for faculty leaders stemmed from support they received from their institutions. Both universities have explicitly stated values supporting internationalization efforts that encourage development of quality experiences for students, recognizing internationally-oriented work and activities, identifying goals for student learning and development, and encouraging college and departmental involvement. However, faculty leaders noted that, though their institution’s goals were general drivers for opportunities with education abroad and internationalization efforts, institutional goals did not always align for undergraduate and graduate level programming. At the graduate level, the departmental and disciplinary influence tended to drive faculty leader roles and responsibilities and graduate student opportunities to participate in graduate education abroad. Despite the stated institutional values, faculty leaders expressed a desire and need for further support surrounding administration of specific programs, acknowledgement of the work 181 load entailed in leading graduate education abroad, reward of these activities as part of reappointment processes, and financial support for students to increase access and participation. Institutional administrators might identify specific reward measures to support faculty in their work to develop and lead graduate education abroad. Rewards could take the form of course reductions during the academic year, salary supplements, increased value and clarity for promotion and tenure, and institutional recognition for their leadership. Provosts and collegiate deans might also consider formalizing an orientation to leading graduate education abroad offering training about best practices, priorities, or strategies for implementation. Most leaders found intrinsic and extrinsic value in engaging as a leader of graduate education abroad which can be enhanced by additional institutional, college, or departmental involvement and support. Disciplinary Focus of Graduate Education Abroad With graduate level, discipline-based, time-intensive curriculum frequently being departmentally driven, there is often little room to divert from or add to curricular standard requirements (Allen, 2004; Lattuca & Stark 2009; Lunde, 1995). However, over the last few decades, graduate education abroad has increasingly been used to supplement disciplinary learning as it has emerged as an opportunity for graduate learners to apply professional, contextualized knowledge from their disciplines in diverse contexts (Hulstrand, 2015; Sinclair, 2015; Yarbrough, 2015). It has become increasingly important to acknowledge the reality of graduates’ need for understanding of disciplinary-based application of knowledge and work in international experiences (Sinclair, 2014). Thus, graduate education abroad has become an integral experience for graduate students to integrate academic knowledge, professional practice, and immersive application of learning. 182 Supporting the importance of applying disciplinary based knowledge, the T-shaped professional model has been emphasized as a guiding pedagogical theory in the development and facilitation of education abroad (Nolan, 2009; Twombly et al., 2012). The T-shaped Professional model (see Figure 10), stressing depth and breadth of learning, focuses on integrating disciplinary knowledge with understanding of and ability to apply that knowledge in a variety of professional contexts (Gardner, 2014; Nolan, 2009). The bottom of the “T”, or the depth, represents depth in a discipline and understanding of a system interacting with the discipline (Gardner, 2014; Sporher, Gregory, & Ren, 2010). Aligned with goals and purposes of graduate education abroad as identified by faculty leaders, the horizontal top of the “T”, or the breadth, represents the ability to collaborate across disciplines and within multiple systems using a variety of skills (Gardner, 2014; Sporher, Gregory, & Ren, 2010). In the center, the “ME” represents the individual, or in the case of graduate education abroad, the graduate learner, and acknowledges who a student is and where they want to go as a professional when combining their skills, knowledge, and abilities (Sporher, Gregory, & Ren, 2010). 183 Figure 10. T-Shape Professional Model (Gardner, 2014) Faculty leaders in this study revealed that the program discipline plays a critical role in the content and experience within graduate education abroad. Evidencing professional development and the ability to contextualize a profession as a leading purpose for establishing graduate level education abroad as well as a primary outcome of these experiences, this study advances how the T-shaped model could enhance understanding of graduate education abroad program design. The T-shaped model is supported by this study as it reveals how graduate education abroad, as an experiential learning experience, affords an opportunity to apply disciplinary and professional dimensions of graduate learning as well as develop professional and global competencies within an international context (Lambert, 1994; Nolan, 2009). Furthermore, this study illuminates the capacity for graduate education abroad to provide interdisciplinary interactions, professional application of learning, and experiences helping 184 participants develop deepened understanding of multiple systems and disciplines, as identified in the T-shaped model (Gardner, 2014). Faculty leaders in this study used the term interdisciplinary in regard to graduate education abroad to refer to the integration of graduate students from different disciplines, different programs within a disciplinary department, or the process of applying disciplinary learning in diverse professional and cultural contexts. Thus, the T-shaped model can be a useful tool to explore how graduate education abroad experiences can offer interdisciplinary skills, or boundary crossing, for graduate students when applying graduate-level disciplines in new cultural and professional contexts. However, the very nature of how faculty leaders describe their short-term programming make the T-shaped model less applicable for graduate-level education in relation to furthering depth of a discipline or deepening broader systems level thinking. This brings into question how faculty leaders can continue to intentionally design experiences to reinforce disciplinary learning through graduate education abroad to enhance and reinforce short-term programming value for students and faculty alike. Helping to understand the intentionality of leaders when designing short-term experiences, the model of Pedagogy of Graduate Education Abroad highlights desired T-shaped competencies and outcomes that stem from short-term programming through purposeful program development (intentions), selection of learning activities (approach and planning), and identification of desired and actual outcomes. Many faculty leaders build international experiences around departmental disciplinary content through subject-based approaches while keeping professional goals for graduate students in focus. By linking disciplinary content with the international experience, short-term education abroad presents an opportunity to integrate learning and outcomes from international experiences within home institution classrooms and curricular programming. 185 In this study, leaders strongly emphasized professional, disciplinary content in short-term programming though it varied from discipline to discipline. Some disciplines, such as medicine, approached the international experience as a hands-on experiential application of learning. Other disciplines, such as education, tended to approach the experience through a research or comparative lens. With Business and Social Work, graduate education abroad was integrated into the broader departmental curriculum, reinforcing and being reinforced by other coursework or experiential opportunities. Regardless of the approach, all disciplines represented in this study described the value of graduate education abroad for contextualizing learning for graduate students and preparing them for professional practice post-graduation through the understanding of their discipline as dependent on understanding diverse contexts. By considering the importance of the discipline for both the designing of short-term programming as well as the outcomes of these experiences for graduate students and faculty, faculty leaders can be more intentional in their approach to graduate education abroad. Departments might choose to establish general goals or learning objectives based on disciplinary goals or standards to help guide faculty leaders in designing short-term programming that better aligns with departmental goals. Additionally, this study illuminates variations in program models (subject-based and project-based) and six main types of short-term graduate education abroad that support understanding of what faculty leaders do in their role as a leader. By considering the variety of short-term program types, faculty leaders might be able to approach selection of a program type or structure to align with disciplinary and professional goals. Lastly, when selecting a location for short-term programming, decision makers can focus their search with the professional context of their discipline at the forefront of their search to ensure appropriate opportunities for contextualizing the discipline within the international context. 186 Pedagogical Diversity in Graduate Education Abroad Observations about changes occurring in the world through globalization and internationalization that influence higher education and professional disciplines have been observed for several decades (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Kent & McCarthy, 2011; Lewin, 2009). With emphasis on internationalization of evolving, professional industries as a response to global needs, institutions and faculty aim prepare graduate students with necessary skills and knowledge to remain competitive in the workforce (Austin, 2001; Bok, 2006; Sinclair, 2014). Through discipline-based programs, graduate education aims to prepare future faculty and professionals with appropriate transferable skills and understanding of global demographics and issues that influence their disciplines (CFGE, 2010). College or departmental goals often align with institutional goals that typically encompass goals for diversity and inclusion prompting faculty to contribute to diversity and inclusion in their teaching, research, service, and other professional activities to support the broader institutional mission (Knight, 1999). Furthermore, internationalization efforts within graduate education have increased and the topic has been emphasized by professional organizations such as NAFSA, the NSF, the Council of Graduate Schools, and many scholars (Allum, 2014; Dirkx et al., 2014b; Sinclair, 2014). In this study, faculty leaders shared that they have experienced challenges in trying to teach or integrate topics related to broader, global issues and international contexts within a traditional classroom context beyond surface level. Yet, similar to existing literature (ACE, 2012; Coryell, Spencer, & Sehin, 2014; Knight, 1999; Wachter, 2003), they continually emphasize the value of engaging graduate students in global issues and view international, crosscultural contexts as a method to achieve engagement in these topics. Like Lewin (2009), faculty leaders acknowledge the importance of internationalizing their curriculum noting positive 187 outcomes such as cultural and professional benefits through exploration of a new context. Therefore, as a response to the growing demands on graduate education and challenges effectively integrating global concepts in their classrooms, many faculty have turned to shortterm education abroad as an option to help internationalize the perspectives of their students (Bremer, 2008; Hulstrand, 2015). By engaging students in an international context, faculty leaders aim to develop a broader understanding of diversity with their students so they will be able to navigate differences or complex environments within their professions (Twombly et al., 2012; Yarbrough, 2015). In general, they aim to internationalize the student experience. The faculty leaders within this study extended views about internationalization through graduate education abroad that aligned with other literature (Green & Olsen, 2003; Hulstrand, 2006; Knight, 1994; Knight, 1997; Navarro, 2004; Viers, 2003); as an exciting opportunity to teach, create, facilitate and build stronger relationships with students. Though leaders didn’t identify intentional use of short-term education abroad as a pedagogical tool to internationalize their students or curriculum specifically, the manner in which they defined the purposes and outcomes of graduate education abroad revealed alignment of short-term programming as an effective internationalization tool. Motivations for getting involved as a faculty leader and defined purposes of graduate education abroad are fairly consistent among faculty leaders from different disciplines. However, pedagogical approaches to developing short-term experiences varied greatly. Whether curricular approaches follow a broader disciplinary curriculum, institutional missions or objectives, or are uniquely designed around an issue or theme, findings show that the leader is the driver of curricular, pedagogical, and logistical decisions. Faculty leaders draw from prior experiences with or knowledge of short-term experiences gained from personal international experiences, 188 modeling or mirroring from observations of other faculty leaders or other beliefs or expectations about short-term programming. With little guidance in the development of short-term, graduate level programming, faculty leaders have a creative license to approach the pedagogical and curricular foundations of their programs. Whether starting from scratch or modifying a preexisting course, faculty leaders typically have the freedom to design how to best create a shortterm program to maximize graduate-level learning. However, this study suggests that there is need for and value of additional support and guidance for faculty leaders in developing quality, well-organized graduate education abroad experiences. To support the creative design of short-term programming while supporting the curricular rigor of graduate level disciplinary content, departments might choose to create mentorship partnerships or formal workshops surrounding pedagogical approaches to short-term programming and best practices. Additionally, with institutional goals for diversifying perspectives and developing global and multicultural perspectives and competencies, departments might collaboratively, with faculty, identify specific goals focused on diversity and inclusion for short-term programming to ensure alignment with institutional, college, department, and program values, goals, and learning outcomes. Graduate Level, Short-Term Education Abroad For decades, short-term education abroad has been viewed as a form of internationalization of higher education (Altbach & Knight, 2007). As more recent discussions about graduate education abroad have emerged, so has the question of how graduate- and undergraduate- level short-term programming differ. Short-term education abroad at both levels is typically associated with a blend of academic and experiential opportunities. 189 Outcomes of short-term education abroad are well documented at the undergraduate level highlighting diverse understanding and connections between people globally (Deardorff, 2006; Kauffmann, Martin, & Weaver, 1992; IIE, 2015; Suttons & Rubin, 2004), increased cultural involvement (Abrams, 1979; Fischer, 2012; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004), global perspectives (Burn, 1980; Fischer, 2012), global competitiveness and international collaboration (Dwyer, 2004), improved foreign language abilities (Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005), career readiness (Kernaghan, 2012; Picard, Bernardino, & Ehigiator, 2009), development of general skills (Dirkx et al., 2016), and personal, professional, and academic development (Dwyer & Peters, 2004). At the graduate level, outcomes from short-term education abroad have been linked to development of professional skills (Dirkx, et al., 2016; Hulstrand, 2015; Sinclair, 2014; Yarbrough, 2015) preparation to work with increasingly diverse populations (Sinclair, 2014; Yarbrough, 2015), development of comparative understandings of disciplinary practices (Dirkx, et al., 2016; Bremer, 2008), and better understanding of professions in global settings (Ferguson, 2010; Tobenkin, 2009). This study adds to the existing knowledge about graduate education abroad as it provides insight into the central importance of the faculty leader in these programs. Though undergraduate and graduate level education abroad are both influenced by institutional goals and missions, the faculty leader plays a prominent role at the graduate level. At the graduate level, faculty leaders revealed little external support for developing short-term programming. Further, graduate level programming was typically focused on and directly aligned with a specific discipline-based content with few programs offering interdisciplinary options. At the undergraduate level, shortterm, faculty-led, education abroad programs are frequently interdisciplinary in focus and are quite often collaboratively created with, supported by, and facilitated through central institutional 190 offices such as education abroad departments. and programming focus was directly aligned with disciplinary content. The results of this study suggest that graduate-level, short-term education abroad experiences are just that, inherently graduate level. Leaders evidenced graduate-level rigor through graduate curriculum and course content, depth of engagement of graduate learners, a focused professionalism of curricular content and students, professional and personal application of disciplinary concepts, an increased ability of graduate students to culturally and disciplinarily adapt and evolve to new contexts, and contextualized preparation for involvement in diverse practices and contexts within disciplinary professions. Thus, the very nature of graduate education abroad, from graduate learners to program curriculum, differentiates graduate-level, short-term education abroad. A focus on graduate learning objectives and professional goals for graduate education as distinct from undergraduate education should remain central to the design of short-term education abroad programs. Good Pedagogical Practices in Graduate Education Abroad A growing body of literature focuses on best practices in education abroad (Brewer & Cunningham, 2009; Donnelly-Smith, 2009; Gonsalvez, 2013; Lewin & Van Kirk, 2009; McCallon & Holmes, 2010; Pagano & Roselle, 2009; Perry, Stoner, & Tarrant, 2012; Spencer & Tuma, 2007). However, these practices largely focus on undergraduate level programming. This study reveals various components and practices of graduate education abroad that faculty leaders identify as “critical components” for successful programming. The model of Pedagogy of Graduate Education Abroad (see Figure 9) provides a framework for understanding various components of approaches to short-term programming to begin to explore what faculty leaders do in their role as a leader from planning and program development, to implementation and 191 evaluation. This study begins to identify what matters pedagogically in graduate education abroad. Two prominent program models emerged in this study that guide development of graduate education abroad: subject-based and project-based. In exploring what faculty leaders want to accomplish in graduate education abroad, these two models revealed a fundamental difference in approaches to developing short-term programming. Faculty leaders described different roles in how they approached these two program models and highlighted variations in types of short-term programming that emerged within these models. However, regardless of which model was utilized, the use of both model resulted in similar outcomes of graduate education abroad for themselves as faculty leaders, for students, and for their disciplinary departments. Leaders using both models also highlighted similar pedagogical practices and program components used to carry out graduate education abroad. These similarities reveal the importance of how the faculty leader ties in the program structure and approach to learning with the in-country experience. Additionally, short-term programming was offered as both for-credit and not-for-credit options. Graduate education abroad within this study predominantly used for-credit options (14 of 21 programs) with two other programs offering a choice between the two options and five programs offering not-for-credit options. Programs with for-credit options were most commonly designed to fit within disciplinary curriculum as part of a professional degree program or as an elective course option. For-credit options were emphasized to allow for students to receive financial aid support. Through not-for-credit options, faculty leaders created experiential learning opportunities to supplement student development. Unfortunately, critics of not-for-credit short-term education 192 abroad have concerns about the credibility of these experiences for learning and development perceiving not-for-credit, short-term programs potentially as tourism, group vacations, or lacking academic rigor (Davidson, 2010; Perry et al., 2012; Taverney, 2016). However, findings from this study suggest the use of not-for-credit options at the graduate level as highly valuable for interdisciplinary approaches to learning with positive professional and academic outcomes. One difficulty that was noted by faculty leaders was financial constraints of not-for-credit options for students and departments. Leaders of not-for-credit programs within this study discussed the presence of and need for departmental or university support or organized fundraising options to financially assist graduate student participants. Institutions may consider the feasibility for the sustainability of not-for-credit options of graduate education abroad. This study suggests that financial challenges pose obstacles for graduate students in participating in education abroad programs which can be somewhat alleviated through for-credit options. The not-for-credit options within this study resulted in significant financial support from the institution, suggesting an institutional or departmental decision surrounding the value of graduate education abroad. However, institutional financial support raises questions of longer term financial feasibility and sustainability. Scholars have identified three main areas of good practices within education abroad including pre-departure, during an experience, and post-travel practices (NSEE, 1998; Spencer & Tuma, 2007; McCallon & Holmes, 2010; Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2007). Adding to this body of literature, this study presents common critical components of graduate education abroad (see Table 2). Using the model of the Pedagogy of Graduate Education Abroad combined with the critical components of graduate education abroad, institutions, departments, and faculty 193 leaders can better understand practices to support planning for and developing short-term experiences. Table 2 Critical Components of Graduate Education Abroad - Pre-Departure Timing and placement of program Logistics and planning of itinerary Strong curriculum Institutional relationship building Personal relationship building Build positive group dynamics Clear expectations Pre-trip orientations Pre-trip cultural exposure Flexibility - - During an Experience Clear expectations Strong curriculum Institutional relationship building Personal relationship building Positive group dynamics Facilitated experiential learning Professional and collaborative sharing of research and knowledge Site visits Cultural exposure Reflective debriefings Individual follow-up / check-in Flexibility - - Post-Travel Reflective debriefings Post-travel meetings or gatherings Professional and collaborative sharing of research and knowledge Formal post-travel writing assignments or exams Post-travel presentations Blogs Interplay between Purposes, Motivations, and Outcomes In this study, faculty leaders shared their motivations for involvement in graduate education abroad, purposes of graduate education abroad, and outcomes of graduate education abroad to provide insight into what faculty leaders aim to accomplish when leading graduate education abroad. This study’s findings supported existing literature surrounding purposes of short-term education abroad (Abrams, 1979; Burn, 1980; Lambert, 1994; IIE, 2015), motivations for involvement (see ACE, 2012; Goodwin & Nacht, 1991; Heely, 2005), and outcomes (see Chieffo & Griffiths, 2004; Dolby, 2007; Goodwin & Nacht, 1992; Hulstrand, 2006; Lewin, 2009; IIE, 2015). 194 This study illuminated how faculty leaders blended purposes, motivations, and outcomes when discussing graduate education abroad. All leaders interviewed had led at least two shortterm experiences. With that said, the findings suggest that there is interplay between faculty leader identification of program purposes, motivations for involvement, and outcomes for faculty leaders and students. Though leaders framed their responses with empirical experiences, their responses for these three categories were often overlapping. For example, one purpose that emerged is “exposure to international professional perspectives” which links with the identified motivation for involvement, “benefit professionally and personally” and outcomes including “professional development and benefits.” Other examples include the overlap with the purpose “application of disciplinary learning within a global context” with the outcome “interdisciplinary connections,” or the purpose “opportunities for experiential learning” with the outcome “linking theoretical knowledge with experiential learning.” Pulling from prior experiences both teaching at their home institution and developing any prior graduate education abroad experiences potentially influenced the similarities amongst their identified purposes, motivations, and outcomes. When considering the development and implementation of future programs, or assessment and evaluation of current programs, acknowledgement of the influence of desired outcomes comes to the forefront. Faculty leaders frequently noted the difficulty in assessing experiential programming and described the challenge of gathering direct outcomes within the unique context of short-term education abroad. Therefore, programs and departments might consider what is intended to be gained from graduate education abroad and establish some benchmarks or objectives for current and future programs. To gather empirical data on actual outcomes, clear objectives or measurable goals need to be identified prior to the experience. 195 Implications for Future Research & Theory This study raises at least nine areas for future research. Future areas of inquiry include: (1) analysis of graduate education abroad more in depth by discipline and inclusive of faculty leaders from more institutions to gain understanding of variations by discipline; (2) examine outcomes of participating in graduate education abroad for graduate students; (3) exploration of the perspectives of graduate student participants of graduate education abroad as a lens to reflect on the faculty role; (4) research similarities and differences in pedagogical approaches based on career stage (early career, mid-career, late career faculty); (5) further examine the role of graduate education abroad in the internationalization of graduate education and professional disciplines; (6) research the role of team-teaching, or co-leadership, in pedagogical and logistical approaches to graduate education abroad; (7) study graduate education abroad as a high-impact practice; (8) explore the central role of relationships in short-term programs; and (9) investigate what role graduate education abroad may play in the internationalization goals of higher education. First, some disciplines have used graduate education abroad as an academic and developmental tool for decades (Dohmen & Niemi, 1986; Ferguson, 2010; Hulstrand, 2015; Alon & McAllaster, 2009; Yarbough, 2015). However, little is known about variations in programming within distinct disciplines or institution type. This study focused on the experiences of faculty leaders from two institutions and five disciplinary areas. There is need for further research inclusive of faculty leader perspectives from more institutions, institution types, and per discipline. By broadening the research to include more institutions, institution types, and a larger data pool inclusive of more perspectives and experiences within disciplines, further information into and understanding of the pedagogy of graduate education abroad may emerge. 196 Furthermore, further research inclusive of more perspectives may provide insight into disciplinespecific trends or patterns used in graduate education abroad. Second, this study presents a foundation to begin further exploration into more specific academic, professional, and personal outcomes for graduate students participating in graduate education abroad. Currently, outcomes reported generally focus on education abroad as a professional development opportunity within international contexts (Dirkx, et al., 2014a; Hulstrand, 2015; Sinclair, 2014; Yarbrough, 2015), an experience to develop comparative perspectives (Bremer, 2008), or opportunities for professional interactions within international contexts (Sinclair, 2014). Further examination of outcomes as identified by graduate students may yield understanding into the graduate education abroad experience and how these experiences align with goals of graduate education. Third, though this study advances understanding of how faculty leaders perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their positions as leaders of graduate education abroad, there is a need for further understanding of the leader’s pedagogical role from differing perspectives. This study focuses on faculty leader perspectives on the faculty leader role. While there is some existing research that focuses on goals for and outcomes of graduate education abroad for graduate students from the student perspective (Dirkx et al., 2014a; Hulstrand, 2015; Yarbough, 2015), little is known about the faculty leader role from the perspectives of graduate student participants. Insight from graduate students about their perceptions of faculty leaders, their interactions with leaders, and what leaders do in their roles as leaders may be useful in supporting further understanding of the faculty leader role through lived experiences of graduate students or reflection of practices in short-term programs. 197 Fourth, there is an opportunity to examine how faculty leaders perceive, understand, make sense of, and enact their positions as leaders of graduate education abroad based on their career stage (early career, mid-career, late career faculty). Historically, though faculty are central to the effective implementation of processes to internationalize curriculum and campuses (Barnhart, Ricks, & Speier, 1997; Mullens & Cuper, 2012), engagement of faculty in internationalization efforts has been broadly lacking (Hawawini, 2011; Matross Helms, 2013; Stohl, 2007). Moreover, demands on faculty in different career stages vary greatly. A tiered study may glean insight into similarities or differences in pedagogical approaches of faculty leaders at different stages in their careers. A study focused on faculty in different stages of their careers could help understand how faculty leaders engage in and make sense of their role as a faculty leader and contribute to understanding of how graduate education abroad aligns with academic disciplines or graduate education more broadly. Fifth, graduate education abroad has been used as one of many forms of internationalization within graduate education for some time (Kent & McCarthy, 2011). Increasing in quantity across multiple professional disciplines, graduate education abroad continues to be a commonly used curricular tool within higher education (IIE, 2014a). Despite this growth, little is currently known about the role of graduate education abroad in the internationalization of graduate education and professional disciplines. This study suggests that short-term programming is a useful strategy for internationalizing disciplines and graduate students. Graduate education abroad was generally discussed within this study as a method to develop graduate students and integrate diversity of international and cultural perspectives into graduate level curriculum. However, there is still much to be learned about if and how the role of 198 graduate education abroad plays for disciplinary departments, graduate student development, or the internationalization of graduate students or graduate education. Sixth, in this study, faculty leaders discussed the approach of co-leading and teamteaching in graduate education abroad. Many leaders described collaborations with a second faculty leader to develop and/or lead programming, the use of graduate student teaching assistants, or the desire for co-leadership. Discussion of the influence of team-teaching models in short-term education abroad is lacking in extant literature. Thus, future research might explore the idea of how co-leadership in graduate education abroad may function in regards to developing and facilitating programs. For example, are there benefits or challenges in co-leading graduate education abroad? Do interpersonal or inter-disciplinary barriers emerge? Are there financial concerns with the use of multiple leaders? How are responsibilities dispersed in coleadership approaches? Currently, little is known about collaborative leadership in graduate education abroad leaving questions surrounding how decisions are made or how pedagogical and logistical approaches are conducted. Seventh, in this study graduate education abroad has been identified as an effective pedagogical tool to support graduate level learning. Education abroad has been identified as a high-impact practice (Kuh, 2008) as it facilitates outside of the classroom learning, fosters meaningful interactions and relationships between faculty leaders and students, engages with and within diverse contexts, and provides reflective feedback (NSSE, 2007). Through descriptions of and approaches to short-term programming, faculty leaders illuminated the use of graduate education abroad as a high-impact practice to support graduate student learning and to internationalize curriculum within graduate disciplines. Additionally, faculty leaders overwhelmingly highlighted the graduate education abroad experience as an opportunity to 199 creatively teach disciplinary topics and integrate research and personal interests into a distinct pedagogical context. To better understand the pedagogical use of short-term programming within graduate education as a high-impact practice, future research might explore the influence of graduate education abroad on the internationalization of teaching and learning at the graduate level, specifically exploring its influence on disciplinary curriculum. Moreover, future research might examine outcomes and influence of graduate education abroad as a high-impact practice for graduate level learning. Eighth, there has been much discourse surrounding “good practices” of education abroad (Brewer & Cunningham, 2009; Donnelly-Smith, 2009; Gonsalvez, 2013; IES Abroad, 2011; Lewin & Van Kirk, 2009; Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2007; McCallon & Holmes, 2010; NSSE, 1998; Pagano & Roselle, 2009; Perry, Stoner, & Tarrant, 2012; Spencer & Tuma, 2007). Expanding on this research, this study has presented critical components of graduate education abroad. One critical component prominent in this study but not highlighted in the extant literature is the relationship between leader and student. In this study, the nature of the faculty leader and student relationship was illuminated as a central component to the graduate education abroad experience. Many leaders described 24/7 interactions with participants during the shortterm experience and how that intensity helped get to know students at a deeper level than in a traditional classroom which further supported learning and engagement. Future research could explore the central location of relationships within short-term education abroad and how the intensity and intimacy of interactions while in the international context influence the experience and development of graduate students. Moreover, research could examine how intentional design of experiences for graduate education abroad fosters deepened relationships that could in turn 200 provide insight into how to develop meaningful relationships with and get to know students on a deeper level in multiple educational contexts. Lastly, this study continues a conversation about the role of graduate education abroad in the internationalization of graduate education. Mitchell and Nielson (2012) summarized globalization as something happening to higher education while internationalization is something higher education institutions do in response to globalization. For decades, institutions of higher education have been responding to social, economic, and technological forces that are shaping today’s world (Altbach, 2007) with international collaboration emerging as a key globalization and internationalization strategy (Hatakenaka, 2007). Short-term education abroad has been another commonly used strategy for internationalization, and has increasingly been used within graduate education over the past few decades (Altbach, 2007). This study asserts the importance of preparing graduate students for interactions within our global society through global and international perspectives and experiences, interaction with diverse populations, and application of professional disciplines in diverse contexts. The analysis from this study presents a foundation for understanding how graduate education abroad may contribute to internationalization goals of higher education institutions but leaves many critical questions unanswered. Therefore, future research might investigate what role graduate education abroad may play in the internationalization goals of higher education institutions, specifically professional graduate disciplines or the broader neoliberal agenda of higher education. Concluding Thoughts This study suggests a critical role of faculty leaders of graduate education abroad, highlights the purpose and value of graduate education abroad from faculty leader perspectives, affords understanding and best practices about the pedagogical approaches used to design and 201 implement short-term international programs, and yields insight into how graduate education abroad influences the internationalization of faculty, students, departments, and institutions. Regardless of the approach to short-term programming, the faculty leader spearheads planning, implementation, and evaluation processes. When examining graduate education abroad it is essential to consider the experience of the faculty leader at all steps of the process of developing, planning for, or implementing short-term programs in order to understand best practices and outcomes of these programs. Leader perspectives revealed strong beliefs surrounding the value of graduate education abroad, not only for faculty and graduate student development, but also departments and institutions. Examining how faculty leaders approach short-term education abroad programs yielded insight into the approaches and practices that yield understanding of the pedagogy of graduate education abroad, such as project-based and subject-based approaches and types of programs offered. Furthermore, faculty leader insights afforded understanding of the role of short-term education abroad programming in graduate education in different disciplines and internationalization efforts at the graduate level. Short-term programming is being used as a leading strategy to internationalize graduate education; therefore, faculty leaders are key players in the process as the curricular, pedagogical, and logistical leaders of short-term education abroad. Additionally, this study reveals a central focus of graduate education abroad around professional application of disciplinary content. With graduate-level content and rigor of curriculum driving the development of these programs, short-term experiences present positive opportunities for departments and colleges to creatively engage graduate students in the application of disciplinary content. This approach to integrating diversity of perspectives and 202 professional interaction within international contexts grants a unique opportunity to engage graduate students in experiential learning and comparative thinking. Future work focused on graduate education abroad from multiple perspectives and inclusive of a broader data set will complement the body of research on graduate education abroad. More research could confront further questions surrounding graduate education abroad such as, What is driving the use of graduate education abroad? or Who sets priorities for the role of education abroad in graduate education? Education abroad presents a powerful developmental opportunity for students and faculty and is an important tool for institutions to internationalize their campuses, departments, faculty, students, and curriculum. By understanding the many facets of graduate education abroad and the critical role of faculty leaders in graduate level programming, higher education can best maximize their use to support student development and learning. 203 APPENDICES 204 APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol This study is designed to understand how faculty members perceive, understand and make sense of their positions as faculty leaders of short-term, faculty-led, education abroad programs for graduate students. This study explores the following research questions: o What do faculty want to accomplish when leading short-term, faculty-led graduate level, education abroad? o What beliefs, assumptions, and values guide the work of faculty members in their role as a faculty leader of short-term, faculty-led, graduate level education abroad? o What do faculty leaders do in their role as a faculty leader of short-term, facultyled, graduate level education abroad? 1. Tell me a little about yourself. a. Where did you grow up? b. What did your parents do for a living? c. Do you remember ever meeting anyone or knowing someone from another country? d. As a child or young adult, what kinds of travel did you do? 2. Please tell me about your educational background. a. Where did you go to school? (college, graduate school) b. What was your primary focus or areas of study in graduate school? c. While you were in graduate school, what kinds of international experiences do you remember having (if any)? Did you know people from other countries? 3. Please briefly describe your career trajectory. a. What kinds of professional positions have you held? b. How did you become interested in being a faculty member? c. What kinds of international experiences did you have prior to your current position or role? 4. Please briefly describe your current position. a. What do you do in this position? (day to day responsibilities: research, service, teaching) b. Are you involved in any way with international activities? c. Have you had any international experiences through your current position prior to your experience as a faculty leader of education abroad? Please describe. 5. How did you get involved with faculty-led, education abroad at the graduate level? a. How did it come up in your current position? b. Who approached you with the suggestion or opportunity? c. What influenced your decision? d. What did you take on this responsibility? e. Why did you become involved as a faculty leader? 205 6. Describe the graduate education abroad program(s) that you lead or have recently led? a. Who was your intended audience? b. Where does program go? How did you go about selecting a location for your program? c. What is the goal/purpose of this program? What are you trying to achieve or accomplish through the program that you lead? d. Tell me about how you designed and developed your program? e. As a faculty leader, what sorts of activities do you have the students engage in and what is your role in these activities? f. How do you know if the experiences address the outcomes you intend within your program? 7. Describe a typical day in your program abroad. Describe a sequence of activities or events. 8. How do you feel about being a faculty leader for a graduate level, education abroad program? a. What do or did you like most about being a faculty leader of a graduate level education abroad program? b. Can you identify what you would consider a highlight of this experience for yourself? What is one of the most memorable experiences of being a faculty leader? c. What do/did you like least? 9. What was most challenging about being a faculty leader for this program? a. Please describe an incident where this occurred. b. What was the context? c. Who was involved? d. What happened? 10. In your opinion, what value does short-term education abroad have for your department/program? a. How does short-term education abroad fit in to the broader internationalization activities and strategies for your department or university? b. How would you define the internationalization of graduate education? c. In what ways does your department/program internationalize its graduate students? d. What types of international experiences/opportunities do your graduate students receive? e. What is your role/responsibility in this process? 11. Is there anything else you would like to add that I haven’t already asked you about? Thank you for your time and your willingness to participate in telling me about your experiences as a faculty leader in short-term, faculty led, graduate level education abroad. 206 APPENDIX B: Research Consent Form for Interviews and Audiotaping April 2015 Dear XXX, I am a fifth year doctoral student conducting this research study to complete my dissertation study to fulfill my doctoral degree in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University. I request your participation in this research to help further understanding of how faculty members perceive, understand and make sense of their positions as faculty leaders of short-term, faculty-led, education abroad programs at the graduate level. Your participation would include one interview (either in person, via Skype, or telephone) that would last approximately 60 – 90 minutes. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by participating in the interview. You can choose to skip questions, refuse to answer questions, or can stop participation in the study at any time. If at any point during the study you choose to discontinue participation, any collected information will not be used in the analysis or results of this study. Efforts will be made to protect the confidentiality of your identity as well as the information provided during the interview and data collected. All materials will be kept in a secure, locked location. Pseudonyms will be used to disguise personal identifiers in any written materials, publications, or presentations. If you have any questions about your participation in this research study, you may contact Karla Loebick (loebick@msu.edu) or Dr. John Dirkx (dirkx@msu.edu), faculty dissertation advisor, at Michigan State University. If you have any concerns regarding your rights as a study participant or question particular aspects of the study, you may contact Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, email at irb@msu.edu, or mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. If you are willing to participate in this study, please contact me via email at Loebick@msu.edu or by telephone at 517-281-7562 to schedule an interview. I very much appreciate your consideration of participation and willingness to support my research. Sincerely, Karla Loebick, Doctoral Candidate Michigan State University Higher, Adult, & Lifelong Education Doctoral Program loebick@msu.edu 207 APPENDIX C: Email Solicitation for Participation CALL FOR PARTICIPATION Email Subject: Qualitative Study: Internationalizing Graduate Education Through Education abroad: The Pedagogy of Short-Term, Faculty-Led, Education abroad Experiences Email Body: CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS Dear XXX, I am writing to you to request your consideration to participate in a research study that focuses on understanding understand how faculty members perceive, understand and make sense of their positions as faculty leaders of short-term, faculty-led, education abroad programs at the graduate level. Your participation would include one interview (either in person, via Skype, or telephone) that would last approximately one hour. I am conducting this research for a dissertation study to fulfill my doctoral degree in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University. This study represents my continuing interest in international education as well as teaching and learning pedagogy and aligns with recent research conducted by faculty members at Michigan State University on graduate level education abroad. My research will expand on the prior research which focused on general program characteristics and the graduate student experience in short-term, faculty-led, graduate level education abroad. As a leader for graduate level education abroad programming, your participation in this research is important to help develop deeper understanding of how faculty members perceive, understand, and make sense of their positions as faculty leaders of short-term, faculty-led, education abroad programs at the graduate level. If you are willing to participate in this study, please contact me via email at Loebick@msu.edu or by telephone at 517-281-7562 to schedule an interview. I very much appreciate your consideration of participation and willingness to support my research. Sincerely, Karla Loebick, Doctoral Candidate Michigan State University Higher, Adult, & Lifelong Education Doctoral Program loebick@msu.edu 208 REFERENCES 209 REFERENCES Abrams, I. (1979). The impact of Antioch education through experience abroad. Alternative Higher Education, 3(3), 176-187. Åkerlind, G. S. (2012). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 115-127. Allen, H. W., & Herron, C. A. (2003). A mixed methodology investigation of the linguistic and affective outcomes of summer study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 370-384. Allum, J. (2014). CGS international graduate admissions survey: Phase II: Final applications and initial offers of admission. Washington, D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools. Alon, I, & McAllaster, C. M. (2009). Measuring the global footprint of an MBA. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(4), 522-540. Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3-25. Altbach, P. G. (2007). A dozen years of service to higher education. International Higher Education, 50, 2-4. Altbach, P., & McGill Peterson, P. (1998) Internationalize American Higher Education? Not Exactly. Change, 30(4), 36-39 Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of studies in international education, 11(3-4), 290-305. American Council on Education. (2012). Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses: 2012 Edition. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Arum, S., & van de Water, J. (1992). The need for a definition of international education in U.S. universities. In C. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the futures: Strategies for internationalizing higher education (pp. 191-203). Carbondale, IL: Association of International Education Administrators. Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2015). Global learning VALUE rubric. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/global-learning. Augustine, K., Kernaghan, N., & Russo, S. (2013). 2013 Eric Friedheim Tourism Institute Annual report. Retrieved from http://efti.hhp.ufl.edu/wpcontent/uploads/EFTIAnnualReport.pdf. Austin, A. (2002). Preparing the Next Generation of Faculty: Graduate School as Socialization to the Academic Career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-122. 210 Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006). Preparing the professoriate of the future: Graduate student socialization for faculty roles. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. Springer: The Netherlands. Bamigbola, A. A. (2011). The use of phenomenographic approach to investigate students’ conceptions of the use of web 2.0 tools. In new trends in qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries: Selected papers presented at the 2nd Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries-Proceedings of the International Conference on Qqml2010. (p. 161). World Scientific. Barnhart, B., Ricks, T., Speier, P. (1997). Faculty roles. In W. Hoffa & J. Pearson (Eds.), NAFSA’s guide to education abroad for advisors and administrators. (pp. 37-56). Washington DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher Education, 45, 43-70. Barr, R. B. & Tagg, J. (1995 November/December). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 13-25. Berquist, B., & Chalou, C. (2011). Graduate Study Abroad: Status report 2010-2011. Michigan State University Graduate Study Abroad Report, 1-18. Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bolen, M. C. (2001). Consumerism and U.S. study abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(3), 182-200). Bond, S. (2003). Untapped resources: Internationalization of the curriculum and classroom experience: A selected literature review. CBIE Research Millennium Series No. 7. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Bureau for International Education. Bond, S. L., Qian, J., & Huang, J. (2003). The role of faculty in internationalizing the undergraduate curriculum and classroom experience. A selected literature review. CBIE Research Millennium Series, Research Paper No. 8. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Bureau for International Education. Bond, S., & Thayer, J. (1999). From modest acceptance to reluctant embrace: The internationalization of the undergraduate curriculum. In Bond, S. & Lemasson, J.P. (Eds.) New World of Knowledge: Canadian Universities and Globalization. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre. Boyd, R. D., & Myers, J. G. (1988). Transformative education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 7, 261-284. Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York, NY: Springer. 211 Bremer, D. (2008). Planning tomorrow’s urban world. International Educator, 17(4), 32-39. Bremer, L., & van der Wende, M. (1995). Internationalizing the curriculum in higher education: Experiences in the Netherlands. The Hague: The Netherlands Organisation for International Cooperation in Higher Education. Brewer, E., & Cunningham, K. (2009). Integrating study abroad into the curriculum: Theory and practice across the disciplines. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bull, I. M. (1996). Faculty exchanges and the internationalization of undergraduate curricula in australia and the united states (Order No. 9703774). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ CIC Institutions; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304280389). Retrieved from https://search-proquestcom.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/304280389?accountid=12598. Burn, B. (1980). Expanding the international dimensions of higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Carlson, J. S., & Widaman, K. F. (1988). The effects of study abroad during college on attitudes toward other cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 1-17. Carter, H. (1992). Implementation of international competence strategies: Faculty. In C.B. Klasek (Eds.), Bridges to the future: Strategies for internationalizing higher education (pp. 191-203). Carbondale, IL: Association of International Education Administrators. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chieffo, L., & Griffiths, L. (2004). Large-scale assessment of student attitudes after a short-term study abroad program. Frontiers, 10, 165-177. Childress, L. K. (2007). Faculty engagement in the operationalization of internationalization plans. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UMI Microfilm. (3284307) Childress, L. K. (2009). Planning for internationalization by investing in faculty. Journal for International and Global Studies, 1(1), 30-49. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan. Commission on the Future of Graduate Education. (2012). Pathways through graduate school and into careers. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Coryell, J. E., Spencer, B. J., & Sehin, O. (2014). Cosmopolitan adult education and global citizenship: Perceptions from a european itinerant graduate professional study abroad program. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(2), 145-164. 212 Council of Graduate Schools and Educational Testing Service (CFGE). (2010). The Path Forward: The Future of Graduate Education in the United States. Report from the Commission on the Future of Graduate Education in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Plano, V. L. C., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research design selections and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236-264. Davidson, D. E. (2010). Study abroad: When, how long, and with what results? New data from the Russian front. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 6-26. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241-266. Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. NewYork, NY: Macmillan. Dewey, P., & Duff, S. (2009). Reason before passion: Faculty reviews on internationalization in higher education. Higher Education, 58(4), 491-504. De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Dirkx, J. M. (2008). The meaning and role of emotions in adult learning. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 2008(120), 7-18. Dirkx, J., Janka Millar, K., Vizvary, G., Sinclair, J., & Clason, N. (2014a). Graduate learning experiences and outcomes: The landscape of graduate study abroad – A research report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Retrieved from http://education.msu.edu/ead/outreach/gleo/documents/GLEOResearchReport2014.pdf Dirkx, J., Janka Millar, K., Berquist, B., & Vizvary, G. (2014b). Graduate student learning abroad: An emerging trend? International Higher Education, 77, 14-15. Dirkx, J. M., Janka Millar, K., Sinclair, J., & Vizvary, G. (2016). Short-term study abroad in graduate education: How to make sense of international experience. In Vellaris, D., & Coleman-George, D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on study abroad programs and outbound mobility, (pp. 514-539). IGI Global Publishing: Hershey, PA. Dirkx, J. M., & Prenger, S.M. (1997). A guide for planning and implementing instruction for adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dirkx, J. M., Spohr, R., Tepper, L., & Tons, S. (2010). Promise and problems of fostering transformative learning for adults in short-term study abroad programs, In D. Truty 213 (Ed.)., Proceedings of the 28th annual Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, Community, and Extension Education (pp. 73 - 78). Chicago: Northeastern Illinois University. Dohmen, G., & Niemi, J. (1986). International adult education: Our developing interests and responsibilities and what it means to be an international adult educator. Washington, DC: Department of Adult Education. (ED277881) Dolby, N. (2004). Encountering an American self: Study abroad and national identity. Comparative Education Review, 48(2), 150-173. Dolby, N. (2007). Reflections on nation: American undergraduates and education abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(2), 141-156. Donnelly-Smith, L. (2009). Global learning through short-term study abroad. Peer Review, 11(4). Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2009/fall/donnelly-smith. Dooley, K. E., & Rouse, L. A. (2009). Longitudinal impacts of a faculty abroad program: 19942007. Journal of Agricultural and Extension Education, 16(3), 47-58. Durbin, R. J. (2006). The Lincoln commission and the future of study abroad. International Educator, 15(1), 4-6. Dwyer, M. M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 151–164. Dwyer, M. M. (2004). Charting the impact of studying abroad. International Educator, 13(1), 14-20. Dwyer, M. M., & Peters, C. K. (2004). The benefits of study abroad: New study confirms significant gains. Transitions Abroad Magazine, 37(5). Retrieved from http://www.transitionsabroad.com/publications/magazine/0403/benefits_study_abroad.sht ml. Edge, C. (2012). Short-term study abroad: Representations and transformations. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from UMI Microfilm. (1509981). Egron-Polak, E., & Hudson, R. (2010). Internationalization of higher education: Global trends, regional perspectives. 2009 IAU 3rd Global Survey Report. Paris: IAU. Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2003). Study abroad levels: Toward a classification of program types. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 9, 1-20. Entwistle, N. (1997). Introduction: Phenomenography in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 16(2), 127-134. 214 Erwin, T.D., & Coleman, P.K. (1998). The influence of intercultural experiences and second language proficiency on college students’ cross-cultural adaptability. International Education, 28(1), 5-25. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65. Ferguson, A. (2010). Mapping study abroad in U.S. law schools: The current landscape and new horizons. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Fernandez, K. (2014). All smiles. International Educator, 23(4), 35-44. Festervand, T. A., & Tillery, K. R. (2001). Short-term study-abroad programs: A professional development tool for international business faculty. Journal of Education for Business, 77(2), 106-111. Finkelstein, M. J., Walker, E. & Chen, R. (2010). The internationalization of the American faculty: Where are we? What drives or deters us?, Research Paper. South Orange, NJ: Seton Hall University Finkelstein, M. J., Walker, E., & Chen, R. (2013). The American faculty in an age of globalization: predictors of internationalization of research content and professional networks. Higher Education, 66(3), 325-340. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA352231783&v=2.1& u=msu_main&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=6c3aff9c1603ab233a969d95cad51009. Fischer, K. (2010, August 29). In economic downturn, colleges eye international education: Cut back or forge ahead? Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/In-Economic-Downturn-Colleges/124167/. Fischer, K. (2012). In talks at international education summit, differences and common goals emerge. The Chronicle of Higher education, 58(35). Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/In-Talks-at-International/131779. Forum on Education Abroad. (2011). Standards of good practice for education abroad: Fourth edition. Carlisle, PA: The Forum on Education Abroad. Gardner, P. (2014). CERI Research Brief 2012-4: Liberally educated versus in-depth training. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://www.ceri.msu.edu/home/attachment/ceri-researchbrief-2012-4-liberally-educated-versus-in-depth-training/. Gearon, C. J. (2011). More graduate students consider study abroad. U.S. News & World Report Online. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/ best-graduateschools/articles/2011/03/16/more-graduate-students-consider-study-abroad. Gillespie, J. (2009). Applying standards to creative programming in education abroad. Association of American Colleges and Universities Peer Review, Fall 2009, 16-18. 215 Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers. (4th Ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Golay, P. A. (2006). The effects of study abroad on the development of global-mindedness among students enrolled in international programs at florida state university. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from UMI Microfilm. (3232382) Gonsalvez, J. (2013 September). The pedagogy of short-term study-abroad programs. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 1-5. Goode, M. L. (2008). The role of faculty study abroad directors: A case study. Frontiers: The Disciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15(Fall/Winter), 149-172. Goodwin, C., & Nacht, M. (1991). Missing the boar: The failure to internationalize American higher education. Cambridge, [England]: Cambridge University Press. Green, M. F. (2005). Measuring Internationalization at Comprehensive Universities. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. www.acenet.edu/newsroom/Documents/MeasuringComprehensive.pdf. Green, M. F., & Olsen, C. L. (2003). Internationalizing the campus: A user’s guide. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Green, M., Luu, D. T., & Burris, B. (2008). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses: 2008 edition. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994), Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 163-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 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, 57-70. Hawawini, G. (2011). The internationalization of higher education institutions: A critical review and a radical proposal. Singapore: INSEAD. Hatakenaka, S. (2007). New developments in international research collaboration. International Higher Education, 50, 11-13. Heely, M. E. (2005). The contribution of international work and study experience to the professional life and practice of adult and higher education faculty (Order No. 3175694). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305010137). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/305010137?accountid=12598 Hoffa, W. W. & DePaul, S. C. (2010). A history of U.S. study abroad: 1965-present. Carlisle, PA: Forum on Education Abroad. 216 Hovland, K. (2006). Shared futures: Global learning and liberal education. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges & Universities. Hovey, R., & Weinberg, A. (2009). Global learning and the making of citizen diplomats. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 33-48). New York, NY: Routledge. Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington, D.C.: NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Hudzik, J. K., & McCarthy, J. S. (2012). Leading Comprehensive Internationalization: Strategy and Tactics for Action. Washington, DC: NAFSA. Retrieved from www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/Chez_NAFSA/Resource_Library_Assets/Publications_ Library/Leading%20CIZN.pdf. Hulstand, J. (May/June 2006). Education abroad on the fast track. International Educator, 15(3), 46-55. Hulstand, J. (September/October 2007). Educating for global business. International Educator, 16(5), 36-44. 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, 83-100. Institute for International Education of Students Abroad (IES Abroad). (2011). The IES Abroad MAP (model assessment practice) for study abroad programs. Chicago, IL: Institute for the International Education of Students. In Jenkins, K., & Skelly, J. (2004). Study abroad is not enough. Brethren Life and Thought, 49, 257-268. Institute of International Education. (2011). Open doors 2011 “fast facts”. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/FastFacts#.WNhsRW_yvn8. Institute of International Education. (2014). Open doors: Report on international educational exchange. New York: Institute on International Education. Institute of International Education. (2015). Open Doors 2015 Data. New York: Institute on International education. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/News-andEvents/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2015/2015-11-16-Open-Doors-Data. Katula, R. A., & Threnhauser, E. (1990). Experiential education in the undergraduate curriculum. Communication Education, 48(3), 238-255. Kauffman, N. L., Martin, J. N., & Weaver, H. D. (1992). Students abroad: Strangers at home: Education for a global society. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, Inc. 217 Kent, J. D., & McCarthy, M. T. (Eds.) (2011). Global perspectives on career outcomes for graduate students: Tracking and building pathways. Proceedings from the 2011 Strategic Leaders Global Summit on Graduate Education. Washington, D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools. Kernaghan, N. J. (2012). Science and engineering study abroad: An assessment of outcomes for underrepresented graduate students and recommendations for program design and implementation. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from UMI Microfilm. (3585207) Kiely, R. (2005). A transformative learning model for service-learning: A longitudinal case study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12, 5-22. Kirkwood, T. F. (2001). Our global age requires global education: Clarifying definitional ambiguities. The Social Sciences, 92(1), 10-15. Knight, J. (1994). Internationalisation: Elements and checkpoints. Canadian Bureau for International Education, Ottawa. Knight, J. (1997) A shared vision? Stakeholders’ perspectives on the internationalization of higher education in Canada. Journal of Studies in International Education, 1(1), 27-44. Knight, J. (1999). Internationalisation of higher education. In J. Knight & H. de Wit (Eds.), Quality and internationalization in higher education. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Knight, J. (2003). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education, 33, 23. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: definition, approaches, and rationales. Journalof Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalization of higher education: Historical and conceptual perspectives. In H, de Wit (ed.), Strategies for internationalization of higher education – A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the Unites States of America, European Association for International education, Amsterdam. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Ladka, S. (Nov/Dec 2008). Nursing goes global. International Educator, 17(6), 26-33. Lambert, R. (1994). Parsing the concept of global competence. Educational exchange and global competence, 11-24. 218 Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Leggett, K. (Mar/Apr 2008). Making a world of difference. International Educator, 17(2), 42-49. Leggett, K. (May/June 2009). Teaching medicine without borders. International Educator, 18(3), 34-42. Lewin, R. (2009). Introduction: The quest for global citizenship through study abroad. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. xiii-xxii). New York, NY: Routledge. Lewin, R., & Van Kirk, G. (2009). Introduction: The quest for global citizenship through study abroad. In R. Lewin (Eds.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. xii-xxii). New York, NY: Routledge. Lewis, T. L., & Niesenbaum, R. A. (2005, June 3). The benefits of short-term study abroad. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Benefitsof-Short-Term/22274. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Liverpool, P. R. (1995). Positioning Virginia Tech to compete in the international arena. Spectrum Virginia Tech, 18(9). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/vtpubs/spectrum/sp951019/2a.html. Long, S., Akande, Y., Purdy, R., & Nakano, K. (2010). Deepening learning and inspiring rigor: Bridging academic and experiential learning using a host country approach to a study tour. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(1), 89-111. Lucas, J. (2009). Where are all the males? A mixed methods inquiry into male study abroad participation. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UMI Microfilm. (3381358) Lunde, J. P. (1995). Three programs in curriculum revitalization. In J. P. Lunde, M. Baker, F.H. Buelow, & L. S. Hayes (Eds.), Reshaping curricula: Revitalization programs at three land grant universities. (pp. 1-3) Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. Lutterman-Aguilar, A. & Gingerich, O. (2002) Experiential pedagogy for study abroad: Educating for global citizenship. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 8, 41-82. Lyon, C. (2002). Trigger event meets culture shock: Linking the literature of transformative learning theory and cross-cultural adaptation. In J. Pettit, et.al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Adult Education Research Conference (pp. 237-242). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 219 Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177-200. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28-49. Marton, F., & Booth, S. A. (1997). Learning and awareness. New York: Routledge. Matross Helms, R. (2013, April). Internationalization in Action: Engaging Faculty in Internationalization, Part 1. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/newsroom/Pages/Intlz-in-Action-2013-April.aspx. Matross Helms, R., & Tukibayeva, M. (2013, December). Internationalization in Action: Internationalizing the Curriculum, Part 1 – Individual Courses. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Intlz-in-Action-2013-December.aspx. McBrien, J. L. & Brandt, R. S. (1997). The language of learning; A guide to education terms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McCallon, M., & Holmes, B. (2010). Faculty-led 360 Guide to Successful Study Abroad. Chicago, IL: Agapy LLC. McGill Peterson, P. (2000, Fall). The worthy goal of a worldly faculty. AAC&U Peer Review, 13-17. Merkx, G. W. (2003, Winter). The two waves of internationalization in U.S. higher education. International Educator, XII(3), 6-12. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Mesterhauser, J. (1998). Portraits of an international curriculum: An uncommon multidimensional perspective. In J.A. Mesterhauser & B.S. Ellingoe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the campus (p. 3 – 39). Phoenix, AR: American Council on Education and Oryx Press. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Dimensions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12. Mills, L. H., Deviney, D., & Ball, B. (2010). Short-term study abroad programs: A diversity of options. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 6(2), 1-13. Milstein, T. (2005). Transformation abroad: Sojourning and the perceived enhancement of selfefficacy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 217-239. 220 Mitchell, D. E., & Nielsen, S. Y. (2012). Internationalization and globalization in higher education. In H. Cuadra-Montiel (Ed.), Globalization – Education and management agendas. (pp. 3-22). Retrieved from InTech, http://www.intechopen.com/books/globalization-education-and-managementagendas/internationalization-and-globalization-in-higher-education. Mullens, J. B., & Cuper, P. (2012). Fostering global citizenship through faculty-led international programs. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization. Washington, D.C. National Society for Experiential Education (NSSE). (1998). Standards of practice: Eight principles of good practice for all experiential learning activities. Presented at the NSEE 1998 Annual Meeting, Norfolk, VA. Retrieved from http://agsci.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/students/EightStandards.pdf. National Survey of Student Engagement (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing student learning and success—Annual Report 2007. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from http://nsse.indiana.edu/NSSE_2007_Annual_Report/index.cfm. Navarro, M. (2004). Analysis of factors affecting participation of faculty and choice of strategies for the internationalization of the undergraduate agricultural curriculum: The case in two land grant universities. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UMI Microfilm. (3132113) Neppel, J. M. (2005). Study abroad as a passport to student learning: Does the duration of the study abroad program matter? (Order No. 1426842). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304995290). Retrieved from https://search-proquestcom.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/304995290?accountid=12598. Nerad, M. (2010). Globalization and the internationalization of graduate education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 40(1), 1-12. Nolan, R. W. (2009). Turning our back on the world: Study abroad and the purpose of higher education. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 266-281). New York, NY: Routledge. O’Neal, J. C., & Krueger, R. L. (1995). Directing a program abroad. Academe, 81(5), 28-34. Pagano, M., & Roselle, L. (2009). Beyond reflection through an academic lens: Refraction and international experiential education. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 217-229. 221 Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J. C., & Lassegard, J. P. (2002). Maximizing Study Abroad: A Students’ Guide to Strategies for Language and culture Learning and Use. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Passarelli, A. & Kolb, D. A. (2012). Using experiential learning theory to promote student learning and development in programs of education abroad. In M. Vande Berg, M. Page, & K. Lou (Eds.), Student Learning Abroad, (pp. 137-161). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Perry, L., Stoner, L., & Tarrant, M. (2012). More than a vacation: Short-term study abroad as a critically reflective, transformative learning experience. Creative Education, 3(5), 679683. Picard, E., Bernardino, F., & Ehigiator, K. (2009). Global citizenship for all: Low minority student participation in study abroad – seeking strategies for success. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship, (pp. 321-345). New York, NY: Routledge. Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203-220. Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. B. (2001). Teaching perspectives inventory. Retrieved from http://www.teachingperspectives.com/ Rasch, D. C. (2001). Faculty voices from the field: Perceptions and implications of study abroad. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UMI Microfilm. (3020250) Redden, E. (2010, July 13). Academic outcomes of study abroad. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/07/13/abroad. Ritz, A. A. (2011). The educational value of short-term study abroad programs as course components. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 11, 164-178. Roberts, T. G., Conner, N. W., & Jones, B. L. (2013, September). An experiential learning framework for engaging learners during study abroad experiences. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture (NACTA) Journal, 28-35. Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Niehaus, E. K. (2011). One year later: The influence of short-term study abroad experiences on students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(2), 213-228. Sakamoto, R. & Chapman, D. W. (2010). Cross-border partnerships in higher education: Strategies and issues. New York, NY: Routledge. Sandbergh, J. (1997). Are phenomenographic results reliable? Higher Education Research & Development, 16(2), 203-212. Savicki, V. (Ed.). (2008). Intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research, and application in international education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. 222 Savishinsky, M. (2012). Overcoming barriers to faculty engagement in study abroad (Doctoral dissertation). Available from UMI Microfilm. (1151846901) Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C., & Knight, S. M. (2004). The homestay component of study abroad: Three perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 37(2), 254-262. Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2007). Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2007(114), 11-25. Doi: 10.1002/ev.223. Schwietz, M. (2006). Internationalization of the Academic Profession: An Exploratory Study of Faculty Attitudes, Beliefs, and Involvement at Public Universities in Pennsylvania. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UMI Microfilm. (3224043) Scott, P. (Ed.). (1998). The globalization of higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Selby, R. (2008). Designing transformation in international education. In V. Savicki, (Ed). Developing Intercultural Competence and Transformation: Theory, Research, and Application in International Education (pp. 1-10). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Shute, J. (2002). The influence of faculty in shaping internationalization. In Bond, S. & Bowry, C. (Eds.) Connections & complexities: The internationalization of Canadian higher education. Winnipeg: Centre for Research & Development in Higher Education. Sinclair, J. (2014). An integrated organizational view of the development of international experiences in graduate professional education: Cases of dentistry, law, and medicine at a research university. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from UMI Microfilm. (3667380) Sjostrom, B., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2002). Applying phenomenography in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(3), 339-345. Slimbach, R. (2010). Becoming world wise: A guide to global learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R. S., & Gabelnick, F. (2004). Learning communities: Reforming undergraduate education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sobania, N., & Braskamp, L. (Fall 2009). Study abroad or study away: It’s not merely semantics. Peer Review, 23-26. Soderqvist, M. (2002). Internationalisation and its management at higher education institutions: Applying conceptual, content, and discourse analysis. Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki School of Economics. Spencer, S. E., & Tuma, K. (Eds.) (2002). The guide to successful short-term programs abroad. Washington, D.C.: NAFSA: Association of International Educators. 223 Spohrer J. C., Gregory M., Ren G. (2010). “The Cambridge-IBM SSME White Paper Revisited”. In Maglio P.P., Kieliszewski C.A., Spohrer J.C. (eds.) Handbook of Service Science, Springer, New York, pp. 677-706. Stearns, P. (2008). Educating global citizens in colleges and universities: Challenges and opportunities. New York, NY; Routledge. Stohl, M. (2007). We have met the enemy and he is us: The role of the faculty in the internationalization of higher education in the coming decade. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), p. 359-372. Suttons, R. C., & Rubin, D. L. (2004). The GLOSSARI project: Initial findings from a systemwide research initiative on study abroad learning outcomes. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 65-82. Szekely, B. B., & Krane, M. (1997). The current demographics of education abroad. In W. Hoffa & J. Pearson (Eds.), pp. 143-164. NAFSA’s Guide to Education Abroad for Advisors and Administrators. Washington DC: NAFSA, Association of International Educators. Taverney, K. C. (2016). The perceived long-term benefits of short term study abroad: A case study. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1807430436). Retrieved from https://search-proquestcom.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/docview/1807430436?accountid=12598. Taylor, E. W. (1994). Intercultural competency: A transformative learning process. Adult Education Quarterly, 44(3), 154-174. Tobenkin, D. (Jan/Feb 2009). Legal minds. International Educator, 18(1), 28-37. Tonkin, H., & Edwards, J. (1981). The world in the curriculum: Curricular strategies for the 21st century. New Rochelle, NY: Change Magazine Press. Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80-96. doi:10.1177/1473325010368316. 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. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Vande Berg, M. J. (2007). Vande Berg, M. J., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, R. M. (2009). The Georgetown Consortium project: Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 1-75. Vande Berg, M. J., Paige, R. M., & Hemming Lou, K. (2012). Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it. Sterling, VA: Stylus. 224 van der Wende, M. (1997). Missing links: The relationship between national policies for internationalization and those for higher education in general. In T. Kalvermark & M. van der Wende (Eds.), National policies for the internationalization of higher education in Europe (pp. 10-31). Stockholm: Hogskoleverket Studies, National Agency for Higher Education. Viers, C. J. (2003). Faculty engaged in international scholarship: A study of when, how, and why. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest. (3116059) Wachter, B. (2003). An introduction: Internationalisation at home in context. Journal of Studies in International Education. 7(1), 5-11. Wotila Croom, P. (2010). Institutional strategy in a global context: The land-grant university experience. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from UMI Microfilm. (3428078) Yarbough, C. (2015). Global health matters. International Educator, 24(1), retrieved from http://www.nafsa.org/Find_Resources/Publications/Periodicals/International_Educator/Fe atures/Global_Health_Matters/. Zemach-Bersin, T. (2007). Global citizenship & study abroad: It’s all about U.S. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 1(2), 16-28. Zemach-Bersin, T. (2009). Selling the world: Study abroad marketing and the privatization of global citizenship. In R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 303-320). New York: Routledge. 225