Student Perceptions of Study Abroad Opportunities:
Are We Achieving Our Goals? An Exploratory Study
Dr. Suzanne N. Cory*
Dr. Zaida Martinez
St. Mary’s University
scory@stmarytx.edu
*Contact author
14th Annual World Forum
Colleagues in Jesuit Business Education
International Association of Jesuit Business Schools
Business and Education in an Era of Globalization:
The Jesuit Position
July 20-23, 2008
Introduction
More American university students are choosing to study abroad each year. Between 1993-1994
and 2003-2004, American college students studying abroad increased 151% (Bernstein, 2006). Many of
these students believe that a study abroad experience will result in personal enrichment, travel
opportunities, graduate school acceptance, job procurement and awareness of global issues and cultural
diversity (Langley and Breese, 2005). In response to these students’ interests, many universities are
developing their own international programs, partnering with international organizations, and/or guiding
students to existing programs. For example, Rice University students have the opportunity to choose
among more than 500 study abroad options (Clark, 2006) and Tufts offers ten programs of its own, but
also allows its students to select from 215 other programs offered by other institutions and approved by
Tufts (Rooney, 2002). Further, the Association for Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB) is encouraging international development in business school graduates to allow for them to be
able to compete in a globalized economy (Gordon and Redmond, 2003), which has in turn promoted the
development of more study abroad opportunities for them. However, with few exceptions, outcomes
assessment of study-abroad programs has been rather limited (Gillespie, 2002).
In response to AACSB guidelines, one of the four themes we developed as hallmarks of our
business school is “global awareness.” Our school currently offers several opportunities for business
students to study abroad and encourages our students to participate in programs sponsored by other
schools on our campus. Members of our faculty are also encouraged to participate in
internationalization opportunities and in fall 2007 one of the authors served as the field director for the
university’s London Program. The purpose of this paper is to present the results of an exploratory
research study on students’ perceptions about study abroad programs before and after their in-country
experience. The paper provides an overview of the literature on study abroad assessment, a description
of the program in which the students participated, an explanation of the study conducted during the fall
2007 semester, and a discussion of the findings.
Prior Research
As indicated above, little research is available regarding outcomes assessment of study abroad
programs. Exceptions to this generalization include Langley and Breese (2005). They used focus
groups and long interviews to determine that students who studied in Ireland who were involved in
extracurricular activities were able to develop relationships with local residents. These students learned
about the Irish culture through observation, interaction and travel and were influenced to do so by
previous program participants. These students also reported that their attitudes toward other cultures
and their improper use of stereotypes were improved by their study abroad experience. Toncar, Reid
and Anderson (2005) found that business students studying abroad seemed more pragmatic and more
concerned about financial issues, the effect of a semester abroad on their graduation date and their future
job opportunities than non-business students, but concluded that a carefully designed program can meet
the needs of both groups. Black and Duhon (2006) assessed changes in students who studied in London.
They concluded that the program successfully enhanced students’ cultural awareness and personal
development.
Early work includes Praetzel, Curcio and Dilorenzo (1996) who recommended a study abroad
model that systematically linked curricula of the host and domestic institutions and Erffmeyer and AlKhatib (1997) who determined that American students studying in Japan felt the cultural orientation
programs available for them fell far short of what was actually necessary and then suggested
improvements in orientation programs. Albers-Miller, Prenshaw and Straughan (1999) surveyed
students from seven U.S. universities and discovered that although their perceptions of study abroad
programs were favorable, few had taken steps toward participating in them and many students were
incorrectly informed about their university’s programs. Cann (2000) described an interdisciplinary
short-term study abroad program in Brazil fusing marketing with culture and language. All participating
1
students reported that their expectations regarding learning about business and culture in South America
had been exceeded. Positive changes in an individual student, as well as increased confidence and
professional growth were reported by Stuart (2007) for a student of color who was able to study abroad.
Several papers informed us about methods of addressing student or faculty internationalization.
Festervand and Tillery (2001) described how short-term study abroad programs can assist international
professional development and teaching effectiveness for faculty. Gordon and Redmond (2003) provided
options for students wishing to study abroad for a long period (up to one year) or a shorter period (a few
weeks) and suggested development of a consortium for institutions that did not have the ability to create
or administer their own programs.
The popular press has alerted interested parties about the impact on universities when significant
numbers of their students choose to study abroad (Bernstein, 2006), methods for students to study
abroad at minimal cost (Clark, 2006) and warned of the high cost to students choosing to study in
Europe, making study in locations such as Chile, Argentina, South Africa and China more attractive
financially (Alison, 2007). Blum (2006) highlighted several community colleges that are emulating
four-year institutions by offering study abroad opportunities for their students.
Other papers described individual study-abroad programs developed at their institution. For
example, Lecaque (2005) described the creation of a study abroad culture at Truman State University
and Lewis and Niesenbaum (2005) discussed their short-term study abroad opportunities for students at
Muhlenberg College. Budden, Baraya and Juban (2005) developed a program specifically designed for
Louisiana MBA students and Bradley (2002) described a short-term study abroad program where
students and the author travel to the European Union to study cultural aspects of marketing and
management practices.
Our University’s Program
Our institution is a small, Catholic liberal arts university, located in south Texas. Our London
Program is offered every fall semester by contracting with the Foundation for International Education
(FIE) and is open to all undergraduate students who meet our study abroad requirements. These
requirements include having a minimum grade point average, writing an acceptable essay describing
study abroad goals, securing recommendations from two faculty and in some cases, completing an
interview with the London Program Director and the Director of International Programs. Twenty-three
students were selected to participate in the 2007 London Program and 20 of them did so. Our faculty
also apply to participate in the London Program. One member of the faculty is selected as the field
director, teaching one class, and another as the assistant field director teaching two classes. Both
members of our faculty have significant administrative duties while in London and interact extensively
with the students. The faculty application process begins about a year prior to departure; the student
application process begins early in the spring semester prior to departure.
Courses are offered by faculty employed with FIE as well as by the field director and assistant
field director. Courses offered by our faculty are determined each year based on their areas of expertise.
Additionally, internships are available for interested students and three of ours were successfully placed
as interns. Our London Program students are also taken on group field trips. Students in the 2007
London Program participated in field trips to Oxford, Cambridge, Bath, Stonehenge and Warwick
Castle. Further, all faculty are encouraged to use experiential learning by taking students to museums
and other relevant locations in and around London. Our students visited numerous locations including
the Globe Theater, Parliament, Greenwich, the Docklands Museum, Kew Gardens, the Science Museum,
the Bank of England Museum, the London Transportation Museum, the Churchill Museum and War
Cabinet Rooms and had tea at the Museum of Coffee and Tea.
Students and faculty depart for London and return from London together. The students live in an
old mansion that has been converted to dormitory-style rooms and has two kitchens available for their
use. Students can walk to FIE, where all classes are held, in about 10 minutes. In most cases, our
2
students were enrolled in classes Monday through Thursday which allowed students to travel over the
weekends. During the semester, students’ travel included trips to Ireland, the Netherlands, Brussels,
Switzerland, Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Greece, Spain, and the Czech Republic.
American students from other universities are housed in the same facility and also attend classes
at FIE. Other American students, some of whom attend classes at FIE, are living nearby. Our university
faculty live in apartments about a 15-minute walk from FIE and about 25 minutes away from the
students. All students and faculty have cellular telephones and can be reached at any time. The students
seemed to be quite comfortable contacting faculty to ask for advice or to borrow domestic items as
necessary. The students, field director and assistant field director meet bi-weekly to discuss educational
issues, living conditions, future field trips, celebrate student birthdays, etc. Thus, our faculty work very
closely with all London students, regardless of whether the student is enrolled in that individual’s class.
An immersion opportunity was offered to our students that would allow them to spend a
weekend with a family in the United Kingdom. The visit was coordinated though FIE and HOST UK
(HOST). HOST is a registered charity and a not-for-profit organization that works with international
students studying in the United Kingdom. They recruit HOST families, who volunteer to house
international students for a weekend, feeding them local cuisine and showing them how a typical family
lives in their city, town or village. More than 100 Universities and Colleges nationwide subscribe to the
HOST Program and most pay for their students to go on a HOST visit because of the value that it adds
to their international students' experience of studying in Britain.
Ten of our students stayed with families in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. In
conjunction with our university’s mission, culture and focus on service, the ten students who did not opt
for a home stay were expected to perform volunteer work in London. Two students requested an
opportunity to do both. Volunteer activities completed by the students included helping with a sewing
project in East Ham, assisting at one of two soup kitchens, both founded by the order that follows the
acts of Mother Theresa, and Rainer, an organization that assists children who are in state custody and
awaiting adoption.
Our students pay our regular private school tuition rates and are allowed to use their financial aid
packages. Additional student costs include transportation, room and board, personal travel expenses,
cellular telephone costs and miscellaneous purchases. The program was expensive, especially with the
unfavorable exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the British pound sterling, which ranged from
$2.00 to $2.10 during the semester. Hence, the stakeholders (our 2007 students) paid a substantial sum
to be allowed to avail themselves of all London has to offer international students.
Our Study
Because study abroad programs are costly and require significant time commitments from
faculty and staff, a major concern is ensuring that the program meets students’ expectations. Indeed,
assessing students’ expectations regarding study abroad can provide useful information for possible
changes that would help a program meet its objectives. Our study was a preliminary attempt to examine
students’ perceptions on a number of different issues.
Students completed a survey instrument upon arrival in London and again prior to returning to
the U.S. The questions were adapted from previous work completed by Graves, Nelson and Davis
(1992) and were changed only slightly (in order to address tense) from the first survey to the second.
Students used a Likert scale, from 1 (disagree strongly) to 6 (agree strongly) to indicate whether they
believed a statement to be true. Although all 20 students completed the first survey, only 19 completed
the second survey. Therefore, we limited our analysis to the responses for the 19 students who
completed both surveys.
The mean average score for each question, both pre-London experience and post-London
experience are provided in Table 1. Given this was an exploratory study, no hypotheses were
developed. However, expectations were that any changes in student responses would be favorable,
3
based on their study abroad experience. For example, the first question was “A student who studies
abroad is well respected.” We expected that the average score for this question would increase,
indicating improvement in the students’ views, which for this question, was the result However, results
for nine of the 15 questions (Numbers 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15) were not as we had expected. In
order to determine whether any of the changes in student perceptions were statistically significant, tscores were computed for each question, but, as shown in Table 1, only one change in mean averages
was statistically significant. The change in the mean average responses for question 15 was statistically
significant (p=.0119).
[Table 1 here]
In order to determine whether differences occurred for different groups within the 19 students,
we next analyzed our data based on students’ gender. Results are presented in Table 2. The average
score for the males in the study decreased for question 6, resulting in a significant difference between
the genders (p=.0478) for that question. The mean average for males increased from 4.75 to 5.25 for
this question, but the mean average from females decreased from 5.47 to 5.33.
[Table 2 here]
We next determined whether responses differed based on whether students availed themselves of
the United Kingdom home stay or performed volunteer work. Results are presented in Table 3.
Significant differences were found for questions 1 (p=.0337) and 6 (p=.0091). The means for students
who completed a HOST visit decreased for the first question (from 5.20 to 4.90) and decreased for the
sixth question (from 4.80 to 4.40). The opposite is true for students who did not complete the HOST
visit. Their means increased from 4.89 to 5.55 for the first question and increased from 5.22 to 5.67 for
the sixth question.
[Table 3 here]
Finally, we analyzed our data based on whether the students had interned during the semester.
Results are shown in Table 4. We found no significant differences between these two groups of our
students.
[Table 4 here]
Discussion
As shown in Table 1, our results indicate the group’s expectations about interacting with lots of
people in the foreign location were not met. Our students lived with other American students in a
dormitory, which tended to limit their interaction with local residents. Further, for security purposes,
they were required to travel with at least one other member of our group, both for overnight travel and
when visiting sites within London. These rules may have restricted their ability to really get to know the
locals. Also, they experienced a culture very similar to their own, with minor language differences.
Additionally, our students had a great deal of support (both faculty were available 24/7 via cell phone,
their dormitory had a full-time receptionist, etc.). Perhaps our results would have differed had our
students lived in an apartment building with local residents as neighbors.
It is especially perplexing that analysis of differences between interns, who would be expected to
interact more with the locals, and students who did not intern, showed no difference between the two
groups (Table 4). The only difference between genders was for the fifth question, where male
viewpoints for “A student who studies abroad is interesting” improved, but female viewpoints declined
(Table 2).
4
Significant differences were found in the responses for students who completed the HOST visit
and those who did not for two questions (the first and the sixth) which dealt with respect and prestige.
The viewpoint declined for students who completed the HOST visit for “A student who studies abroad is
well-respected” but increased for those who did not. Additionally, the viewpoints of students who
completed the HOST visit for the sixth question decreased compared to those who did not complete a
visit. The sixth question is “Being a student who studies abroad has a lot of prestige.” These results are
especially disturbing and one wonders what would cause this difference. All students who completed
the HOST visit indicated that it was a wonderful and enlightening experience. No student reported
being subjected to any sort of verbal abuse or anti-Americanism with his or her HOST family. Perhaps
those who volunteered were subject to more praise and appreciation than those who spent the weekend
with a HOST family. Finally, the students’ pre- and post-London responses were in the anticipated
direction in terms of agreement or disagreement with each statement; however, the direction of the
change was not as expected for 8 of the remaining 14 questions (Table 1). Although the changes were
not statistically significant, they suggest that more attention should be paid to students’ perceptions and
expectations prior to departure and during the study abroad program.
Does this mean our program failed to internationalize the students? We do not think so. Rather,
it means we need to address certain issues to help our students overcome their reluctance to truly
immerse themselves in a foreign culture. We need to get our students out of their comfort zones and
insist that they mingle and interact with local residents in a meaningful and fruitful manner. At the end
of the semester, one student reported being called a “dumb foreigner” by a grocery store clerk because
she did not know she was not supposed to place a small hand basket on the conveyor belt when checking
out. This event occurred during her first trip to the grocery store and she did not mention it to either
faculty member for three months. If this event had been brought to light earlier in the program, this
treatment could have been addressed and discussed. A recommendation we can make for future
participants is that during the mandatory bi-weekly meeting, students could be required to write a onepage paper detailing an experience he/she had when interacting with a local resident since the last
meeting. Students would then break into small groups to allow discussion of these events. This would
also encourage students to take the initiative of interacting with local residents in some manner, even if
only talking to someone while standing in line at a sandwich shop, asking for directions, talking during a
play intermission or checking out at the grocery store. These papers could be collected and used in predeparture information sessions to alert future participants about expected treatment in-country. Students
can also get a better idea of how they are perceived as Americans. Quite often, our students are naïve
about this particular subject, especially if they are not sophisticated or seasoned travelers. Students
seem to assume that most residents of other countries are extremely envious of Americans because of
the material items and creature comforts we can acquire relatively cheaply.
Students should also be required to read local newspapers and watch local newscasts. Current
events could then also be a topic of conversation at the mandatory bi-weekly meetings. Students would
be encouraged to understand the points of view of local residents regarding items of concern to them. In
this specific study abroad program, the students and field directors had good rapport, yet students were
not inclined to bring up incidents that affected them at an emotional level. Thus, we believe that
scheduling these types of structured activities throughout the program is needed so that these types of
discussions can take place.
In addition to warning students about their personal safety in other countries, pre-departure
information sessions and orientations can inform students using various methods about how to handle
situations they can be expected to encounter in the foreign location. Role playing, use of information
supplied by previous students and suggestions about interacting with the local population can help
students become acclimated to their new surroundings once in-country. Cultural differences can be
explained and students can be warned about feeling uncomfortable in certain situations. The better
5
prepared students are concerning how they may be perceived by locals, the more receptive they will be
to interact with local residents.
Limitations of the Study
Our sample size (19 students who completed both surveys) is very small and was not drawn
randomly. Although ethnically diverse, all students who completed the surveys matriculated at our
university. Our gender and intern comparisons broke a small sample into smaller components, making
the results difficult to interpret. In other words, of 19 students, only four were male, ten participated in
HOST and only three completed internships. Analysis of responses from a larger, randomly selected
sample would provide more meaningful results. Further, gathering additional demographic and detailed
information regarding previous international experiences and/or travel in the U.S. might have been
useful to help us isolate differences between specific students to determine whether those with previous
international exposure interacted with local residents better than those without that exposure.
Conclusion
We reported the results of an exploratory study regarding the perceptions of students who studied
in London during the fall 2007 semester. Student expectations changed from their pre-London
experience to their post-London experience, and not always in the direction we had hoped to see.
Intervention opportunities should be explored and further research into the issues we raised is warranted.
6
References
Albers-Miller, N.D., Prenshaw, P.J., Straughan, R.D. (1999). Student perceptions of study abroad
programs: A survey of US colleges and universities, Marketing Education Review 9(1), 29-36.
Alison, G., (2007). The dollars and cents of study abroad, U.S. News and World Report 143(18), 86-87.
Bernstein, E. (2006), Colleges impose restrictions on study-abroad programs; to offset financial hit from
jump in participation, schools raise fees, set caps, The Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition, April
12), D.1.
Black, H.T. and Duhon, D.L. (2006), Assessing the impact of business study abroad programs on
cultural awareness and personal development, Journal of Education for Business,
(January/February), 140-144.
Blum, D.E. (2006). Seeking to prepare global citizens, colleges push more students to study abroad,
Chronicle of Higher Education 53(10), B10.
Bradley, D.B. III (2002). Profile of marketing and management study abroad, Proceedings of the
Marketing Management Association Fall 2002 Educators’ Conference, 9-10.
Budden, M.C., Baraya, A.R. and Juban, R.L. (2005). Developing an MBA study-abroad program at
Southeastern Louisiana University, Business Communications Quarterly 68(2), 233-236.
Cann, C.W. (2000). A case in point: An interdisciplinary approach to the short term study-abroad,
Marketing Education Review 10(1), 67-72.
Clark, J.B. (2006), Smart ways to study abroad, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance (February), 91-92.
Erffmeyer, R.C. and Al-Khatib, J.A. (1997). Students’ study abroad experiences: Gaijin in Japan,
Marketing Education Review, 7(1), 63-69.
Festervand, T.A. and Tillery, K.R. (2001). Short-term study-abroad programs—A professional
development tool for international business faculty, Journal of Education for Business, (NovemberDecember), 106-111.
Gillespie, J. (2002). Colleges need better ways to assess study-abroad programs, The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 48(43), B20.
Gordon, P.J. and Redmond, W.J. (2003), A portfolio approach to international business study abroad
programs, Proceedings of the Marketing Management Association Fall 2003 Educators’
Conference, 27-29.
Graves, O.F., Nelson, I.T., and Davis, J.R., (1992). Accounting student characteristics: A survey of
accounting majors at Federal of Schools of Accountancy (FSA) Schools, Journal of Accounting
Education 10(1), 25-38.
Langley, C.S. and Breese, J.R. (2005). Interacting sojourners: A study of students studying abroad, The
Social Science Journal (42), 313-321.
Lecaque, P. (2005). Creating a study abroad culture at a public liberal arts university: The case of
Truman State University, The Journal of Public Affairs, 8, 11-28.
Lewis, T.L. and Niesenbaum, R.A. (2005). The benefits of short-term study abroad, The Chronicle of
Higher Education 51(39) B20.
Praetel, G.D., Curcio, J. and Dilorenzo, J. (1996). Making study abroad a reality for all students,
International Advances in Economic Research 2(2), 174-182.
Rooney, M. (2002). Keeping the study in study abroad, Chronicle of Higher Education 49(13), A63.
Stuart, R. (2007). Stepping up to study abroad, Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 24(19), 16-19.
Toncar, M.F., Reid, J.S, Anderson, C.E. (2005). Perceptions and preferences of study abroad: Do
business students have different needs? Journal of Teaching in International Business, 17(1/2), 6180.
7
Pre-London
Experience
5.05
2.32
2.58
5.53
5.32
5.00
1.63
4.11
1.47
5.84
1.05
Table 1
Means, Pre-London Experience and Post-London Experience
N=19
PostActual
Expected T-Score for
Question
London
Direction
Direction
Difference
Experience of Change of Change
5.21
Increase
Increase
-0.68
1. A student who
studies abroad is wellrespected.
2.00
Decrease
Decrease
0.95
2. Students who study
abroad just memorize
a lot of rules.
3.11
Increase
Decrease
-1.46
3. Students who study
abroad work alone
more than they work
with people in the
foreign location
5.74
Increase
Increase
-1.29
4. My peers will
think I made a good
academic decision if I
become a student who
studies abroad
5.32
n/a
Increase
0.00
5. A student who
studies abroad is
interesting.
5.00
n/a
Increase
0.00
6. Being a student
who studies abroad
has a lot of prestige.
2.11
Increase
Decrease
-1.63
7. A student who
studies abroad learns a
lot of fixed rules; it
doesn’t involve
conceptual skills or
judgment.
4.26
Increase
Increase
-0.77
8. Studying abroad is
a necessary
component of being
professional.
1.68
Increase
Decrease
-0.89
9. A student who
studies abroad finds
little personal
satisfaction in his or
her work.
5.89
Increase
Increase
-0.57
10. I will enjoy being
a student who studies
abroad.
1.26
Increase
Decrease
-1.46
11. Students who
study abroad are
boring people.
8
5.47
5.53
Increase
Increase
-0.17
1.47
1.84
Increase
Decrease
-1.07
5.68
5.63
Decrease
Increase
0.21
5.16
4.58
Decrease
Increase
2.80*
12. My family would
like me to become a
student who studies
abroad.
13. Students who
study abroad are
number crunchers;
they seldom work
with people.
14. I will like studying
abroad.
15. Students who
study abroad interact
with lots of people in
the foreign location
*Significant at 1%
T-Score
for
Difference
-0.75
-0.87
0.39
Table 2
T-Scores
Gender Differences (Males =4, Females =15)
Question
1. A student who studies abroad is well-respected.
2. Students who study abroad just memorize a lot of rules.
3. Students who study abroad work alone more than they work with people in the
foreign location
-0.91
4. My peers will think I made a good academic decision if I become a student
who studies abroad
-2.13*
5. A student who studies abroad is interesting.
0.75
6. Being a student who studies abroad has a lot of prestige.
-1.42
7. A student who studies abroad learns a lot of fixed rules; it doesn’t involve
conceptual skills or judgment.
0.39
8. Studying abroad is a necessary component of being professional.
1.62
9. A student who studies abroad finds little personal satisfaction in his or her
work.
-1.10
10. I will enjoy being a student who studies abroad.
-1.04
11. Students who study abroad are boring people.
-1.17
12. My family would like me to become a student who studies abroad.
-0.19
13. Students who study abroad are number crunchers; they seldom work with
people.
-0.62
14. I will like studying abroad.
-0.19
15. Students who study abroad interact with lots of people in the foreign location
*Significant at 5% level
9
T-Score
for
Difference
2.31*
-0.36
0.36
Table 3
T-Scores
HOST (n=10) or Volunteering (n=9)
Question
1. A student who studies abroad is well-respected.
2. Students who study abroad just memorize a lot of rules.
3. Students who study abroad work alone more than they work with people in the
foreign location
-1.24
4. My peers will think I made a good academic decision if I become a student
who studies abroad
0.00
5. A student who studies abroad is interesting.
2.94**
6. Being a student who studies abroad has a lot of prestige.
-0.45
7. A student who studies abroad learns a lot of fixed rules; it doesn’t involve
conceptual skills or judgment.
0.80
8. Studying abroad is a necessary component of being professional.
0.48
9. A student who studies abroad finds little personal satisfaction in his or her
work.
-0.53
10. I will enjoy being a student who studies abroad.
-0.64
11. Students who study abroad are boring people.
-0.83
12. My family would like me to become a student who studies abroad.
0.20
13. Students who study abroad are number crunchers; they seldom work with
people.
-1.08
14. I will like studying abroad.
0.87
15. Students who study abroad interact with lots of people in the foreign location
*Significant at 5%
**Significant at 1%
10
T-Score
for
Difference
-0.94
-0.40
0.62
-0.32
-1.10
0.00
0.70
0.32
-0.22
-1.34
-0.36
-0.38
0.04
-0.09
-0.50
Table 4
T-Scores
Interns and Non-Interns
Question
1. A student who studies abroad is well-respected.
2. Students who study abroad just memorize a lot of rules.
3. Students who study abroad work alone more than they work with people in the
foreign location
4. My peers will think I made a good academic decision if I become a student
who studies abroad
5. A student who studies abroad is interesting.
6. Being a student who studies abroad has a lot of prestige.
7. A student who studies abroad learns a lot of fixed rules; it doesn’t involve
conceptual skills or judgment.
8. Studying abroad is a necessary component of being professional.
9. A student who studies abroad finds little personal satisfaction in his or her
work.
10. I will enjoy being a student who studies abroad.
11. Students who study abroad are boring people.
12. My family would like me to become a student who studies abroad.
13. Students who study abroad are number crunchers; they seldom work with
people.
14. I will like studying abroad.
15. Students who study abroad interact with lots of people in the foreign location
11