Meaningful short-term study abroad experiences: the role of destination in international educational tourism

ABSTRACT

Short-term study abroad (STSA) programs are one of the most dynamic segments of international educational travel and tourism. Our study utilizes experiential learning theory (ELT) to investigate and compare the scope and depth of students’ encounters during STSA tours across four different global travel destinations (the United Arab Emirates, Russia, Vietnam, and the United States of America). Through an analysis of the learning journals of 116 undergraduate students who participated in these international study tours, we identify the types of experiences that students engage in during their STSA programs. Then we investigate which experiences are perceived to be more meaningful and to facilitate student learning. Last, we analyze these experiences across four different global destinations to explore how meaningfulness may vary. The study provides important implications for travel providers concerning the choice of travel destination and for higher education institutions that design and develop international educational tourism opportunities.

KEYWORDS:

• Short-term study abroad
• international educational tourism
• travel destinations
• meaningful experience
• experiential learning theory
• learning journal

Introduction

Education and travel have been intertwined for centuries (Stone & Petrick, 2013). This has led to a variety of different types of experiences aimed at utilizing travel for educational purposes, often referred to as educational tourism (Choi & Bae, 2022, Kim & Jeong, 2018, McGladdery & Lubbe, 2017, Abubakar et al., 2014, Stoner et al., 2014, Talawanich et al., 2019). More recently, short-term study abroad (STSA) programs, the focus of this research, have become one of the most dynamic segments of international educational travel and tourism. In comparison to traditional study abroad, STSA offers a range of attractive and distinctive characteristics, including their shorter durations, lower costs, more structured programs, supervised learning opportunities, inter-group interactions, and intense pre-departure preparation (Lokkesmoe et al., 2016, Iskhakova & Bradly, 2022).

STSA programs have been criticized in the past for a lack of academic rigor and were often seen as extended vacations (Rooney, 2002), however they are increasingly recognized as a key strategy for preparing students to be global citizens and developing their cultural intelligence (Holtbrügge & Engelhard, 2016, Goldstein, 2022). Prior to the COVID−19 pandemic, STSA was also the fastest growing segment of experiential learning programs (Lokkesmoe et al., 2016). The Institute of International Education in the United States of America (USA) reports that STSA programs accounted for 54.6% of all students who studied abroad in 2017–2018 and this percentage was expected to continue increasing (Nguyen, 2017). Despite the growing popularity of STSA programs, there are still important unanswered questions and unexplored research avenues, including gaining a better understanding of the types of experiences that students have during STSA programs, determining whether STSA programs provide meaningful experiences, and evaluating whether the program destination matters.

There is a dearth of research that focuses on exploring STSA and the value of specific experiences that students engage in while abroad (Biber, 2021, Orpett Long et al., 2010, Mody et al., 2017, Ritz, 2011). Instead, existing research has concentrated on examining the more traditional long-term, typically a semester or full year in length, study abroad programs (I. Clarke et al., 2009) and the development of intercultural competence as a key outcome of participation (Holtbrügge & Engelhard, 2016, Goldstein, 2022, Iskhakova et al., 2022). While it is important to understand the value of longer programs and their associated outcomes, it is time to research STSA and gain a greater understanding of whether this type of program design provides a meaningful travel experience. In addition, some previous research (Hemmasi & Downes, 2013, Iskhakova et al., 2022) has considered the destination of educational tourism, but whether and how destination might influence the meaningfulness of experiences during STSA remains understudied (Bradly & Iskhakova, 2022; Goldstein, 2022; Iskhakova & Bradly, 2022; Roy et al., 2019).

Considering the research gaps, unanswered questions, and the undetermined role that destination may play, we investigate and compare STSA tours across four distinct destinations: the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Russia, Vietnam, and the United States of America (USA). The main aims of our study are to determine what types of experiences students engage in during STSA and which of these experiences have the potential to be meaningful and facilitate student learning. In addition, we evaluate the role of destination and whether the types of meaningful experiences vary depending on location. Our study contributes to the conversation on the role and impact of STSA programs as an important format for facilitating meaningful experiences across destinations. In so doing, our empirical findings support the importance of concrete experiences when designing educational tourism programs, thereby informing Experiential Learning Theory (ELT). Our study also contributes to the educational tourism and study abroad literatures by providing practical insights for the design of STSA programs.

Research questions and theoretical grounding

An overview of short-term study abroad (STSA)

Three key features of an educational tourism experience: (1) the trip was intentionally educationally focused; (2) the style of learning was experiential; and (3) the trip was structured around the educational program (Pitman et al., 2010). All three of these key features are natural elements of STSA programs, which makes STSA an authentic format in the educational tourism domain. According to a recent review (Iskhakova & Bradly, 2022), STSA is the shortest and typically the most affordable option among study abroad formats and yet it still provides the student with an international learning component. In addition, despite participants originating from a wide variety of countries, most of the existing literature has examined the experiences of students from the USA who predominantly studied in Europe or in the Caribbean region (Iskhakova & Bradly, 2022). Earlier studies have also identified a variety of reasons why students select specific destinations for their study abroad. Such reasons include social factors like the influence of family and friends (G. Nyaupane et al., 2011, Lejealle et al., 2021), the opportunity to develop foreign language skills (Gómez et al., 2018), the development of cultural skills (Holtbrügge & Engelhard, 2016), personal growth (Eder et al., 2010) and to volunteer (Horn & Fry, 2013).

There is some debate about the amount of time that constitutes short-term in relation to study abroad. The Institute of International Education defines STSA as programs lasting up to eight weeks in length (Nguyen, 2017), with this standard now widely accepted by both practitioners and scholars. Additionally, Iskhakova et al. (2022) argued that the STSA’s shorter format provides a form of learning that other types of management education cannot deliver. Mody et al. (2017) have also suggested that STSA should be perceived and studied as a specific form of facilitated travel with broad implications for study abroad administration and the tourism industry. Furthermore, the STSA format allows for simultaneous cultural, personal, and professional development due to the very intense nature of the program, quality of preparation, integrated reflection, and intense interactions (Iskhakova & Bradly, 2022).

Various researchers have highlighted numerous benefits of undertaking STSA including cultural, personal, and employment/career related outcomes (Roy et al., 2019). In addition, a meta-analysis of the learning outcomes of study abroad and STSA demonstrated that they impact cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes (Varela, 2017). For example, the STSA format can serve as a very efficient “professional eye opener” where students benefit from participating in structured international learning opportunities and identifying potential industries, companies, or occupations in which they may envisage a career (Iskhakova & Bradly, 2022, p. 24). In addition, in a systematic review, Goldstein (2022) noted that “STSA appears to be most effective in promoting intercultural interest, knowledge and awareness” (p.28). S. C. Mapp et al. (2007) also found that students generally expressed interest in future travel as a result of participating in a two-week STSA program. Similarly, Lewis and Niesenbaum (2005) found that 42% of STSA participants of a two-week program subsequently travelled or studied abroad, and Dwyer (2004) reported that 52% of STSA participants revisited the country where they had studied.

Although the program design, benefits, and wider implications of STSA appear to have attracted research attention (Mills et al., 2010, Sachau et al., 2010), the types of experiences that students engage in during STSA programs has not. Sachau et al. (2010) examined three different STSA programs and while they analyzed and compared the program design, no identification of the types of experiences during the different programs was explored. Furthermore, Mills et al. (2010) focused their analysis on the diversity of options for STSA formats without further attempting to identify the experiences that participants engaged in while abroad.

The majority of STSA programs include a variety of types of experiences ranging from individual time to explore the location to targeted learning opportunities through interaction with local business professionals. To design the most beneficial STSA, it is necessary to identify the different types of experiences that students engage in and whether they have a lasting and meaningful impact. Thus, it is important to explore the experiences, in general, that take place during a typical STSA program first. Then, a more detailed examination and categorization of the types of possible experiences that students engage in during an STSA program can be completed. With this focus on STSA programs for business and economics students, we raise our first research question:

RQ1:

What types of experiences do students have during STSA programs?

Experiential learning theory and meaningful experiences

The principle of experiential learning provides a viable connection between travel and education (Stone & Petrick, 2013). Boydell (1976) defined experiential as “meaningful discovery” that occurs when learners uncover knowledge on their own, through perceptual experiences and insights, and usually as the result of a personal experience. The importance of memorable experiences is well understood in the tourism discourse (H. Chen & Rahman, 2018, X. Chen et al., 2020), however in an educational tourism context the providers of STSA programs aim for these memorable experiences to also be meaningful for participant learning.

D. A. Kolb (1984) expanded research of meaningful discovery by introducing his theory of experiential learning. ELT highlights the critical role that experience plays in impacting learning and change. D. A. Kolb (1984) defines learning as a continuous process of adapting to the environment by acquiring new information, challenging existing knowledge, relearning, and integrating new knowledge into action. ELT outlines four fundamental stages that individuals experience during the experiential learning cycle, including concrete experiences, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005). ELT views learning as a comprehensive process of adapting to the world that requires the integrated functioning of the total person, which includes thinking, feeling, perceiving, and behaving, as well as interactions between the person and the environment (D. A. Kolb, 1984).

The holistic nature of ELT fits well with the complex and integrated learning that takes place during a STSA program (Nyanjom et al., 2020). Mak et al. (2017) demonstrated the value of ELT when studying service learning model programs, for example. Additionally, Sangpikul (2020) utilizes ELT to show how several different experiential learning projects are effectively enabled in marketing courses with various learning outcomes.

In our paper, we focus on the first stage of ELT, namely concrete experiences, which are the cornerstone of any STSA program. While the reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation components of the ELT framework are linked more to individuals’ actions and perceptions, the concrete experience component is inextricably linked to the STSA destination and the immediate cultural encounters that participants experience, consume, and accumulate while on their STSA journey. The concrete experience of travel and discovery provides an avenue where the traveler can subsequently reflect on the experience thereby beginning the process of learning (Mouton, 2002).

In their discussion of meaningful experiences, Aytug et al. (2018) refer to individuals being “exposed to different cultures in a variety of ways, such as observing people from different cultures, trying different cuisines, watching foreign movies or videos, hearing people speak a different language, or looking at foreign architecture” (p.2). We agree that meaningful international experiences should include a variety of cultural encounters, some of which will lead an individual to challenge existing perspectives and gain new ones while potentially developing more effective ways of interacting with individuals from other cultures. The role of meaningful experiences in learning is critically valuable, because such experiences are rare, intense, and memorable.

In our study we define a meaningful experience as a concrete experience that has been consumed/experienced/gained by the participant, left a memorable trace in the participant’s cognition, and was operationalized by being documented in the participant’s learning journal as a written record of that experience. Identifying the different types of experiences that individuals engage in when in another country or culture is the first step and is captured in our first research question. Here we focus on those experiences that had or have the potential to be meaningful. As a result of this discussion, our second research question is:

RQ2:

What types of concrete experiences do STSA participants perceive to be meaningful?

The role of STSA destination

Among global educational tourism scholars and educational tourism practitioners, there is a lack of shared understanding about whether culturally similar or distant destinations influence meaningfulness, learning, and skill development. This is partially attributed to the absence of studies that have attempted to simultaneously examine the role of cultural similarity and destination, and to answer the question of how travel destination influences the types of meaningful experiences. As argued by Yang et al. (2019), cultural distance is a dynamic concept and can serve as a “double-edged sword”. On the one hand, the uniqueness of a foreign culture can be attractive to an individual who pursues novelty and has a thirst for new knowledge, which can facilitate stronger learning and development. Yet, on the other hand, greater cultural distance can deter an individual’s participation in overseas travel due to potential risks and uncertainties ranging from language barriers to higher travel costs; hence individuals may feel more comfortable visiting a destination that is culturally similar to their home country, which can also facilitate stronger learning and development.

To capture the impact of cultural similarity, the cultural distance between the home country (country of study of participants) and the host country (STSA destination country) has been used in some studies as a proxy-variable (i.e., Hemmasi & Downes, 2013, Iskhakova et al., 2022). These studies provide a quantitative measure of cultural distance between countries and explore its influence on individuals during international experiences. Some other studies anticipate that cultural distance can be both beneficial and detrimental to skill development during study abroad (Varela & Gatlin-Watts, 2014). Yet others have linked higher levels perceived cultural distance among students with expectations of more social difficulty when studying abroad (Ward & Kennedy, 1993). Together these studies highlight the complexity and lack of shared understanding regarding the role of cultural distance.

Some STSA studies have demonstrated that differences in student experiences and learning are driven by the cultural distance between participants’ home and host countries. For example, Iskhakova et al. (2022) uncovered a cultural distance paradox by finding that STSA in countries with similar cultures to the students’ home cultures facilitates a greater increase in cultural intelligence. Additionally, G. P. Nyaupane et al. (2008) showed that changes in attitude toward host country natives were more positive when US students visited the more culturally distant location of Austria, than when they visited Australia. This change in attitude was attributed to students’ experiences with non-tourism related services (e.g., experiences with the public, customs officials, and the police) or host country natives in Australia.

Attempting to focus more on the destination than on cultural similarly, Tarrant and Lyons (2012) suggested that destination differences affect student outcomes, namely in the environmental citizenship dimension. Additionally, DeLoach et al. (2021) examined the role of depth and duration of study abroad programs, but also classified destinations as “common” and “less common” locations and considered the effects of English and non-English speaking destinations on student outcomes.

Despite some research having incorporated examinations of country similarity or references to the role of destination, few have compared multiple destinations within the same study, tried to determine its impact, or gone beyond using cultural distance measures. We argue, however, that the importance of destination goes beyond simply calculating the amount of cultural distance between two countries, it should also aim to capture differences related to political, economic, religious, legal, environmental, and other dimensions. This reflects the approach of Ghemawat’s (2001) CAGE model, where the distance between two countries increases based on cultural, administrative (political), geographic and economic differences between them. Ultimately, it remains unknown whether the meaningfulness of experiences during STSA vary as a result of the destination. Without this important information it is difficult for program providers, participants, and tourism operators to develop the most effective learning opportunities. Based on the above discussion, we pose the following research question:

RQ3:

How does travel destination influence the meaningfulness of participants’ experiences during STSA?

Method

Aligned with our aim to gain a deeper understanding of STSA and the role of destination from the perspective of tour participants, an interpretivist paradigm was adopted. We sought subjective meaning of how participants understood their environment in a natural context (i.e., during the STSA tour). The research team included one individual who assisted with designing and co-leading the STSA tours under investigation. Another member of the team assisted with designing and co-leading two of the STSA tours. The researchers did not specify predefined variables or a priori understanding on the research participants or their experiences, and the use of journaling provided a “useful means for finding out emotions, feelings, understandings, and actions” of participants (D’Souza et al., 2016). To analyze the learning journals, we adopted a set of grounded procedures consistent with Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) interpretation because it permits the emergence of important themes and patterns within the data. This qualitative content analysis is a widely used qualitative research approach to systematically interpret and describe meaning from the content of text data (Schreier, 2012) and aligns with our philosophical and theoretical assumptions. Using qualitative content analysis, the researcher proceeds to search for and understand what concepts were predominantly discussed (Opengart, 2018).

Sampling and data collection

The data were collected from undergraduate students who participated in one of five two-week STSA tours conducted between January 2019 and January 2020 as an elective course toward their business or economics degree at an Australian university. The destinations of the STSA tours were the UAE (twice), Russia, Vietnam, and the USA.

The tours were designed and organized by academics in association with in-country education travel providers and host-university management. Like most STSA programs, each tour included three stages. The pre-study-tour stage involved two or three pre-departure information seminars, a pre-departure social icebreaker event, and the submission of a pre-departure teamwork assignment focused on the conditions and environment in the host country. In the second stage, students travelled abroad for the study-tour program, visiting the host country for approximately two weeks. While in-country, participants visited businesses and culturally significant sites; engaged with business panels that included managers, entrepreneurs, and government officials; had interactions with local nationals; ate in local restaurants; undertook self-guided exploration; and completed reflection sessions and other culturally immersive activities. It was a mandatory condition to keep a daily reflective journal that consisted of notes and logs about the most meaningful and significant experiences of each day. The post-tour stage consisted of working on an individual learning report and a post-tour seminar with reflections and program closure.

Each of the four locations of the study tours is culturally different from the others and from Australia (with the potential exception of the USA), as well as being geographically distant from Australia. Table 1 was developed by drawing from and integrating the approach of Tadesse and White (2010), Ghemawat’s CAGE model (Ghemawat, 2001), and Botts (2021) methodology of nations’ evaluations to provide an overview of selected cultural, geographic, institutional characteristics of the four destinations.

Table 1. Characteristics of the travel destinations of the four STSA tours and the level of difference between the home country (Australia) and host country (STSA destination country).

Characteristics	UAE	Russia	Vietnam	USA
Region of host country	Middle East	Europe	Asia	North America
Language of home country	English	English	English	English
Main language of host country	Arabic	Russian	Vietnamese	English
Business language of host country	English	Russian	Vietnamese	English
Cultural distance* (between Australia and the host country)	High (1.93)	High (2.17)	Moderate (1.31)	Low (0.39)
Cultural norms	Very different	Very different	Very different	Somewhat different
Level of economic development	Different	Different	Different	Similar
Institutional systems	Different	Different	Different	Similar
Legal systems	Different (Underdeveloped)	Different (Underdeveloped)	Different (Underdeveloped)	Similar
Political systems	Different	Different	Different	Similar
Governmental system	Different	Different	Different	Similar
Natural environment	Different	Different	Different	Different
Business Norms	Different	Different	Different	Somewhat different
Main religion	Very different	Very different	Very different	Somewhat different
Number of differing characteristics	12	13	13	5

*To operationalize this variable, we adopted the approach used by Kogut and Singh (1988) and Tadesse and White (2010).

Table 1 highlights the extent of differences in the characteristics between the four countries (12 areas for the UAE, 13 areas for Russia, 13 areas for Vietnam, and 5 areas for the USA). By examining countries of such diverse characteristics, our study has been able to better assess the potential role that destination plays in creating experiences that may be meaningful for STSA participants.

Sample

Each study-tour group ranged in size from 20 to 30 students with three accompanying staff members. All participants were completing a business or economics degree, and for most participants their major areas of study included management, marketing, international business, economics, or finance. In total, 116 of a possible 126 students completed and submitted learning journals, completed both the pre- and post-tour cultural surveys, and agreed to participate in the research. This represents a 92% matched sample response rate, which is comparable to studies of a similar high-engagement nature (Wood & Peters, 2014, Engle & Crowne, 2014, S. Mapp, 2012). Table 2 provides additional details about the participants through a profile summary of the entire sample and for each destination.

Table 2. Sample profile summary.

Indicator	Total	UAE	Russia	Vietnam	USA
Month and year	2019–2020	January 2019 & 2020	July 2019	September 2019	March 2019
Participants	116/126	41/46	24/24	25/30	26/26
Response rate (%)	92.1	88.5	100	83.3	100
Mean age	21.0	20.9	21.2	20.7	21.2
Female-to-male ratio	64/52	26/15	12/12	14/11	12/14
Average number of languages spoken	1.6	1.7	1.5	1.6	1.5
Number of countries previously visited	12.1	11.2	14.3	10	13

Data collection: journaling

Journaling, as a form of reflective writing, has been suggested by numerous scholars as a tool to facilitate training and learning (Brown et al., 2011, M. Clarke, 2004, Moon, 2006). Journaling provides a framework for students to contemplate, observe, ponder, and imagine their feelings. As such, journaling has become a method of contemplative inquiry (Haynes, 2015). Moon (2006) suggests that journal writing can improve learning in several ways: it slows down the pace of learning, increases the student’s sense of ownership, acknowledges the role of emotion in learning, provides a different kind of learning experience, and enhances learning through the writing process. As such, journal writing is an evaluation method that acknowledges that students learn best when they are actively involved and when they build on what they already know. Furthermore, the value of the writing process during and after a travel experience has been recognized more broadly for other types of travel purposes (Servidio & Ruffolo, 2016, X. Chen et al., 2020).

Students maintained daily reflective journals that consisted of notes and logs during the tour and all activities. In addition, to encourage daily notetaking, students were provided time throughout the study tour to reflect and write down any observations or thoughts. The daily reflective journals did not have a specified format to allow students discretion and flexibility to write about what they felt was the interesting, important, or memorable to them. As such, some students arranged their reflections chronologically, while others did so by themes, challenges, insights, stereotypes, or learning goals. Approximately two weeks after the commencement of the study tour, once they had returned to Australia, students were asked to craft and submit a learning journal, which was the object of our analysis. Students had the option to use their reflective journal of daily notes and logs when writing their learning journal to help them reconstruct events, but they could also write about other aspects, experiences, and reflections that were more memorable after returning.

All the learning journals were between 3,500 and 5,000 words (10–20 pages) and some students also included pictures and other visuals. Each of the 116 learning journals included an average of 4,000 words, which constituted 464,000 words (or roughly 1,500 pages of text) being included in the analyses. The submission of a learning journal was a mandatory element of assessment in the program. While the length of the learning journals was flexible, all students stayed in the 10–20-page range. Since the learning journals drew from the combination of all the daily reflective journals, this length required students to stay focused and only express those experiences that were the most meaningful for them.

Data analysis

The initial data analyses involved detailed reviewing and coding of the learning journals by the research team to identify the different types of experiences that participants engaged in during the study tour. All authors were involved in the coding to ensure reliability and consistency. We initially coded five learning journals separately and then discussed them together to ensure consistency, make decisions as a team, and generate an initial coding framework. In the context of our study and according to our definition of a meaningful experience, we operationalized and identified such experiences based on them being discussed in the learning journals. As written space was limited, students had to prioritize the most meaningful experiences for them, but also experiences that stayed in their memories after the in-country program that were worth writing about. In our analysis, we sought to identify the types of meaningful experiences from the learning journals for each destination and coded them accordingly using the developed schema.

Several iterative stages of preliminary coding, discussing, and elaborating a code scheme resulted in us identifying a variety of types of experiences. We then categorized the different types of experiences to develop our coding framework. Once the coding framework was developed, the lead author progressed with the coding of all 116 learning journals in NVIVO, which took four months in total. During this coding, the research team undertook regular consistency and quality checks, and discussed any content that could not be clearly coded as per our coding framework. We used Gibbs (2002) analysis framework to employ a three-stage coding process: 1) open coding to identify relevant themes; 2) axial coding to refine the categories, and 3) selective coding that links the categories together to enable a narrative to be told.

Once all the data was coded, we proceeded by applying another layer of content analysis. This type of content analysis involves counting the number of times the established categories are present within the data. In this quantitative form of content analysis, it is important that the categories are distinct and precise enough that any researcher would derive the same results from a particular set of textual data (Silverman, 2006). Through this additional analysis, we were able to develop heat maps and specify how much of the coded data related to each of the types of experiences we had identified (O’Kane et al., 2021). The following sections provide an explanation of our findings in relation to this analysis, followed by more detailed excerpts from the journals to gain further insights and answer our research questions.

Results and discussion

Types of experiences

Through the content analysis, we identified 14 different types of experiences that we grouped according to five categories as shown in Table 3. The categories were: (1) Creative and Nature experiences (i.e. cuisine/food experiences; cultural art/craft/hobby experiences; language experiences; outdoor/nature experiences – experiences that involve consumption of culture, nature and facilitate creative mental processes); (2) Individual experiences (i.e. initial preparation experiences; observations in-country experiences; individual time in-country experiences); (3) People experiences (i.e. informal interactions with locals experiences; interactions with business leaders experiences; interactions with other students/staff on a tour experiences); (4) Visit experiences (i.e. cultural sightseeing visit experiences; business/field visit experiences; formal lectures/university experiences) and (5) Other experiences (i.e. unclassified experiences).

Table 3. Type and description of 14 identified experiences that were utilized when coding the data.

Code	Type of Experience	Description
CREATIVE AND NATURE EXPERIENCES – experiences that involve consumption of culture, nature and facilitate creative mental process
E10	Cuisine/food experiences	All food experiences, including group eating times, including food observations
E11	Cultural art/craft/hobby experiences	Cultural experiences, clothes experiences, theatre and music, crafts, masterclasses, architecture
E12	Language experiences	Language development and practice during the program, language encounters
E13	Outdoor/nature experiences	Outdoor activities/walks, interactions with new landscapes/experience of different climate/weather
INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES – experiences that involve individual consumption
E1	Initial preparation experiences	Pre-departure preparation, stated pre-conceptions, pre-departure research, pre-tour experience
E2	Observations in-country experiences	Descriptions, including culture, history, religion, politics, business, architecture, literature, environment, landscapes, diplomacy, music, sport
E8	Individual time experiences	Individual/pairs/group informal exploration of a new culture, and/or an individual’s arrival to/from the program
PEOPLE EXPERIENCES – experiences that involve interactions with people in various settings
E6	Informal interactions with locals experiences	Informal interactions with locals and strangers, as part of a program, beyond the program or during the program curricula
E7	Interactions with business leaders experiences	Managers/entrepreneurs/expatriates, including alumni events, industry leaders
E9	Interactions with other students/staff on tour experiences	Interactions with the students from the study-tour group and with faculty/provider
VISIT EXPERENCES – experiences that involve structured or planned visits
E3	Cultural sightseeing visit experiences	Tourist sites, including museums, sites of national cultural, historical, political significance.
E4	Business/field visit experiences	Formal business visits, including not-for-profit, industry, diplomatic and government visits
E5	Formal lectures/university experiences	Formal lectures/panels/forums/(incl. government panels)
OTHER EXPERIENCES – experiences other than those listed above
E14	Other experiences	Unclassified experiences (for example, religion)

This analysis responds to our first research question and fills a gap in the existing literature by identifying the variety and specific types of experiences that students engage in during STSA. Our types of experiences classification goes beyond previous focuses on how STSA programs are designed (Mills et al., 2010, Sachau et al., 2010) and allows us to take a step toward gaining a deeper understanding of what happens during STSA. Additionally, our classification of experiences is a valuable contribution to STSA research because it provides the opportunity for future studies to better evaluate the range of experiences that can be incorporated into the design of STSA programs.

Meaningful experiences during STSA

We used NVIVO to provide heat maps and a summary analysis of the percentage of codes of each type of experience within the composite learning journals. The percentage corresponds to the absolute number of coding references (of meaningful experiences) extracted from NVIVO for each destination across all the learning journals. This analysis is provided in Table 4a and Table 4b and reveals that some types of experiences were more meaningful and significant for students compared to others.

Table 4a. Overview of percentage of coding for each type and sub-type of experiences across the four tour destinations.

Type and sub-types of experiences	UAE	RUSSIA	VIETNAM	USA
CREATIVE AND NATURE EXPERIENCES
E10 Cuisine/food experiences	0%	1%	4%	1%
E11 Cultural art/craft//hobby experiences	0%	3%	0%	0%
E12 Language experiences	0%	2%	1%	0%
E13 Outdoor/nature experiences	2%	0%	1%	0%
INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCES
E1 Initial preparation experiences	8%	8%	6%	9%
E2 Observations in-country experiences	29%	24%	20%	16%
E8 Individual time in-country experiences	3%	2%	5%	4%
PEOPLE EXPERIENCES
E6 Informal interactions with locals experiences	13%	5%	13%	2%
E7 Interactions with business leaders experiences	9%	23%	10%	24%
E9 Interactions with other students/staff on tour experiences	2%	2%	4%	5%
VISIT EXPERIENCES
E3 Cultural sightseeing visit experiences	5%	6%	3%	7%
E4 Business/field visit experiences	20%	12%	22%	22%
E5 Formal lectures/university experiences	7%	11%	12%	8%
OTHER EXPERIENCES
E14 Other experiences	0%	0%	0%	0%

Table 4b. Summary of the most significant types of experiences across the four destinations.

Sub-type of experience	Type of experience	UAE	Russia	Vietnam	USA
E2 Observations in-country experiences	INDIVIDUAL EXPERINCES	29%	24%	20%	16%
E7 Interactions with business leaders experiences	PEOPLE EXPERIENCES	9%	23%	10%	24%
E4 Business/field visit experiences	VISITEXPERIENCES EXPERIENCES	20%	12%	22%	22%

As depicted in Table 4a below, Individual Experiences, People Experiences and Visit Experiences were the most prominent categories of meaningful experiences with at least two of them including a minimum of 20% of all the coded responses of the learning journals per destination. It is also clear that the category Creative and Nature Experiences, which includes cuisine and food experiences; cultural art, craft and hobby experiences, language experiences, outdoor and nature experiences, and other experiences only captured a minimal amount of attention from the students and thus were not as meaningful.

Additionally, Table 4b illustrates that E2 observations in-country experiences; E7 interactions with business leaders’ experiences and E4 business/field visit experiences were the most meaningful types of experiences across all four destinations. This is clearly reflected within the analysis where 9–29% of all comments from the learning journals were coded in relation to one of these types of experiences (the brightness of the color corresponds to the higher percentage of codes for that specific experience).

In response to our second research question, the results of the content analysis show that STSA creates meaningful experiences for participants. This extends ELT, and in particular the importance of concrete experiences, to the STSA literature (D. A. Kolb, 1984, Nyanjom et al., 2020). In addition, some types of experiences were clearly more meaningful than others to participants. Our results bring to light that observations in-country, interactions with business leaders experiences, and business/field visit experiences within the Individual, People and Visit Experiences categories, respectively, were the most written about by students and thus had the most memorable impact on them during the STSA. As a result, we can conclude that these types of experiences are the most meaningful for participants. Aligned with Aytug et al. (2018), our results also suggest that there are a variety of types of meaningful experiences that individuals engage in during STSA. We also lend support to Mouton (2002) who highlighted the importance of concrete experiences to stimulate the subsequent reflective and learning processes.

The influence of destination on the meaningful experiences during STSA

In the following we further interpret the results from Table 4b and provide illustrative examples from the students’ learning journals to explore the effect of these experiences on the students. Here, we specifically focus on the link between the destination and the type of experience. Student names have been removed but the destination is provided using an identifier such as “Vietnam_5”. The results below focus on each of the most meaningful types of experiences across the four destinations, namely observations in-country experiences (E2); interactions with business leaders experiences (E7), and business/field visits (E4).

Observations in-country experiences (E2)

From Table 4b, we can see that students reflected extensively on what they were observing while in the host country and how it impacts their learning. This was reflected on more than any other type of experience and regardless of the destination (UAE, Russia, Vietnam, or USA). One possible explanation for why this type of experience was so meaningful is the affective and transformative nature of observing and experiencing contrasting cultures in comparison to one’s own culture. We explore this through illustrative examples from the students’ learning journals below.

Student UAE_10 who visited the UAE:

The sheer power and honor conveyed to the Sheikh’s is one of the biggest insights into the UAE I believe I received.

Student VIETNAM_5 who visited Vietnam:

The difference in university life between Vietnam and Australia is something that stood out to me. The way the students seemed to mingle and hang out together between classes in big groups was something I am not used to seeing at home. While it’s common to see people having a casual chat or doing some study in Australia, the singing and dancing witnessed was a vastly different scene.

By analyzing the nature of observations in-country experiences, we sought to identify the triggers that created the meaningful concrete experiences (based on ELT). The analysis of more than 1059 coded phrases and comments allowed us to classify them further into sub-types to reveal those that were the most meaningful (see Table 5a).

Table 5a. Overview of the triggers of the most meaningful observations in-country experiences (E2).

E2 Observations in-country triggers (based on 1059 coded phrases)

Observing contrasts: Controversial/opposite/contradictive observations; breaking of stereotypes; observation of new phenomenon; comparison with home country; seeing many contrasts in the country; daily differences; actual differences in simple things; level of life; observations of differences in host country/home country Observing the visible environment and artefacts: Seeing the history; architecture, landscapes; buildings Observing people: First-hand observations, first-hand experiences; people’s behavior; traditions/customs/norms; what people look like; traditions/values/norms

As depicted in Table 4b, students who travelled to more culturally distant locations (UAE, Russia, and Vietnam) reflected more on how their observations impacted their learning in comparison to the less distance location of the USA. In addition, for the UAE and Russia (two of the most culturally distant destinations), these experiences were the most concrete and meaningful experiences among all the different types of experiences. This indicates that for culturally distant destinations it is important for STSA programs to be intentionally designed to expose students to and encourage them to engage in independent exploration, particularly with respect to observing the differences in the environment and people. As such, these types of experiences are likely to facilitate further reflection, conceptualization, and action, based on the ELT model, resulting in further learning and development.

Interactions with business leaders experiences (E7)

Table 4a and Table 4b provide evidence that activities that included interactions with business leaders’ experiences were another meaningful type of experience across all the destinations visited. The following quotes from the students’ learning journals are illustrative of the inspirational nature of interacting with business or civic leaders:

Student USA_14 who visited the USA:

This was further developed in the Consulate Networking Night when we had the chance to talk to many people with some very interesting but somewhat intimidating backgrounds and careers. Being able to hold conversations with these people gave me great insight into my desired future that I would not have been able to gain otherwise.

Student Russia_8 who visited Russia:

An aspect that really resonated with me was the diversity of people we witnessed within Russia, yet an underlying similarity. For example, TG (managing director of the Gum), AK (Russian Cosmonaut), and SZ (Founder of Super8 film studio), could not have been more diverse in their appearance and attitudes, toward business or otherwise.

By analyzing students’ comments about their interactions with business leaders’ experiences, we sought to identify the triggers that made these meaningful concrete experiences (based on ELT). The analysis of 667 coded phrases and comments allowed us to classify them into sub-categories to reveal the triggers. Based on our analysis, the most significant triggers were real-life interaction and learning; increased self-awareness; skills development and networking; and cross-cultural differences and diversity (see Table 5b).

Table 5b. Overview of the triggers of the most meaningful “interactions with business leaders (E7)” experiences.

E7 Interactions with Business leaders triggers (based on 667 coded phrases)

Real-life interaction and learning: Interactions with people who are potential members of your professional network Seeing actual global leaders, global expats, Real life learning, learning first-hand Real interaction and Q&A firsthand, Valuable experience & learning Increased self-awareness: Guidance to a different life-scenarios; inspiring or moving examples, role-models; reflection on own future career Skills development and networking: Professional style of conduct; Q&A and confident communications skill development, asking questions, skill development to ask meaningful questions; exposure to much wider professional opportunities, exposure to a different range of people and styles Cross-Cultural differences and diversity: Seeing actual cross-cultural differences; seeing professional business culture and conduct; breaking of stereotypes; diversity of people

These results clearly illustrate that interactions with local business leaders during STSA is a meaningful experience. Among the types of experiences, an interesting observation is that this type of experience was the most meaningful for students who went to Russia and the USA (see Table 4b). This is intriguing considering that these were the most (Russia) and least culturally distant (USA) destinations, respectively. This may be due to the perceived career benefits from this form of interaction in these destinations or could have related to the specific individuals with whom students interacted with in these destinations.

Business/Field visit experiences (E4)

As depicted in Table 4a and Table 4b, Business/field visit experiences (E4) were also one of the most frequently reflected on types of experience in the students’ learning journals. For these types of experiences, cultural distance does not appear to play a critical role since students reported the importance of these types of experiences on their learning in both culturally distant and culturally near locations. Excerpts from the students’ learning journals in relation to this type of experience are provided below.

Student USA_17 who visited the USA:

Having studied international law last year, it was surreal to be able to visit and stand in the UN General Assembly Hall and Security Council Chamber, where many of the documents I had studied were produced.

Student VIETNAM_4 who visited Vietnam:

I expected there to be significant infrastructure development in Vietnam, but the raw value and modernness of their projects blew me away.

By further analyzing the business/field visit experiences coded data, we sought to identify the triggers that created the specific and meaningful concrete experiences (based on ELT). The analysis of 743 coded phrases and comments allowed us to classify them into sub-categories to identify the nature of these concrete experiences. The most significant sub-categories of business and field visits, as shown in Table 5c, were culturally different business practices, the business immersion experience itself, business relationships, and exposure to the variety of the businesses.

Table 5c. Overview of the triggers of the most meaningful “business and field visits (E4)” experiences.

E4 Business and Field Visits triggers (based on 743 coded phrases)

Culturally different business practices: To see and to learn the differences between home and host business operations, regulations, rules, routines, conditions, see real contrasts and contradictions/compare countries; business + culture together = real experience; learning different business perspectives; different work ethics; ability to see varying business perspectives and different values Business immersion experience: First-hand experience/insights from inside; learning by doing; depth of understanding of a real business; gaining access and experience to things that normally students cannot access; to experience a real business along with the culture; ability to realize a dream, to see visit businesses they were thinking about, wanted to know more, large, and impactful institutions and organizations/seeing real businesses and/real institutions first-hand Business Relationships: To see relationships with other stakeholders; to see business relationships Learning from the variety of business visits: Learning from the whole variety of industries, the value of the variety and ability to see the difference/rich variety of business/types of business/industries to make comparisons; Realization of own industries and which industries suit and which do not/seeing alternative careers

Our results show that visiting different businesses and spending time being exposed to different aspects of business processes, organizational practices, and stakeholder relationships in a foreign country are impactful regardless of the destination. With high scores for all four destinations, Vietnam and the USA stand out as destinations where business and field visits were the most impactful for students.

Overall, in response to our third research question, the results of the content analysis reveal two important findings. The first is that regardless of destination, we identified that students engage in meaningful experiences. The second is that the destination of STSA does matter for creating specific types of meaningful experiences. For example, observations in-country experiences were particularly meaningful for students who completed an STSA program to the most culturally distant locations, namely the UAE, Russia, and Vietnam. In addition, interactions with business leaders’ experiences were the most meaningful for individuals who traveled to the USA, and this was closely followed by those who went to Russia. Furthermore, business/field visits were the most meaningful for students who undertook their STSA program in the UAE, Vietnam, or the USA.

These findings extend existing research on the roles of cultural similarly and destination for STSA. We went beyond existing studies that have focused on the relationship between the level of cultural similarly of a destination country and skills development (DeLoach et al., 2021; Iskhakova et al., 2022; Nyaupane et al., 2011) to gain an understanding of the types of experiences that are meaningful across destination countries. Our research also supports arguments regarding the complexity surrounding cultural distance (Varela & Gatlin-Watts, 2014, Yang et al., 2019) by suggesting that some types of experiences are more meaningful in more culturally distant destinations, while others are more meaningful in more culturally similar destinations. Additionally, less meaningful types of experiences (such as cuisine experiences/outdoor experiences/hand-made experiences) were less meaningful across all destinations within our study. These results indicate that students place a higher value on opportunities to interact with the cultural and business aspects of a destination rather than more static types of experiences.

Theoretical and practical implications

Our research and analysis reveal important insights that inform ELT and the design of STSA programs. Our first research question asked what types of experiences students have during an STSA program, and we developed a classification of types of experiences that students engaged in during the five STSA educational trips. Our second research question asked how STSA creates meaningful experiences, and our results illustrate how they are created. We uncovered that the most meaningful types of experiences were Observations in-country, Interactions with business leaders, and Business/field visits within the Individual, People and Visit experiences categories, respectively. Our third research question asked whether and how destination influences the meaningfulness of experiences during an STSA program. We found that in some cases the meaningfulness of the experiences varied due to the travel destination of the STSA program. In the following, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our study.

Providing a classification of the types of experiences that students engage in during STSA is a significant theoretical contribution. Our classification unpacks STSA and provides detailed insights into what individuals do during international experiences. Utilizing this classification, future studies will be able to test both antecedents and outcomes of different types of experiences to better understand the value of different experiences. Such studies will advance our understanding of international experiences more broadly (Michailova & Ott, 2018, Ott & Iskhakova, 2019) and assist with answering questions regarding the value of study abroad for student learning (Varela, 2017). Additionally, the classification allows for more nuanced theorizing regarding types of experiences and the role of destination (or cultural distance).

Our findings reveal that regardless of destination, through a range of experiences and dialogue, students were able to challenge their preconceptions, assumptions, and even their own values as a result of participating in STSA. This broadly confirms the initial stage of ELT in that a meaningful concrete experience is necessary for the next stages of learning (i.e., critical reflection, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation) to potentially occur. International study tours in a higher-education context are typically assessed, with learning journals being a common form of assessment that encourage participants to engage in the second stage of ELT, critical reflection. This suggests that more empirical testing of the following stages of ELT is needed with the potential to extend the ELT framework in an STSA context to identify the necessary conditions for deeper learning to occur.

Our results also found that not all experiences during an STSA program in all destinations are equally meaningful. These results support arguments that the influence of cultural distance is complex (Yang et al., 2019). Contrary to existing theoretical positions regarding the anticipated negative influence of higher cultural distances (Zhang, 2013), we found that some experiences were more meaningful in destinations that were more culturally distant while others were more meaningful in culturally similar destinations. This is an important theoretical contribution because it challenges existing assumptions that higher cultural distances between the home and host countries will result in more challenges and psychological strain, and negatively influence international experiences (Johnson et al., 2006, Ng & Earley, 2006, Ward & Kennedy, 1993, Zhang, 2013). Based on our results, we argue that future research needs to incorporate destination as an important influencer on meaningfulness of experiences and learning. To guide such research, we provide a conceptual model that incorporates the influence of the STSA destination on the relationship between the different types of experience we identified and meaningfulness (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Conceptual model to guide future research exploring the influence of experiences on meaningfulness during an STSA that incorporates the influence of destination.

Among the range of experiences encountered during an STSA program, there is high value placed on people and visits experiences. Therefore, perhaps the most valuable findings from our research are the practical insights for designing and developing STSA programs.

First, and perhaps intuitively, our research confirms that the travel destination matters if the objective of the STSA program is to develop cultural knowledge and skills. This was evident from our data where students reported more observational differences in the STSA programs in Russia, Vietnam, and the UAE – all countries with greater cultural distance and difference (see Table 1) to Australia. This suggests that destinations with greater cultural distance and difference are more likely to initiate reflection and that the cultural novelty may encourage students to develop plans and actions to learn more about the destination’s cultural norms or language. While a student’s own observations and experiences of the culture occur informally, often from first arrival in the host country, STSA practitioners also need to ensure that exposure to cultural learning is incorporated into the formal activities of an STSA program regardless of the disciplinary focus of the program. This can occur through activities that include visits to sites of cultural significance, instruction on important historical events, introductory language instruction, and opportunities for interaction with local people. Assigning priority to culturally distant destinations, while important, must also be balanced with other factors affecting the choice of destination including cost, safety, and accessibility, which may impose practical constraints on the feasibility of visiting some destinations.

Second, when designing international educational tourism programs, faculty should aim to include a broad range of experiences in the schedule and give particular attention to opportunities for interactions with business, government, and civil society leaders. Such interactions are valued more by students because they provide new insights into society and cultural diversity, chances to interact, increased self-awareness, global networking opportunities, and valuable cross-cultural perspectives. Such interactions and outcomes may not be easily gained elsewhere or through other types of travel experiences. While the types of activities included in a STSA program will vary depending on its disciplinary focus, for business-focused STSA programs our findings show that students value the first-hand insights provided by business leaders, knowledge which is likely to be more current and potentially less accessible than through traditional on-campus learning. The business and field site visits typically include a formal presentation, opportunities to ask questions of organizational leaders, and a tour of the organization’s facilities. Facility tours are particularly useful in the case of manufacturing enterprises where business students often gain new and nuanced knowledge about operational management and manufacturing processes; knowledge that is difficult to replicate in a classroom. We therefore conclude that organizational site visits should be a mandatory component on the itinerary of business oriented STSA programs irrespective of the destination. Moreover, interactions with business leaders are a highly valued experience, particularly in culturally similar destinations.

Third, program schedules should allow sufficient time for students to undertake their own explorations and to allow for informal interactions with local people. As our results indicate, these types of experiences are highly valued by participants. Moreover, the opportunity for students to observe and reflect on unanticipated encounters provides valuable opportunities to gain meaningful insights into the culture and society of the host country. Our results and experiences across five STSA programs show that sufficient space and time is needed to create opportunities for informal exploration and learning. Tour providers may be inclined to “over-fill” the itinerary of a STSA program with scheduled activities, fearing that too much unscheduled time may result in wasted opportunities for structured learning. However, we recommend that in a program of 10–14 days that at least one full day or two half-days of unscheduled time is desirable for allowing students to pursue experiences that they find meaningful. Students should then be given an opportunity to reflect upon these observations and interactions in the formal assessment. STSA program design should also encourage students to engage in extensive observations in culturally distant environments, which are focused on contrasts, visible environment and artefacts, and people.

Fourth, our study explores the value of journaling as an opportunity to reflect and learn during and after a STSA tour, which supports its inclusion for educational tour practitioners, educators, and independent travelers. Based on our findings, we argue that the process and value of reflective journaling can also be applied to holiday/vacation travel given that the length is similar to an STSA tour (Perry et al., 2012), which is an important insight for travelers and tourism providers. While the intensity, structure, and purpose/motivation of holiday travel is different, there is an opportunity to achieve meaningfulness using reflective journaling, posts, or travel blogs while overseas, as studies by X. Chen et al. (2020) and Fu et al. (2022) attest. A growing area of tourism includes opportunities to learn and experience the local culture/history (Abubakar et al., 2014, Makara & Canon, 2020, McGladdery & Lubbe, 2017, Mody et al., 2017). The whole process of keeping a reflective journal has the potential to transform a tourist experience into an educational one by encouraging participants to go beyond surface level observation to meaningful experiences through reflection.

Finally, our study’s findings show that participants value the entirety of a program, and while experiences may differ in their ascribed value and meaningfulness for each participant, it is the overall coherence and variety of experiences in the travel destination that are important. Thus, we have provided a classification and overview of possible experiences. Therefore, considerable effort is required to design a program that offers diverse experiences that also has a clear thematic focus. For example, in a business-focused context this would be a STSA program that enables insights on specific industries of significance to the host country while also providing a general overview of key aspects of the host country’s culture, history, and society.

Limitations and directions for future research

Like all studies, our paper has limitations. While our empirical results are based on one of the largest samples of learning journals to date, our study is nonetheless based on a sample of only 116 learning journals. Similarly, our results are based on the insights provided by undergraduate students only in the business and economics disciplines and may not be representative of meaningful experiences reported by participants in other disciplines or levels of study. While our study covers four distinct global regions, the focus of the five STSA tours was limited to four countries. The results may therefore differ in other cultural and country contexts. While the learning journals provide evidence of meaningful experiences, further stages of analysis are needed to assess the extent of critical reflection produced by these meaningful experiences with further evidence and analysis needed on the actions/changes undertaken after a STSA experience to gauge the full extent of experiential or transformative learning.

Our study has revealed several fruitful areas for further scholarly research. Perhaps most importantly, further longitudinal data is needed to confirm the long-term impact of a STSA experience. This data could be obtained through in-depth interviews with participants after graduation or their return to the home country. Such interviews could enable further exploration of why particular experiences were meaningful and their value in the development of personal, cultural, and employability skills. Moreover, interviews could provide insight into the extent of actions and changes that were taken following participation in a STSA program. This may include a newfound curiosity about the culture, new personal networks, and changed career focus. For higher education institutions and educational tourism providers, further research would also yield insights into how to maximize student learning when designing activities and experiences on future STSA programs. For education travel agents and educational tourism providers those insights may help to influence the choice of destinations.

Conclusion

STSA programs will continue to attract attention from education institutions, tourism providers, and participants along with other forms of international educational tourism. Our study has confirmed the value of STSA programs as a powerful way to facilitate meaningful experiences regardless of the destination. Providing observational learning opportunities is more meaningful in culturally distant destinations and providing opportunities to interact with business leaders and visit local organizations are also among the most important experiences. Our study has shown that the highly experiential nature of STSA programs and the unfamiliarity of cultures and destinations, reveal the extent that in-country experiences can be meaningful. STSA programs will remain an important component of university curricula in the future because they provide an opportunity to expose participants to new or different cultures while requiring less financial support and time compared to traditional study abroad. Thus, our study also provides important implications for the international tourism industry regarding the choice of destination. For international education providers and higher education institutions that offer global educational tourism programs, our research provides important insights into designing STSA programs that can generate meaningful experiences for student learning.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.