Study Abroad Field Trip Improves Test Performance through Engagement and New Social Networks

Abstract

Although study abroad trips provide an opportunity for affective and cognitive learning, it is largely assumed that they improve learning outcomes. The purpose of this study is to determine whether a study abroad field trip improved cognitive learning by comparing test performance between the study abroad participants (n = 20) and their peers who did not participate (n = 365). Test performance was statistically identical between these groups before and immediately after the study abroad program. On the final exam, the study abroad participants scored significantly higher. Qualitative methods were used to identify increased engagement with the course material and the creation of new social networks as likely explanations.

Keywords:

• Study abroad
• physical geography
• learning outcomes
• Costa Rica
• undergraduates

Introduction

Field trips are widely regarded as an important part of the undergraduate experience (e.g. Gold et al., 1991; Jenkins, 1994; Kent et al., 1997), where students can learn via first-hand experiences, far removed from the sometimes austere confines of the classroom (Lonergan & Andresen, 1988). While the nature of the field trip depends on the focus and level of the course, there has been a transition from ‘sight-seeing’ to problem-oriented fieldwork in which students also develop transferable skills in project design, organization, leadership and group dynamics (Clark, 1996; Kent et al., 1997).

The experience and benefits to the student, however, come at a significant financial cost, which has increasingly been transferred from the institution to the students and/or their parents (Gray, 1993; Gardiner, 1996). Part of this has been driven by growth in student numbers and the increasing focus on teaching large introductory classes, larger student to teacher ratios and static or declining resources (Haigh & Gold, 1993; Jenkins, 1994; Bradbeer, 1996; Kent et al., 1997; May, 1999). While these issues may not be a problem for students in a geography program, who already have an interest in the lecture material, it is not necessarily an enriching environment for students from other programs and may undermine the recruitment of those still undecided about their program of study. But the financial cost, limited institutional resources and new assessment standards require that the educational value of field trips within the already crowded curriculum be assessed. In this respect, there is a need to objectively assess whether local and study abroad field trips lead to better learning outcomes than traditional classroom-based instruction.

There is evidence of field trips having a positive impact on cognitive learning through listening, watching, touching and/or experiencing (Gottfried, 1980; Mallon & Bruce, 1982; Stronck, 1983; Flexer & Borun, 1984; Feher & Rice, 1985; Beiers & McRobbie, 1992; Orion & Hofstein, 1994; Knapp, 1996; Anderson & Lucas, 1997; Anderson, 1999; Bamberger & Tal, 2006; Miglietta et al., 2008). Edwards (2009) describes a model in which students “travel abroad in connection with work done in the classroom or lab on campus, and who then continue to work on the related projects after their return” as the “optimal model” for positive learning outcomes because students have the opportunity to continue to reflect on those things learned while abroad.

The value of field trips and fieldwork to improve student comprehension and retention is largely assumed and has received little objective evaluation (Gold et al., 1991; Kent et al., 1997). Much of the evidence in support of field trips and field courses comes only from student feedback (e.g. Fuller et al., 2000), in which participants suggest that they “learned more” on that trip than in the classroom (e.g. Hovorka & Wolf, 2009), and relies heavily on questionnaires, rather than de-briefing sessions. It is not clear whether these perceived benefits translate to greater comprehension and retention of course material and improved test performance. Moreover, short-term study abroad programs, such as the one studied here, have largely been ignored by researchers (Jackson, 2006). Although scholars assume that students returning from a short-term study abroad have had a significant learning experience, actual learning outcomes are rarely studied (Edwards, 2009). For Hadis (2005), a pre- and post-trip test, along with a treatment and control group, are the “prescription of choice” to research study abroad learning outcomes. However, Hadis (2005) goes on to say that the research literature on the learning outcomes of study abroad offers a limited number of pre- and post-experimental designs, and even when a post-test is given it is almost always by way of an electronic questionnaire (Stronkhorst, 2005) to assess the attitudinal change and not learning outcomes. Indeed, almost all research that involve a post-study abroad interview have all been to evaluate language acquisition and have neglected learning outcomes (Freed, 1995; Allen & Herron 2003; Magnan & Back 2007). It is likely that the lack of post-test participation is due to the student's adjustment difficulties upon return to their home institutions (Sussman, 1986). To further assess what Edwards deems as the optimal model and to go beyond the electronic evaluations of previous research, this paper uses semi-structured interviews to elucidate on student perception of improved learning outcomes resulting from a study abroad program.

Field trips are, however, no longer considered to be a simple extension or improvement on traditional classroom-based learning, but as an opportunity for affective learning through skills development, awareness and the like (see also Storksdieck et al., 2007; DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008), which prepare the students for future learning (Orion & Hofstein, 1994; Hofstein & Rosenfeld, 1996; Storksdieck et al., 2007). In fact, it has been argued that the social and affective outcomes of a field trip provide a stronger rationale for field trips than learning outcomes alone (Wellington, 1990; Hooper-Greenhill, 1991; Csikszentmihalyi & Hermanson, 1995; Meredith et al., 1997; Rix & McSorley, 1999).

The cognitive and affective learning benefits of a field trip are influenced by the: (1) structure of the trip, (2) novelty of the setting, (3) prior introduction to the material, (4) social context and (5) quality of preparation and post-trip discussion (Haigh & Gold, 1993; DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008). Habeshaw et al. (1992) argue that only as a part of a small group are the students enquiring and reflective, through both intensive supervision and tutoring, and have the opportunity to complete interactive assignments and tasks. Large groups encourage students to simply acquire knowledge rather than actively engage in the process of constructing knowledge (Jonassen, 1994), which allows the instructor to facilitate the construction rather than simply communicate knowledge (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Field trips with small groups of students provide the same benefits and are the perfect vehicle for problem-based learning approaches, in which students actively collaborate in the learning process by attempting to solve a problem using a variety of tools and devices, through the collection and interpretation of data and the interaction with others in the learning process (Bradbeer, 1996; Wilson, 1996). This contributes to the development of ‘look and think’ skills (Haigh & Gold, 1993), in which students develop proficiency in field observation and analysis by being brought into direct first-hand contact with the object of study (Tueth & Wikle, 2000).

Field trips can also facilitate personal growth and development through the need to respond to challenges and different environments, collaborative activities, peer-learning and discovery, and interpersonal dynamics (Livingstone et al., 1998; Tueth & Wikle, 2000; Hefferan et al., 2002; Pawson & Teather, 2002). Self-confidence is further developed through mentoring that in many cases involves one-on-one instruction in the field. This breaks down the social barrier between professor and student (Hovorka & Wolf, 2009), which can further the student's vocational and transferable skills (Higgitt, 1996). The focus on group activities and the shared experience can also lead to the development of new friendships and social networks that persist long after the trip has ended.

In summary, field trips and field courses provide students with an opportunity to develop: (1) intellectually through cognitive learning, (2) technically through access to and experience with research methods and equipment and (3) personal and inter-personal social skills. It is reasonable to expect that improved comprehension and retention of knowledge is facilitated by the technical and personal development of the student. Unfortunately, an objective assessment of improved cognitive learning outcomes is lacking, making it difficult to evaluate whether effective learning outcomes are an important contributor to student performance. The present study compares test performance by participants in a study abroad field trip to Costa Rica with their peers, who completed similar activities at Texas A&M University.

Study Abroad in Costa Rica

Edwards (2009) considers study-abroad programs as optimal when students work abroad in connection with work done in the classroom and laboratory and then continue to work on the related projects after their return. In 2009, the Department of Geography at Texas A&M University offered precisely such a program: a one-week field trip as the laboratory component of a four-credit introductory physical geography course (GEOG 203: Planet Earth). This course is popular with students in need of a lower-division science credit and includes majors from most colleges on campus. The overseas field trip, to a site managed by Texas A&M University in a cloud forest setting in Costa Rica, was completed as part of a university-wide goal of increasing the percentage of students who participated in a study abroad program during their first year at Texas A&M. Thus, the administration targeted freshman for participation, each of whom received $1000 to help cover the costs of the trip.

For the Costa Rica trip, institutional support reduced the cost of travel, lodging and food to ∼$550 per student, which allowed students from a range of socio-economic backgrounds to participate. The study abroad opportunity was advertised in fall 2008 through institutional emails and announcements, notices to undergraduate advisors in all colleges, posters and in-class presentations. The 20 spots on the field trip were filled on a first-come first-serve basis, without consideration of university entry scores (SATs), first semester grade point average or declared major. Two of the students on the field trip were from the Colleges of Geosciences, with the rest from AgriLife, Architecture, Engineering, the Mays Business School and undeclared majors. Only one of the students had been to Costa Rica prior to the trip and for 12 of the students it was their first trip outside of the continental USA.

Once notified that they had been accepted to the program, the students were required to enroll in their choice of lecture time and also in a special laboratory section of the course. Participants completed the field trip (during Week 8 of the semester) and associated assignments in lieu of the weekly laboratory, but they attended the same lectures and completed the same in-class exams as the 365 students not participating in the field trip. A summary of the lecture topics for the introductory physical geography class is provided in Table 1. The field assignments completed in Costa Rica were similar to those completed by their peers at Texas A&M (Table 2), except that examples focused on the cloud forest, and students were required to collect and analyze their own data. Students completed their assignments in four groups, each with five students, that were led by three professors (including CH and SMQ) and one senior PhD student.

Table 1. Outline of topics covered in lectures of GEOG203: Planet Earth, an introductory physical geography class

Week	Topic
1	Introduction to earth systems
2	Climate and energy
3	Weather
4	Global processes and change
5	Hydrology
6	The biosphere
7	Earth's structure and composition
8	Violent earth
9	Weathering and soils
10	Mass wasting
11	River systems and landforms
12	Eolian processes and landforms
13	Coastal processes and landforms
14	Glacial processes and landforms
Note: Note that the actual order of topics would not necessarily be the same for each of the four professors of the course.

Table 2. Description of the laboratory assignments completed by students participating in the study abroad field trip and those attending the traditional laboratory section

	Traditional laboratory	Study abroad field trip
Map interpretation	Interpretation of a topographic map of California, constructing contour lines and calculating a topographic profile.	Interpretation of topographic map of the cloud forest and surrounding region, with measurements of watershed area for hydrology laboratories and slope measurements of volcano profile.
Surveying	Topographic survey of the quad on campus.	Topographic survey of rugged cloud forest using total station.
Climate	Measurement of solar radiation and albedo of a variety of natural surfaces and the built environment.	Measurement of radiation balance within and outside the cloud forest canopy to assess the microclimatology of the forest.
Hydrology	Construction of a hydrograph and rating curve using data provided to the students. Calculation of recurrence intervals for 2-, 5- and 10-year floods.	Creation of hydrograph from local station data and comparison with hydrograph for central Texas. Also included measurement of flow discharge within the Rio Chachagua and back calculation to estimate precipitation rate.
Biogeography	Succession and dendrochronology lab that involves calculating the age of a tree using annual growth rings, correlating ring width with precipitation, and graphing succession data.	Estimate the number of trees within a sub-watershed with consideration of the importance of the vegetation to cloud interception and the biomass of the watershed.

The students and professors stayed at the newly constructed Soltis Center for Research and Education in San Isidro, Costa Rica (http://soltiscentercostarica.tamu.edu/) before the center officially opened in June 2009. The facility sits on 40 acres and is adjacent to 250 acres of cloud forest with primary and secondary growth. The facility and property were donated to Texas A&M University by former student Charles William Soltis and his wife Wanda Soltis. The property adjoins more than 110 000 acres of cloud forest that are part of the Bosque Eterno de los Niños Reserve and the Zona Protectora Arenal-Monteverde. The Zona Protectora Arenal-Monteverde extends to the Center through a forest corridor that descends in elevation from 1800 m at Monteverde to 450 m above sea level at the Center. This brand new facility provides dormitories, classrooms and computer labs, among other modern amenities, to support research, education and outreach activities. Specifically, the facility is centered around the Bill and Wanda Soltis Academic Building, which includes a cafeteria and multipurpose room, laundry room, wet and dry labs and three classrooms equipped with wireless Internet and video conferencing.

During the field trip, each morning the students would meet with a different professor for a semi-formal lecture on the background concepts and techniques for the assignments they would be completing that day. Once the lecture was completed, the students and professor would hike into the cloud forest to collect data and to continue with an informal discussion in the field. Following lunch in the cafeteria, students had an opportunity to analyze the data they just collected and complete questions that not only tested their comprehension of the material covered in the morning's lecture work but also integrative questions that utilized data they collected on the other days. For example, river discharge measurements were combined with the results of their topographic, biogeographical and climatological measurements to evaluate the importance of the cloud forest in regulating streamflow in one of the sub-watersheds. In all cases, the students were made aware that their measurements were the first of their kind to be completed at this research station and that they were collecting important baseline information. For example, the surveying lab was completed as part of a Department of Geography initiative to fully survey the property and create a topographic map, install benchmarks for others completing research at the station and to identify important physical features (e.g. waterfalls, landslides, etc).

To provide a much-needed break from their laboratory work, the students were given the opportunity to take part in several extra-curricular activities in the evenings and on a full-day off during the middle of the week. The activities included a: (1) tour of Arenal Volcano National Park and recreation at an adjacent hot springs, (2) canopy tour by zip line and horseback to visit a reconstructed native settlement, (3) night tour of cloud forest in search of snakes and frogs, and a (4) visit to La Fortuna for dinner and shopping. Prior to the trip, students were randomly assigned physical geography topics related to the above activities and were called upon to give short introductions to their peers, similar to the in situ presentations of Marvell (2008).

Comparison of Field Trip and Traditional Laboratory Students

The six lecture sections were taught by three different professors and a senior PhD student, none of whom were involved with the study abroad, nor were they informed of this cognitive learning assessment until the course grades were finalized. Comprehension and retention of the classroom material were assessed in midterm exams before and immediately (1 day) after the field experience (Weeks 5 and 9), as well as in a final exam (Week 15). Before and immediately after the field experience, the exam grades of the students on the field trip were statistically identical (at the 99% confidence level) to their peers who attended the traditional laboratories (Table 3). A one-sample difference of means (t) test indicates that the ∼5% difference in the final exam grade is statistically significant at the 99% confidence level (t = 2.42; p = 0.0091). This suggests that the students on the study abroad (i.e. the sample) had a greater comprehension of the material on the final exam than the students in the traditional laboratory. While a comparison of the Costa Rica sample against the class (i.e. the population) mean is appropriate, the significance of the difference was verified using the nonparametric Mann–Whitney test.

Table 3. Comparison of exam grades (%) for students enrolled in the field trip and those in the traditional laboratory

	Exam 1		Exam 2		Exam 3
		σ		σ		σ
Field trip students (n = 20)	75.2	15.3	70.2	14.8	80.9	11.1
Traditional laboratory students (n = 365)	75.0	14.5	69.9	13.5	75.6	13.5
t-Statistic	0.09		0.05		2.42
Critical t-statistic	1.72		1.72		1.72
p for one-tailed test	0.93		0.96		0.02
	Not significant		Not significant		Significant
Note: The exams were completed before (Exam 1) and immediately after the field experience (Exam 2), and at the end of the semester (Exam 3). Also shown are the t-statistics and probability values used to determine the significance of the difference in test scores.

The distribution of letter grades for the field trip and traditional laboratory students is provided for the three exams in Figure 1. For Exam 1, the letter grade distribution is fairly similar, except for the greater proportion of B students (with grades between 70 and 80%) and no C students (60–70%) in the field trip group. Immediately after spring break, fewer students from either group receive an A or a B on Exam 2 and there is an increase in the number of students receiving a C or D (50–60%). With the exception of one field trip student, the students that received a failing or near-failing grade on Exam 1 improved their Exam 2 grade by more than 10% (one letter grade). In comparison, five students who received an A or B on Exam 1 dropped by two letter grades on Exam 2, while another four students dropped by half to a full letter grade. Only one of the field trip students improved their mark on Exam 2. For Exam 3, all but four of the field trip students improved their mark from Exam 2, and 13 of those students improved their mark by a half-letter grade or more. One of the students who failed both of the earlier exams improved their grade on Exam 3 by 40% (or three letter grades) from 30 to 70%. In fact, there is a statistically significant linear increase (p < 0.01, r ² = 0.53) in the grades between Exams 2 and 3, in which the students with the lowest marks on Exam 2 show the greatest improvement and those students with the highest marks on Exam 3 show a − 3 to +3% change in their exam grade. No statistically significant relationship was observed for the traditional laboratory students, although there was also a decrease in the number of students receiving a C, D or an F.

Figure 1 Frequency distributions of letter grades for the Field Trip and Traditional Laboratory Students in the three exams. Also shown for Exams 2 and 3 are the change in percent frequency from Exams 1 and 2, respectively.

Post-Trip Survey

All 20 students were contacted to participate in a debriefing interview, but only four responded (20% response rate) and were interviewed in semi-structured format by the second author, approximately 4 months after the study abroad experience. The second author was not involved in this study abroad program, but is experienced in leading short-term study abroad programs. The interviews lasted between 15 and 20 min; they were recorded, transcribed and coded by the second author, following procedures discussed by Cope (2003). Two of the students majored in environmental programs (ENVP; not geography); the other two majored in unrelated fields.

The apparently low response rate may be understood as a result of at least three factors. First, we decided to remove the other authors for the interviewing stage because we believed that someone not associated with the program would be more likely to elicit candid answers about the professors and the program. In fact, students provided answers that indicated the importance of a personal connection to the professors; this would have been very difficult to elicit had the first or third author conducted these interviews. But, students may have ignored the second author's request because they did not know him. Direct contact by the first and third authors may have increased student participation in the interview phase. Second, we offered no material incentive, such as a gift card, for students to participate. It is likely that such an incentive would have increased student response rate. Third, the second author's request came during a new semester for students, instead of immediately after the end of the spring 2009 semester. Ideally, we would have interviewed students soon after the final exam, but by then most of the students would have left campus for summer employment or travel. By fall 2009, students were enrolled in a new set of courses with schedules conflicting with that of the second author's availability to conduct interviews.

From a different perspective, however, the response rate is not low at all. To begin, we have no other source of data by which to interpret our findings. Normally, The Study Abroad Office at Texas A&M University conducts a general program evaluation, similar to the generic course evaluations for all courses that ask students to rank statements such as “my professor interacted well with students in the group and my professor made the students the top priority”. For this study abroad program, however, study abroad staff did not conduct a post-trip evaluation, so we have no data, beyond the semi-structured interviews, to aid in interpreting the difference in student performance. Even if we had the results of the post-program evaluation, there is no reason to believe that the questionnaire response rate would have exceeded the response rate for the interviews. Moreover, it is unlikely that the answers would help illuminate the reasons for the phenomenon we report in this paper.

More important than the number of interviews is the diversity of student responses in the semi-structured interview format. Surprisingly, scholars studying learning outcomes of study abroad programs have not used the semi-structured interview protocol, which is well established in human geography (Longhurst, 2003; Dunn, 2005), to obtain data from study abroad student learners (Edwards, 2009). Other studies aiming to assess study abroad or field trip learning outcomes rely almost entirely on questionnaires, rather than semi-structured interviews with students (Fuller et al., 2000; Hovorka & Wolf, 2009). As Klofstad (2005, p. 360) argued, the “predefined questionnaire” is unlikely to elicit “detailed or in-depth information”, while interviews may allow researchers to “gain a richer understanding of social phenomena” than questionnaires. In this regard, the qualitative data we obtained are indicative of possible explanations for improved test performance, and suggest new ways of understanding what students obtain from study abroad experiences. We do not make claims that our interview data provide definitive explanations. We emphasize that student responses to study abroad experiences, when elicited in semi-structured interviews, are rare, and that our findings are suggestive and indicative, rather than comprehensive and definitive. Indeed, our methods and results suggest that post-program evaluations should include qualitative methods.

Following Institutional Review Board protocols, students were assured that their responses were confidential, and that transcripts and recordings would not be shared with the course instructors. This encouraged honest answers and critiques of the program and insight into the reasons for performing significantly better than their peers on the final exam. The interview began with general questions about the program, and the improved exam performance was not revealed until near the end of the interview. This ensured that the student provided an honest assessment of the study abroad experience before describing what they believed were the reasons for the improved test scores.

Student responses suggest reasons why the international field trip was related to improved exam performance. One reason offered by students was that they felt motivated to improve their class performance because of the positive effect generated by the interaction with the professors during the lab. Students indicated that they were no longer afraid of interacting with professors and were more comfortable working in groups toward a common goal. However, one student argued that working in groups forced her away from a “do-it-on-my-own attitude” (102). Another respondent argued that the overseas lab setting allowed her to know the material much “deeper” compared to the “surface” learning on campus (103). One of the most important outcomes for another student was to “get to know my professors on a more personal level rather than just being a name on a roster” (101). One respondent stressed the importance of interaction with professor, stating that she learned that professors were “normal people” and deeply interested in student learning; this helped improve her own learning, as she stated that after the Costa Rica problem she is no longer scared of talking to her professors (102).

Another factor of increased engagement with the material is that students interacted directly with the phenomena under study. For example, one student claimed that she “didn't really expect it to be as much fun”, and that “it was really interesting because you were learning about the stuff that was right in front of you, so it wasn't abstract or out of a book or off a PowerPoint” (101). This student went on to argue that “all the points that they were trying to teach us were so much easier to grasp” because “everything was right there in front of us…it's so easy to understand when it's right there in front of you”. The same student admitted that she had difficulty staying awake during on-campus lectures, and that “I learned everything I learned in the class in that 1 week”. One respondent noted that the overseas lab component “opened my eyes” and provided a “hands-on experience” that was “better than the classroom” (102). This point was best articulated by a student who spoke passionately about the experience:

If you're just sitting there, it's just one of the classes in your schedule then it's not a big deal, you're not going to try as hard…. But if you know you will be learning this in different country you might pay attention a little bit more and then when you're actually over there, you're definitely going to be paying attention more because it's going to be really interesting and really exciting. (101)

A second reason for improved performance on the final exam related to social networks formed during the study abroad experience. One student argued that her final exam was much improved because she admitted that she “was not fond of geography” but that she had gained a strong appreciation of the field during the study abroad program; after the program she started sitting with other women whom she had met on the program, in the front row, and they worked together to create a long study guide. Respondent 103 echoed this idea, arguing that “we all got really close” during the program. In addition, this student argued that a key outcome of the program was “meeting people and working with them really hard for extended periods of time”. This respondent argued that as a result she no longer procrastinates as previously; and, a key outcome also was related to the idea that “we all had the same goal: we wanted to really help our professors' actual research”. And, “I was contributing to a bigger project” that was the topographical map that the professors were creating: “I felt like a vital part of doing that” and “helping my professor” (103); another reason cited by 103 was the lack of distractions in Costa Rica: “you don't have your phone…you have nothing else except for the work you are doing”. This relates to grade performance in the sense that “remembering all of the work that we did and how much I enjoyed it there really helped me push to the final [exam]… I went into the exam more confident … because I had worked well in Costa Rica, and I did very well in the lab, so I wasn't really intimidated by the final”.

However, one student argued against the role of the study abroad program in improving her exam grade. This student, a major in Environmental Studies in the College of Geosciences, argued that she would have done well without the study abroad trip because she was already passionate about the material, and that she had taken courses previously that had prepared her well for the program (104). She noted, however, that for some students, particularly those outside geography or the ENVP, the formation of study groups was key to their improvement. Some students were really “close knit” and formed study groups as a result of the program. In addition, this student noted a drawback to the open and engaging attitude of the professors. She acknowledged the imperative that the professors had in making the course “as fun as possible for the students” but she wanted them to be “stricter” with the students to discourage what she described as a feeling of “crazy Americans” who wanted “to get drunk all the time” (104). This student was also disappointed in the other students whom she claimed did not take the class material very seriously. One of her negative unexpected outcomes was that she did not expect as much drinking as she observed. She also noted that she enjoyed getting to know her professors. Drinking was not allowed at the Soltis Center for Research and Education, and students were given an opportunity to drink only at the hot springs and at dinner in La Fortuna. In addition, no major incidents were noted by the professors.

Discussion of Results

The present study provides an objective analysis of student comprehension and retention of the course material through a comparison of test performance between students who participated in a study abroad field trip (n = 20) and their peers who attended traditional laboratories at their home institution of Texas A&M University (n = 365). Test performance was statistically identical between these groups before and 1 day after the study abroad, but on the final exam, the study abroad participants scored significantly higher by almost half a letter-grade (∼5%). The lack of a significant difference immediately after the study abroad is itself interesting, considering that the students returned to College Station on the Saturday evening and were only given Sunday to prepare for the midterm and take care of other post-trip activities. The students who seem to have benefitted most from the study abroad field trip are those that received a low or failing grade on the first and second exams. Specifically, there was a statistically significant linear relationship between the change in exam grade and the grade on the previous test. In other words, those who did poorly on the first and second exam showed the greatest improvement in the final exam, while the group of students who received an A or a B on the first and second exams exhibited no significant change on the final exam. This is consistent with the comments of the student with Environmental Studies major with a well-developed understanding of the material, and who noted that the study abroad did not have a significant impact on their grades.

Results of a participant survey indicate that students perceived that the improved exam scores resulted, at least in part, from increased engagement with course material. This was facilitated by a stronger personal connection with the instructors through a small professor to student ratio (1:5) during the study abroad experience and informal interactions during the extracurricular development activities. Removal of the social barrier between student and professor, and the ability of a student to know their professor at a personal level, increases their self confidence and removes any fear of talking or asking questions to their professors (see also Kuh & Kaufman 1984; Ganschow et al., 1994). An increase in self-confidence was noted by each of the respondents, for example:

I went into the exam more confident … because I had worked well in Costa Rica, and I did very well in the lab, so I wasn't really intimidated by the final. (103)

In many cases, increased self-confidence reduces anxiety about school, and increases self-esteem (Greenberg et al., 1986, 1992), which can be reflected in test performance.

Engagement with the course material appears also to have been facilitated through a sense of involvement with a tangible research product. Students helped to contribute to a larger multi-year service project to survey the rugged terrain of the cloud forest and provide a base map for other students and researchers at the center. Specifically, students felt like the laboratory work they were completing was scientifically important and vital to the research of their professors. Collecting this baseline data for the center required the students to learn specialized research methods and techniques (Kent et al., 1997), and participate in an active learning environment requiring direct observation and critical thinking about the research process (Tueth & Wikle, 2000). As noted by one student:

I learned everything I learned in the class in that 1 week (101).

The opportunity to work directly in the field provided a “deep” as opposed to “shallow” learning experience for the student (Higgitt, 1996; Kent et al., 1997), which was “better than the classroom” (Robson, 2002). In other words, not only did the intensive field work provide the student with knowledge they would not have otherwise had (in the classroom), but also led to greater retention of the core and specialized concepts of the material (Tueth & Wikle, 2000; Robson, 2002) through student discovery, analysis and interpretation (Tueth & Wikle, 2000). Since the trip, two of the students have started working as paid research assistants with professors from the College of Geosciences and a third is completing a summer research internship in the college.

Results of the survey also suggest that improved exam scores resulted from the creation of new social networks that were encouraged by the intensive laboratory program and the remoteness of the center:

you don't have your phone…you have nothing else except for the work you are doing (103).

The collaborative field activities, and an emphasis on problem-solving requires students to develop important skills in teamwork, interpersonal dynamics, cooperative resolution, communication and, in some cases, leadership (Livingstone et al., 1998; Tueth & Wikle, 2000; Hefferan et al., 2002). The same respondent that noted that they “all got really close” and that a key outcome was “meeting people and working with them really hard for extended periods of time”, also noted that she no longer procrastinates as previously. In this respect, the creation of new social networks encouraged by the intensive laboratory program, which in turn motivated more effective study habits upon their return. It is unclear, however, specifically which types of interaction, beyond study groups, were most important in the new social networks. At a general level, respondents noted that the large class seemed less impersonal after their overseas experience.

As noted, the field trip to the cloud forest in Costa Rica was completed as part of a university-wide goal of increasing the percentage of students completing a study abroad program during their first year at Texas A&M. In the year since that trip, two students have already completed study abroad classes in Dominica and Vietnam, one returned to Costa Rica for another class, and two others are preparing for year-long study abroad programs at host universities in Spain and Germany. Beyond the classroom, one of the students is volunteering for foreign mission work and another joined the marines. In addition to the high percentage of students completing other study abroad programs, the field trip provided nonmajors with a better impression of geography and an appreciation of physical environment around them. In the following semester, five nonmajors have decided to take further courses offered by the Department of Geography and two other students have declared a minor in geography. Not only did the field course benefit the students, it also helped support the research and teaching objectives of the host department.

Conclusions

Field trips, whether local or abroad, are widely regarded as an important part of the undergraduate experience, but there has been limited objective analysis to assess whether field trips improve comprehension and retention of course material through improved cognitive and affective learning outcomes. The present study provides an objective analysis of student comprehension and retention of course material through a comparison of test performance between students who participated in a study abroad field trip and their peers who attended traditional laboratories at their home institution of Texas A&M University. The key finding of this study is that field trip students perceived that their significantly higher exam scores, as compared to their peers not involved in the study abroad field trip, resulted from increased engagement with course material. This, in turn, was a result of stronger personal connection with their professors and sense of engagement with a tangible research process. In addition, the intensive laboratory program in an overseas setting, relatively free from normal distractions, helped create new social networks that motivated more effective study habits upon return to the classroom. In this respect, field trips have significant social and affective outcomes that contribute toward improved learning outcomes and test performance. Scholars seeking to assess student learning outcomes should consider using well-established qualitative methods, such as semi-structured interviews or focus groups, as an essential component to de-briefing sessions if they wish to elicit opinions, motivations and ideas that are difficult to capture in questionnaires.