Differences between mobile and non-mobile students

When attempting to measure outcomes it is necessary to consider not only how students who undertake a period abroad change or develop because of the process (input and output comparisons) but also to give some thought as to how students who undertake mobility differ from those who don’t, i.e. the non-mobile students. In most universities students make a conscious choice to spend time abroad (it is not forced upon them) and therefore is there a particular type of student who voluntarily undergoes the experience? The discussion so far has touched on some of the aspects that could be considered in relation to the difference between mobile and non-mobile students, for example the academic ability of mobile students, the type and length of employment carried out by mobile students upon graduation and the issue of further study, but these issues now need to be discussed in greater depth.

Messer and Wolter (2005) raised the issue of whether mobile students had better capabilities than non-mobile students and that is why such students reaped the benefits of study abroad. They state that study abroad students tend to be more able than non-mobile students, the inference being more academically able. A Higher Education Funding Council for England report (HEFCE 2009) points to the fact that study abroad students had higher than average entry qualifications and (therefore, not surprisingly) the high rate of Erasmus

27

students from the U.K. who graduate with a first or an upper second-class degree. Hadis (2005) talks of the selection criteria for study abroad imposed by many universities, including a relatively high grade point average, indicating that mobile students do have a high level of academic ability (but not necessarily higher than non-mobile). Hadis argues further, however, that while grade point average may be an indicator for a student’s academic achievement before they undertake study abroad, it is an inaccurate measure of a positive outcome of study abroad. This is because a) different grading systems in other countries can skew grades both upwards and downwards and b) mobile students’ priorities can move due to study abroad, i.e. they become less concerned with their grades due to the other ‘distractions’ of studying in another environment. The implication is that mobile students are academically more able than non-mobile students, at least before mobility, but I do not think that there is enough evidence to state that this is the case. I would be hesitant to conclude that academic ability and academic achievement are determining factors between mobile and non-mobile students, despite the findings of the HEFCE report that mobile students achieve high degree classifications.

The issue of personality could shape the extent to which particular students view the opportunity of a period abroad positively; why they choose to undertake it, how they cope with the experience and also how they ultimately benefit from the experience. Certain personality issues in relation to entrepreneurial behaviour are discussed in more detail further on in this chapter but at this point a brief overview of what evidence there is to suggest that personal characteristics differentiate between mobile and non-mobile students is given.

Bakalis and Joiner (2004) compared both mobile and non-mobile students when they investigated tolerance of ambiguity and openness as pre-requisite personality traits for study abroad. Openness was defined as the willingness to take risks, being open to a wide range of stimuli and having broad interests, while students with a high tolerance of ambiguity would be…

“…receptive to a tertiary exchange program because the program would be viewed as exciting, energising and, overall, a positive experience.” (p288)

The study used a relatively small sample (31 returned questionnaires) but did use a control group of non-mobile students. Despite the small sample the authors used both qualitative and quantitative analysis on the data in order to support the findings. The conclusions drawn were that these two personality traits (openness and tolerance of ambiguity) were more

28

evident in the mobile students than in the non-mobile students, but once again there was no comparison made ‘before’ and ‘after’ mobility – the questionnaire was carried out upon return of the mobile students so it could be argued that the mobile students were more open and tolerant as a result of their mobility and not that their openness and tolerance contributed to their mobility decision.

McLeod and Wainwright use Social Learning Theory (Rotter 1954 and 1982, cited in McLeod and Wainwright, 2009) to research the study abroad experience. This theory states that human behaviour can be predicted by two general factors: a) the expectancy that if a person behaves in a certain way they will be rewarded and b) how much the person values the reward they would receive. A particularly important expectancy is locus of control, i.e. the extent to which an individual believes they are in control of their fate. Using 59 mobile students split into five focus groups across two countries (three groups in a Scottish university and two groups in a Parisian university) McLeod and Wainwright found that those student who had a positive mobility experience had increased confidence in their ability to control their environment (compared to those who had had a less positive experience). They thus argue that students who have a high internal locus of control (a strong belief in their own ability to control their destiny) do better in unstructured and ambiguous situations, e.g. a study abroad experience. Students obviously bring their locus of control to their study or work abroad experience and the more confident students were in their ability to control their environment the more positive their experience of study abroad was. Students who had external loci of control were less likely to choose to place themselves in unstructured situations and were therefore less likely to be mobile.

Goldstein and Kim (2006) undertook a longitudinal study of undergraduates across the four years of their programme, including data from pre-study abroad students, data from the same students post-study abroad and also from non-mobile students. They were interested in identifying variables that could predict participation in study abroad and hence investigated personal characteristics as well as academic and demographic variables. The results indicate that students who score highly for ethnocentrism and for prejudice are less likely to be mobile. This conclusion is hardly surprising: what is more surprising from the study is that the authors found little evidence to suggest that mobile and non-mobile students differ in their expectations of how study abroad would be viewed by future employers, implying that non-mobile students did not feel that they would be adversely affected in their search for employment by the fact that they did not study or work abroad.

29

Rundstrom Williams (2005) also considers how hard it is to compare two groups of students, with the argument that because study abroad is voluntary, students who opt for mobility will probably…

“…have demonstrated an interest in learning about other cultures and will already have a high degree of adaptability, sensitivity, and intercultural awareness in comparison to their peers who choose not to study abroad” (p362).

As mentioned earlier, Rundstrom Williams is particularly interested in the extent to which intercultural communication skills are developed through mobility and concludes from her research on mobile and non-mobile students that it is the study abroad experience that most enhances this particular skill in the mobile group of students. Dwyer (2004) found that mobile students sought out a greater diversity of friends. She raised the issue of whether this means that study abroad promotes greater racial, ethnic and cultural tolerance or whether the students who undertake study abroad are more tolerant anyway. She gives no definitive answer for this but Goldstein and Kim’s research (2006) indicates that mobile students are less ethnocentric and less prejudicial than non-mobile students and consequently are likely to have a more diverse friendship group.

The reasons why some students actively seek mobility opportunities are manifold: their personality may be the defining factor (the presence of tolerance of ambiguity, internal locus of control, lack of ethnocentricity, etc.), they may wish to improve their language skills, they may wish for an international career and see this international experience as a stepping stone towards that, or they may subconsciously wish to improve any number of skills outlined above. I use the term ‘subconsciously’ because I assume that very few students would be as explicit or as subtle in their decision making as to consciously choose to go abroad because it is likely to aid their problem-solving skills or their tolerance, etc. and to express their objectives from mobility in such terms. For example, in a survey of U.K. students about potential overseas study, the Broadening Horizons report (British Council, 2013b) found that, alongside academic drivers such as improvement to language skills and gaining credits the range of other potential benefits listed by students considering overseas study included the following: the desire to have a unique adventure; the desire to travel overseas, a first step towards an international career; better employment prospects post- study and, more personally, to build confidence and to become self-sufficient. This lack of nuanced or explicit reasoning for mobility has implications when trying to assess the objectives, as it is necessary to delve below the surface of generalised statements such as

30

‘opportunity to learn about a new country’ to see what a student actually achieves, tangibly and intangibly, through ‘learning about a new country’.

But what about those students who opt not to spend time abroad during their studies? I contend that there is little evidence to suggest that this is because they do not feel academically capable, but the research by Bakalis and Joiner (2004), Goldstein and Kim (2006), and McLeod and Wainwright (2009) would suggest that they differ from mobile students personality-wise. There are also other ‘barriers’ to mobility that inhibit students from taking the mobile decision and these are discussed below.