Transformative learning: Participant perspectives on international experiential education

Abstract

Literature related to post-secondary education suggests that institutions of higher education have at their core ‘a civic mission that calls on faculty, students, and administrators to apply their skills, resources, and talents to address important issues affecting communities, the nation, and the world’ conceptualized as ‘engaged scholarship’ (Stanton, 2008). In this article we illustrate the ways in which one study abroad program embraces a model of engaged scholarship though connections to a broader cross-cultural and interdisciplinary network. We demonstrate how long-term international collaborations and field-based experiential learning opportunities between US and southern African institutions reflect core principles of relationships, respect and reciprocity, providing opportunities for purposeful and culturally grounded transformative student learning experiences. One key aspect of this network was to design study abroad opportunities that create pedagogical alternatives that influence civic identity development, build cultural competence, enhance notions of citizenship, and emphasize community engagement. This article presents the findings from a formative evaluation of the experiences of a number of the undergraduate students and others who have participated in the study abroad component of this network.

Keywords

assessment engaged scholarship international education transformative learning

Introduction

Global realities shape the current drive to internationalize higher education, prompting US institutions to ‘understand their relationship with the rest of the world and to integrate this activity into core activities and values’ (Ruther, 2002: 1). At a federal level these realities have driven support to provide increased opportunities for US students to have international experiences, as evidenced most recently in the passage of the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act 2009. This article illustrates the way in which a particular consortium of universities – one in the USA and three in southern Africa – have responded to the call for the internationalization of education and enhancement of study abroad opportunities.

In a general sense ‘the internationalization of higher education appears to provide increasing opportunities for academics to become global travelers, makers of difference, effectors of personal change, and facilitators of global progress’ (Ninnes and Hellstein, 2005: 1). As part of the increase in international education possibilities, these opportunities hold potential as pathways for transformative learning. In this article, we present formative evaluation results describing the extent to which study abroad educational experiences can be understood as ‘transformative’, and share some of the major learning outcomes. Central to this evaluation are two documented trends that characterize the internationalization of US higher education: intensified interest in international and global matters, and increasing interest in student learning (Olson et al., 2005). One dimension of the ways in which the discussion on undergraduate learning is taking shape is echoed in the current literature on post-secondary experience and engaged scholarship (Kenny, 2002; Stanton, 2008). This approach offers an alternative to the traditional, disciplined-based emphasis, which privileges mastery of basic knowledge (for example, completion of coursework) over opportunities for experiential-type learning for undergraduates to engage in application and to develop research skills (Robertson and Bond, 2005). This study instead incorporates the transformative learning vision of Dirkx (2000), wherein pathways for learning expand to include consciousness, reflexive expression and engagement.

We use the Eastern/Southern Africa Virginia Networks and Associations (ESAVANA) consortium as a case study to examine transformative learning in an international setting where learning is understood to be ‘altering frames of reference through critical reflection of both habits of mind and points of view’ (Moore, 2005: 82). The foundational partner institutions of ESAVANA, the University of Virginia (UVa) in the USA and three partner universities in southern Africa (University of Venda, South Africa; Universidad Eduardo Mondlane, Mozambique; and the University of Botswana), demonstrate a long-standing international collaboration that focuses on education, outreach activities and community-based research within an engaged scholarship framework. This consortium is grounded in the guiding principles of relationship, respect and reciprocity, promoting recognition of the necessity to ‘seek to explore the gaps and silences in current pedagogy and practices’ as part of the internationalization of higher education (Ninnes and Hellstén, 2005: 4). In this article, we offer evidence of the effectiveness of ESAVANA, amplifying a dialectic between reflection and action that signifies an alternative to traditional study abroad programs and fills the aforementioned ‘gaps and silences’.

We specifically focus on the extent to which study abroad participants have transformed their ideas, their mindsets and their engagement with the world around them, with the intention of understanding these both proximally and distally. The evaluation which informs the findings and discussion for this article included data collection and analysis intended to illuminate transformation through multidisciplinary teaching, learning and research to address global concerns in both theory and practice. Our objective here is to share information related to international education outcomes with other practitioners and institutional administrators who are responsible for providing this type of experiential, inquiry-based coursework and to consider the merits of this framework within higher education and affiliated community contexts.

Framing the study

The ESAVANA study abroad experience

As part of the international education milieu described above, the ESAVANA consortium has developed upon a foundation of cooperation, trust and respect, representing over two decades of personal, professional and institutional collaboration between and among scientists from southern and eastern Africa and the USA (Annegarn et al., 2002; Swap et al., 2002, 2003, 2008).

A fundamental component of ESAVANA's academic program is a month-long study abroad program entitled ‘People, Culture, and the Environment of Southern Africa’ (PCESA). The PCESA program is structured as trans-disciplinary (that is, within and beyond the university), for a total of six credit hours, offered through UVa’s Environmental Sciences and Anthropology (as the flagship ESAVANA institution). The program utilizes the natural geographical laboratory of the trans-boundary Limpopo River watershed, which provides a provocative context within which to explore the nexus of physical science and socio-cultural phenomena. Each year for 4 weeks from mid-May to mid-June, PCESA brings together approximately 15 US and five regional southern African students in an intense and intimate structured learning environment.

This study abroad program leverages the long-term research relationships between the institutional consortium partners, and is composed of formal lectures, site visits, reflective exercises and cultural encounters with community members in their everyday social and work environments across urban and rural settings in South Africa and Mozambique. Program leadership works collaboratively and deliberately towards mutual beneficence in the advising, mentoring and training of US and southern African students and emerging scientists. Over the last decade, the ESAVANA network has continued to cultivate cross-disciplinary interactions, resulting in a growing international intellectual community. From 2002–2011, the study abroad program has engaged 131 US and 38 southern African student participants. Coursework centers on four modules, each contributing to experiential learning that emphasizes interdependence, community engagement, and social responsibility through trans-disciplinary approaches. The curricular themes are based on the cultural and natural resources that follow the Limpopo water basin providing an opportunity to look at the influences between the environment and society. These modules are briefly listed below.

Module I (Johannesburg, South Africa) – introduces the environmental complexity of southern Africa, priming participants to grapple with the social, political, historical and economic dynamic of the region (including evolution of humankind, the apartheid legacy, migration, mining, natural resources).

Module II (Venda Region, Limpopo Province, South Africa) – emphasizes understanding the role of community and culture, social engagement, cooperative/collective entrepreneurship and local/indigenous knowledge;

Module III (Central and Coastal Mozambique) – further explores issues of environment and sustainability, participatory and justice-oriented approaches, community participation and the complex regional dynamics.

Module IV (Mpumalanga Province, South Africa) – examines how participatory approaches contribute to improving rural and communal livelihoods, utilizing different forms of capital related to environment, education, microenterprise and health in former apartheid homelands.

Pedagogically, these planned learning experiences are enhanced with regular debriefing sessions with local faculty and community members. The participation of several southern African undergraduate students, faculty and community members throughout the duration of the trip is a critical element of the cross-cultural learning experience. Students must grapple with the myriad of contexts, cultures and experiences that confront them daily, and in the case of many of the southern African participants, they are discovering their own country in new and different ways. US-based faculty and teaching assistants also debrief and process each day’s activities and mediate the ‘cognitive dissonance’ (described later in the findings) that occurs when students are confronted by different social and cultural realities. In addition, seating assignments are rotated each day among the vans which transport the group between sites, and room-mates are reassigned at each new location. This offers more intentional yet open-ended opportunities for community-building and compels participants to regularly stretch the boundaries of their comfort zones.

Research methods and approach

Theoretical framework

This evaluation focused on a case study of student perspectives from data collected primarily through qualitative methods, with the incorporation of small-scale survey data. The data collection methods included instruments with both scaled and qualitative items, which were used prior to the study abroad period (‘pre-survey’) and after it (‘post-survey’); interviews that we conducted during travel and approximately 6 months after travel; field observations recorded throughout pre-departure meetings and daily during travel; and archival data. The findings provide a rich window for analysis on the assessment of learning outcomes and the ways in which this particular effort can inform the conversation on cross-cultural, transformative learning experiences. Our approach is consistent with Erikson’s (1986) interpretive framework, as a methodology for the coding and analysis of the qualitative portions of the surveys, the transcripts from both sets of interviews, and the reflection papers that were written by the US students as course assignments. The evaluation centered on two overarching questions, which were:

How does participation in an international experiential education course affect undergraduate student learning outcomes?

In what ways does the ESAVANA model work to influence engaged scholarship and community engagement in international and cross cultural settings?

These questions were derived from the language of the PCESA course materials, as well as from the interests of the primary PCESA faculty in guiding the purpose of the evaluation.

As part of the interpretive methodology, our analysis is grounded in constructivist theory. In general, the constructivist framework is based on ‘a theory of learning or meaning making, that individuals create their own new understandings on the basis of an interaction between what they already know and believe and ideas and knowledge with which they come into contact’ (Richardson, 2003: 1623). While literature on constructivist approaches still tends to emphasize learning which takes place for and within the individual, there is growing awareness of the importance of shared learning experiences (Prawat and Floden, 1994; Richardson, 2003). Constructivist theory, then, offers a compatible theoretical home for the examination of transformative learning and the pedagogical approaches used by ESAVANA.

Transformative learning theory

Transformative learning has been described as a ‘rational process of learning within awareness as a metacognitive application of critical thinking that transforms an acquired frame of reference – a mind-set or worldview of orienting assumptions and expectations involving values, beliefs, and concepts – by assessing its epistemic assumptions’ (Dirkx et al., 2006: 124). This type of learning takes place in settings and among learners who experience the opportunity to critically reflect on their assumptions and to engage in coursework and interactions that prompt complex understandings (Mezirow, 2000). This sort of collaborative learning is continuously emphasized during study abroad, and is grounded in Freire’s (1970) co-participant framework within which the privileging of particular knowledge is deconstructed and the value of each contribution is redistributed. In our view, cognitive dissonance comprises an additional dimension to transformative learning, where the individual experiences a disorienting dilemma, critical reflection and rational discourse (Ettling, 2006; Taylor, 2007). Finally, the transformative learning approach confronts the trend of narrowing higher education to credentials for the workforce (Cunningham, 1998) and instead establishes a path for educating college students for engagement and global citizenship.

Mode of inquiry

Subjects in this study included 18 undergraduate students enrolled in the summer study abroad term described above who traveled through South Africa and Mozambique for four weeks in 2009. The survey data was collected through pre- and post-travel instruments employed with the undergraduate summer study abroad participants. The 2009 cohort included 12 female and 6 male participants; 14 students from three different US institutions and 4 southern African students (South Africa, Mozambique and Botswana) from three different institutions; 4 Africans, 2 African Americans and 12 white Americans; and a range of academic majors (for example, nursing, anthropology, engineering, forestry, environmental science, microbiology, history and economics). The study was approved through the Institutional Review Board at UVa, and all participants signed written consents forms that provided a comprehensive explanation of the goals and tasks of the study.

Survey instrument

The evaluative questions for the survey centered on the extent to which the PCESA coursework is articulated by participants as influential, particularly on measures related to engagement, and reflects the development of competencies as constructed through the course lexicon. These questions were developed by the course faculty and graduate student research team, incorporating the adaptation of institutional course evaluations which had been used to measure international/global education experiences. Survey items were measured on a four-point scale. Appendix 1 shows a representative sample of the matched pair items, grouped by coding themes, and the corresponding significance values. Descriptive statistics from the survey were generated using SPSS.

Scaled items

The pre- and post-surveys included 13 items on a four-point scale (strongly agree – strongly disagree). Representative pre-survey items were:

I am confident in my knowledge of southern African people, culture and the environment.

It is important for me to learn about issues through multiple disciplinary lenses.

Exposure to international issues is important to undergraduate learning.

Correspondingly, post-survey items measured the extent to which students felt that the materials and assignments were useful in preparing for this study abroad experience. The majority of the scaled post-survey items were established to determine course influence on pre-survey constructs. For instance, ‘As a result of this course:’

I believe it is important for college students to engage in interdisciplinary learning.

I believe it is important for college students to have international/study abroad experiences.

Limitations/validity of the scaled survey analysis

Given the reality that the undergraduate participants who completed the survey were self-selecting this coursework, responses were more likely to fall on ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ scale points from the start. This tendency may explain the low statistically significant gains on particular items, such as the degree to which participants feel this sort of coursework is important to undergraduate experience.

Qualitative survey items

Qualitative items for both the pre- and post-surveys measured participant perspectives related to cultural competence, student experience, and knowledge and skills, as well as qualitative triangulation for changes/influences related to the scaled questions on academic and professional goals.

Qualitative data sources

Interviews

More detailed qualitative analyses combined 18 interviews with undergraduate program participants and daily field observations, over a period of 4 weeks during the study abroad travel. The interviews focused on the following three categories: cultural competence, global interdependence and community engagement. For US undergraduate participants, pre-departure and final reflection papers were analyzed for convergence/divergence of themes across the cohort. Semi-structured interviews were recorded with all participants in June 2009 during travel, and follow-up interviews were conducted with 14 participants 6 months following return. The narrative slices in the findings and discussion sections of this article are based on representative responses from these data sources.

Field observations

Field notes were recorded by co-author and co-principal investigator Intolubbe-Chmil. The acknowledgement that these notes were being collected was included in the IRB-approved consent. The field notes were a valuable source for verification and triangulation.

Archival data

While the focus of the findings is on the surveys and interviews from the 2009 cohort of the program, archival data from previous cohorts was included as part of the larger data pool. These data were collected from sources such as archived email communications and course-related reflection papers, as well as additional publications, and testimonials that were shared within the ESAVANA context. The archival data provided a valuable method for comparison within and between the 2009 cohort.

Findings

The findings which follow are organized thematically in relation to the two guiding research questions, the first focused on learning outcomes and the second on the influence of engagement. We begin with the articulation of learning outcomes which emerged from both the survey and the qualitative data analysis.

PCESA learning outcomes

The survey data created a baseline of outcomes for the 2009 PCESA cohort; this was the first year that comprehensive survey data had been collected on PCESA participants. There are two major domains that were measured through the pre- and post-surveys. The first is in relation to the explicit learning outcomes as articulated throughout course materials and the second is in relation to the change over time expressed by the participants. Therefore, we focused the survey analysis on the significance values of items as matched pairs, generating descriptive statistics which were intended to link survey items with constructs that were determined as being central to the study abroad course goals and objectives. The lessons learned from this survey data analysis process will be provided in the future directions section of this article.

From the survey data collected, 16 of the 18 participants reported changes in understanding related to cultural competence, global interdependence and community engagement. That is, participants reported that they had developed a greater awareness of the consequences of cultural assumptions and prejudices, as well as the importance of including community members in addressing environmental and human rights concerns. Fully 100 percent of the participants reported that this study abroad experience met or exceeded their expectations. Of expectations, the following comment offers a representative response: ‘I was expecting both an exciting and informative experience – and I got just that. The location, people (both those in our group and those we met along the way), and activities all exceeded my expectations and honestly challenged my perspective on a multitude of levels.’

On the post-survey, students were asked whether the course materials and assignments were beneficial in preparing them for their experience abroad. On this measure, 91 percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that the course materials and assignments were beneficial to their experience. Of the small number who disagreed, it had more to do with expectations (for example, that of wanting to study more concrete environmental issues) rather than the relevance of the materials or assignments. Responses that related to a decreased sense of readiness also had to do with logistical concerns such as the intensity of the schedule, particularly during the first module in Johannesburg. At the same time, participants who agreed or strongly agreed cited prior coursework, such as the ESAVANA January term course, as useful to their readiness. However, in relation to the post-survey impact measure, all the participants articulated (variously through qualitative responses) that there could be ‘no adequate preparation’ for what they could only have encountered experientially as part of this study abroad course.

In addition to the survey data, findings from the student interviews, field observations and analysis of reflection papers indicate that through the program the students gained a deeper understanding of the constructs of cultural competence, global interdependence, and community engagement. Consequently, they have deconstructed and re-imagined myths and perceptions about Africa, poverty, basic human rights, and community capacity. For example, one participant described during an interview a change in perspective in that s/he has ‘[learned to] look into voices of people who are not heard, to appreciate different contexts for people who are not heard … this is true everywhere and I can not just ignore it.’ This participant goes on to explain that this change in perspective reflects a realization that those who are not heard are ‘not counted as human.’ Another participant shares in the final reflection paper that ‘[w]hat I did not expect to see [in southern Africa] was how much progress is taking place. Perhaps too slow moving in our [Western] eyes, this progress is still there and very much alive.’ Participants have also articulated the development of competencies related to international, cross-cultural endeavors. One participant reflects that ‘I am now more aware of the likelihood of unintended consequences of even the simplest decisions. I have also come to understand the necessity of collaboration and of seeking and understanding alternative viewpoints.’

The next section offers findings related to the question of engagement, and the illumination of transformation as a widely shared expression of the influence of study abroad experiences that were interdisciplinary and part of an international collaborative network that shared the same core values: relationships, respect and reciprocity.

Transformation through engagement

During qualitative coding of the data, the theme of transformation emerged from participant narratives as multidimensional and grounded in cross-cultural experience. The centrality of this theme was formulated from the triangulation of the survey and qualitative data, linked to the interview probes that centered on change, difference, culture, connection and the ways in which participants articulated responses to questions related to dissonance and engagement.

Dissonance

The theme of dissonance was interpreted via the articulations of experiences and ideas which challenged a previously held frame of reference. For this cohort, many of these centered on perceptions of Africa (specifically about issues around race, culture and poverty), but also on their previous knowledge and information about where they were going. The primary data for understanding whether this experience evoked dissonance between what they knew prior to going to Africa and what they were confronted with once they arrived was collected from the pre-departure papers, for which students were asked to identify their ‘baggage’ (that is, their assumptions, expectations and/or preconceived notions about Africa), and the post-travel papers for which the students were asked to integrate major themes from the course with ideas about access and resources. The following excerpts were selected as representative interpretive findings related to dissonance.

With regard to cultural influences on perceptions of Africa, one student wrote that:

I’d probably tell you that it seems like a pretty terrifying travel destination. The news and media portray Africa as a continent ruled by poverty, war, genocide, and disease. There seem to exist no images of humanity, but instead images of the destruction of humanity; if CNN and Fox News were my only resources for images associated with Africa, it would seem Africa had become the launching pad for the Apocalypse.

This perspective is articulated in a different way by another student who felt they could not divulge full details to their family about travel to Africa, sharing in their pre-departure paper that ‘In a few days I will be off to England – or at least that is what my grandparents think. The several heart attacks that would surely follow the news of their [grandchild] traveling to Africa convinced my parents to only mention the destination of my layover.’

Asking students to unpack their baggage helped shape students’ expectations as they anticipated culture shock upon arrival. Regardless of this baggage, however, most students looked forward to the trip as a means to gain understanding by direct observation, in order to challenge their current beliefs and values. As one student shares, ‘My investigation into the comparison of my Western culture and that of more traditional southern Africa [will lead] me to question the infallibility of my own culture and to seek to realize the hidden brilliance and merit of others.’

Perhaps the most frequently cited example of dissonance from students, which emerged across multiple data sources, was the week one community visit to Alexandra Township (referred to as ‘Alex’ in subsequent communications), on the perimeter of Johannesburg. For most students, this experience brought issues of poverty and access very starkly to the forefront. Following the visit to Alex, field observation and debrief session notes reflect that most students had deeply visceral responses to the experience of Alex. Yet, as interactions continued throughout the program, students demonstrated an increasing ability to identify the humanity of township community members (for instance, recalling how youth made the most of any and all of the materials available to them – such as bail wire and jar lids for push toys and empty plastic bottles for soccer play). During the third week of interviews, the experience of visiting Alex was expressed as among the most thought-provoking by many students, and as time went on the US students, in particular, became better able to comprehend how their own cultural biases about poverty, community and resources had been previously shaped. Perhaps most poignant was when one of the South African students divulged that she had lived for a period of time in Alex with her family when she was in primary school, which created an additional humanizing element and means for the group to interpret their experience.

Transformative engagement

In this article we suggest that engaged scholarship incorporates multiple aspects of active, reciprocal and purposeful teaching and learning. There are a multitude of examples throughout the participant surveys and interviews that speak to an appreciation for learning outside the classroom and the autonomy to arrive at one’s own conclusions.

Engagement, in fact, is the thread which ties this coursework, competencies related to undergraduate inquiry-based learning, and the approach of this study together. In terms of assessment, the reflective opportunities that were offered and demonstrated during every phase of PCESA provided a model for a better understanding of outcomes related to engagement.

The theme of engagement was interpreted through encounters. This includes sustained interactions with fellow participants from the USA and Africa, as well as formal and informal opportunities to interface with people and contexts as part of the academic and field experiences. The PCESA course provides multiple opportunities for exchange, with a focus on local community engagement. Through exposure to diverse cultures, lifestyles and learning environments, the students appeared to recognize the value of engagement for multiple applications.

In a post-travel paper response, one student reflected that ‘I realize that the most effective mode of help is collaborative problem-solving within communities. Effective community involvement does not involve the abrasive introduction of outside ideas, but instead is created by working with the people of a community to improve the present situation. Africa cannot be ‘saved’ by imposing aid, but instead by encouraging the creation of access.’

Engagement was interpreted through relationship development between the undergraduate participants as well. For example, a southern African student shared in an interview that ‘I was afraid [the students from the US] would treat me poorly but my status has been raised. My ideas [about the other students] have changed. We are all persons.’ A post-survey response from one US student reveals that the most valuable aspect of this study abroad experience for them was ‘[t]he relationships I made with everyone on the program. Our time spent together was invaluable and we went through a great deal together. It is amazing how well we got along together considering our different backgrounds.’ Another shares that ‘[i]t was nice to be able to learn together and use these new relationships to explore new ideas, not only learning things about the [southern] African environment and culture, but also about ourselves.’

Furthermore, students also appreciated how empowered individuals can provide cohesiveness to a community. Aspects of this view of agency were revealed in many ways throughout the student responses as a result of the field experiences that emphasized community engagement. One notable example is in the comparison one student provided between a relatively privileged school setting and a rural one that at first appeared less so:

On the surface [in comparison] this school seemed impoverished … it wasn’t until the schoolteachers came forward and welcomed us to the school that we realized we were in the presence of another empowered group … it possessed resources that were equally valuable because they, while limited, benefited the entire community and empowered many people.

Another experience that was considered influential by many students was the time spent in the Massingir Dam area of Mozambique, which sits on the border of Kruger National Park. Through the ESAVANA network, there has been a long-standing relationship with the Canhane community, which centers on a revenue-sharing agreement with a nearby eco-tourist site near the park and dam, Covane Community Lodge. As a result of this sustained collaboration, study abroad participants are able to engage with the community, even across significant language barriers, in ways that were well-facilitated and grounded in relationships that have been cultivated over time. It is as part of the interaction with the Canhane community that collaborative ‘problem-solving’ is clearly highlighted. Here, participants attend a community meeting under the indaba tree, where women have been increasingly included in leadership positions and where the earlier work of this collaboration is reiterated and current interests are discussed. Over the years, through this process and the efforts of the ESAVANA network, the local school was supplied with desks and chairs, a water pump system was put into place, and funds generated through marketing and outreach (and a website created by study abroad students) helped generate significant resources for the community. There has been increased tourism in the area, the community has been able to leverage the materials into additional funding, and in a few cases send community members to skills development programs (for example, culinary and hotel management). Thus, PCESA participants were able to see first hand the very specific outcomes and feasibility of contributing to community development through a locally grounded, culturally competent lens. Foremost, the Canhane experience allows undergraduates to better understand that ‘problem-solving’ is much more than a short-term endeavor centered on a single event or activity; rather (to paraphrase responses), they understood that to address issues of concern in any community, it is essential to develop relationships, to understand connections between things and to utilize a wider range approach that is interconnected.

Multidimensional transformation

The theme of transformation encompassed many different dimensions of change. Change occurred in terms of shifts in perception and in the ways in which participants described transformative experiences in relation to their learning. Virtually all participants articulated reformulating previously held frames of reference with regard to their own culturally constructed beliefs, particularly with regard to issues of power, privilege, agency and connection.

Following a day of archeological excavation and hominid education, one student eloquently described a particularly transformative experience which captures awareness transcending time:

Once again, I found myself frustrated in trying to discover the significance [of digging in the dirt for hours] … I tore away at a meaty cow bone with my own pitifully constructed tool. Learning to do these things, however, furthered my appreciation for the accomplishments of the first modern humans. Hacking away at the cow bone somehow made me feel closer to the land that surrounded me.

From multiple vantage points, the students were able to re-imagine the humanity in life circumstances very different from their own. As one of many examples, a student shared that ‘It is amazing how resilient people are in comparison to my ideal life … when we were in Alex [a township on the outskirts of Johannesburg] I felt a great sense of community … I did not expect people to be happy living in a slum.’

Further, student thinking was transformed with regard to community capacity in southern Africa. During an interview, one student admitted surprise that ‘through all of those things, people live fine … we found symbols of ability to cope, like art on the doors in Alex.’ They go on to process that, from an engineering perspective, ‘There is a lot of lost ingenuity in the developed world. [We] witnessed ingenuity in common people; everyone finds ways to use twine, sticks; to do something representative of capability.’

During another interview three weeks into travel, one student simultaneously described the greatest challenge and point of discovery to them: ‘[This experience is] changing the way that I am used to learning … sitting at lectures focuses on what you need to know … this lets you interpret, take it in on your own … it involves open ended thinking and the ability to draw your own conclusions.’

Field notes corroborate participant responses of transformational experiences in countless ways, which are sometimes explicit while others are more subtle. For instance, field notes reflect a growing tendency for the undergraduate participants to question the content and presentations provided by the guest speakers and spokespersons who hold positions of relative power in comparison to most community members. One example involved the plight of traditional community members and refugees whose homes border Kruger parklands. As the park ranger lectured on the progress that the Transfrontier Park had made in terms of land and wildlife conservation efforts, the students challenged the ranger on the forced removal of the local people from their homelands which bordered the park. While the government was offering relocation to a nearby housing community, the group responded with concerns over the rights of wildlife and land conservation over the rights of humans, the consequences of moving rural subsistence farmers to peri-urban settings, and the destruction of local culture. In three short weeks, undergraduates had gone from acknowledging how little they knew about Africa in general, much less specific locations, to asking probing and well-informed questions centered on rights and responsibilities.

In another powerful example of experiential learning and establishing voice, one of the southern African students quickly realized during a community visit to a South African village that a community leader was not accurately translating the responses or concerns of a Mozambican refugee. Among our multilingual southern African colleagues, this participant was fluent in the refugee woman’s mother tongue language, allowing her to address the translator’s inaccuracies while making possible a first-hand opportunity for the larger cohort of participants to recognize the consequences of our perceptions and how easily ours could have been influenced by a deceptive translation. This experience constituted an invaluable example of the appropriation of voice and assumptions about the participants of the group. Owing to the presence of our southern African colleagues, the manipulation of the translator was unveiled. As a result, our experience was rerouted from a surface understanding of how a community is addressing the needs of refugee families to the realization of the consequences of agendas, assumptions, and positions of authority. Here transformation took place on many levels highlighting issues of power, voice and shifting roles of expertise. Further, this example is illustrative of the ways in which the study abroad experience influenced the development of a community of trust between the undergraduate participants, while underscoring the course rhetoric that claims a significant push beyond what is labeled as ‘academic tourism’.

Qualitative data also provided evidence of transformation with regard to how participants began to understand their home communities in a different way as a result of this study abroad experience. One southern African participant reflected that one of the most valuable aspects of this study abroad experience for her was that ‘I got to learn a lot about my own country and the people that live in it … for me personally, I have seen how people in South Africa deal with disadvantages.’ This type of revelation was articulated many times over the course of the study abroad experience as both African and US students came to grips with the ways in which humans everywhere, regardless of race in particular, strategize and communicate in ways that are not always transparent. As part of shared transformation within this study abroad experience, this finding is linked to the transformation from a group of individuals to that of an enduring and expanding community.

Discussion

When we set out to conduct this evaluation, it was with the intention of performing a more internal, formative evaluation that would guide future course development and provide some sense of our own ‘best practice’. As a valuable contribution to that original intent, what we discovered soon after the first round of interviews were undertaken – a mere 2 weeks in country, largely with students who had never traveled to southern Africa – was that the undergraduate participants were self-identifying the difference between the PCESA course and many others that they had taken. Interview responses were replete with reflections that articulated not just the experience of dissonance as part of engaged learning, but the benefits of it as well. Representative examples include language from interviews about appreciating the value of ‘learning outside of the classroom’ or ‘being able to formulate my own meaning’. This is not to say that the undergraduate participants were feeling comfortable or familiar with the course experience or the content – on the contrary, where both the qualitative survey responses as well as the interview transcripts and field notes were concerned, the language of description was very much grounded in ‘challenge’, ‘uneasiness’, ‘difference’, and other terms and labels that speak to the disorientation and difficulty of living for a time, in a place, and with people who are perceived in most ways to be notably dissimilar. The perspectives from the undergraduate participants have offered valuable insights in terms of how to build upon and thoughtfully shape the study abroad curriculum.

At the same time, southern African participants articulated feelings of increased agency in their roles as instructors, practitioners and local experts. With this elevated status, some southern African undergraduate students, upon return to their home institution, have followed through with endeavors such as creating a Global Sustainability Club, a student-led organization at the University of Venda in the Limpopo Province of South Africa. Other southern African student and faculty alumni have reported that their experience with the ESAVANA-related coursework has influenced positive changes in their teaching styles and teacher-student relationships, because of their observations and experiences in the program. For example, one of the 2004 undergraduate participants from Botswana has since become a research associate at his home institution, and has regularly mentored and nominated to the programme other undergraduates who have participated in PCESA during subsequent years. One of his mentees is a participant in the formative evaluation for the 2009 cohort described here.

The archival and 6-month post-travel interviews also resulted in a dimension of the findings which speak to more distal outcomes. When given the opportunity to express the extent to which participation in ESAVANA coursework has influenced academic and/or professional trajectories, many students offered evidence of subsequent community-based research projects, at least eight of which have resulted in undergraduate, cross-cultural, peer-reviewed publications (Brown-Glazner et al., 2010; Harshfield et al., 2009; Heil et al., 2010). In addition, both UVa and southern African participants cited the ways in which their roles as undergraduate student leaders were enhanced through participation in PCESA, emphasizing that it was not what they were leading or collaborating on that was important, so much as how. Responses to this query offered particular insight into how these experiences engendered a sense of the importance of listening, the ability to acknowledge that ‘the more you know the more you do not know’, and the complexity of reciprocity. As one of the journal articles referenced above suggests, an enduring and representative outcome of participation in the ESAVANA coursework is an internalized view of the value of ‘engaging people not projects’.

Future directions

The internationalization of higher education has prompted an imperative for post-secondary institutions, centered here for the most part on those in the USA, to produce globally competent citizens. However, ‘a considerable gap exists between the rhetoric of global and international education and the reality of institutional activities and outcomes’ (Olson et al., 2005: 1). This evaluation of an intensive study abroad experience as one component of the ESAVANA consortium contributes to bridging this gap as part of a 21st-century vision for international and interdisciplinary education.

In the time that has elapsed since this evaluation was conducted, we have had the opportunity to reflect upon lessons learned in terms of our evaluation approach and the ways in which our assessments shape the pedagogy and practice of ESAVANA education, outreach and research; while our primary goal remains with regard to informing our own practice, we also seek to make these findings relevant to similar endeavors, and to identify additional contexts for contribution. One example of how this evaluation has impacted our own practice is reflected in results from our survey analysis, through which we have engaged in a process of refining the instrument to include items that are constructed with the intention of tapping further into the complexity of transformation; that is, how can questions be framed such that we are allowing for the multiple pathways from which participants are motivated to enroll and engage in this type of coursework? Further, how does this interest play out within the broader discourse on institutional assessment of study abroad and international education? We have also recognized the value of the qualitative components of this type of analysis, and are looking at other similar endeavors in order to determine the extent to which the constructs of this coursework are appropriately framed within our own work, and in comparison to that of others. Finally, we are increasing our sample size through a longitudinal approach, administering surveys to all consenting participants and developing a method for combining data from sequential cohorts. Subsequently, survey data has been collected for a smaller cohort of the 2010 participants as well as the entire cohort of the 2011 participants. Preliminary findings from that survey data are consistent with those emerging from this 2009 analysis; published results from these surveys are forthcoming.

This study focused an evaluative lens on particular components of the ESAVANA consortium-related coursework and related research projects; therefore, the resulting analysis at this stage does not claim generalizability or transferability. In addition, as pointed out in the survey section above, enrollment in these types of courses is overwhelmingly voluntary, raising concerns of selection and bias. A legitimate concern with this approach is that coding qualitative responses is arguably more labor intensive than calculating quantitative responses from data instruments such as surveys. Therefore, recommendations for assessment present a challenge when considering institutional constraints. However, while evaluations of this kind may not be entirely feasible from an institutional assessment perspective, aspects of these methods and the methodological mission can be utilized within a range of evaluation interests. For example, our initial survey did take into account the constructs being used in broader institutional assessment, and as a result of our 2009 evaluation experience, ESAVANA teaching and research associates have strengthened the effort to cultivate institutional collaborations related to study abroad, international education, academic community engagement and the consideration of transformation in these contexts.

While this evaluation process has been valuable to our own efforts to assess particular aspects of the ESAVANA coursework, it has also provided for us an opportunity to inform the pedagogical and curricular development of experiential-type learning within an international education context. Through the participant perspectives from the 2009 cohort, we have learned that students are eager to engage in courses that balance engagement and interaction (whether in or out of the ‘walls’ of the classroom) with a curricular structure that offers the type of supported experiences, materials and assignments that allow for reflective meaning making. In addition, our findings strongly suggest that coursework which integrates sustained and long-term engagement with communities and the practical application of projects or research is also highly valued by undergraduates. In the case of course experience within PCESA, this was reflected in the motion between scholarship (lectures and texts), planned activities (engagement in the field), and the informal opportunities for exchange which allowed for further fleshing out of the learning from multiple sources that takes place (gatherings, group rotations and journaling).

We believe these collaborative initiatives within and between higher education constituents, intended to more routinely disseminate findings related to best practice as well as the promotion of a shared language, will contribute to more unified attempts at course design and assessment. What we believe has emerged as most valuable and usable, in the consideration of pedagogy, practice and assessment with like teaching and learning contexts, is an emphasis on reflection followed by action. In this case, transformation is inspired through ‘emancipatory environments for learning’ (Safarik, 2002: 1), which incorporate the expansion of opportunities to learn when engaging with challenge, relationship and trans-disciplinary experience.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Matched pairs overview

	p-value
Cultural competence
Pre Q4B: I feel comfortable in situations different than those with which I am most familiar	0.096
Post Q1A: My prior cross-cultural encounters were helpful to prepare me for this study abroad experience
Student Experience
Pre Q5A: Exposure to international issues is an important part of undergraduate learning	0.005
Post Q1B: The materials and assignments were helpful in preparing me for this study abroad experience
Pre Q5C: It is important for college students to engage in hands-on research	0.082
Post Q2H: I believe it is important for college students to engage in hands-on research
Knowledge and Skills
Pre Q4C: I am confident in my knowledge of southern African people, culture, and the environment	0.000
Post Q2A: I am more knowledgeable about southern African people, culture, and the environment
Pre Q4D: I am confident in my ability to conduct cross-cultural/international research	0.000
Post Q2B: I am better prepared to conduct cross-cultural research
Post Q2C: I have more confidence in my ability to collaborate on research projects with community members in different settings
Post Q6: As a result of this course, my understanding of community engagement has changed
Pre Q4G: It is important for me to learn about issues through different disciplinary lenses	0.096
Post Q2G: I believe it is important for college students to engage in interdisciplinary learning
Pre Q4I: This international education experience is important to my professional goals	0.082
Post Q2F: This international education experience influenced my professional goals

Biographies

Loren Intolubbe-Chmil is a teaching and research associate at the University of Virginia. Her teaching focuses on engaged scholarship and education for change. Her scholarship emphasizes the transformative potential of trans-disciplinary research, education and outreach; the value of dissonance in cross-cultural encounters; and the diverse pathways for civic identity development.

Carol Anne Spreen is in the Department of Leadership, Foundations and Policy at the University of Virginia. Her teaching is in the field of comparative and international education, with an emphasis on policy reform and education rights. Her research centers on political and socio-cultural studies of education and the influences of globalization on teaching and learning.

Robert J. Swap is a professor in Environmental Sciences and Global Development Studies at the University of Virginia. He develops human capital that contributes to the social capital necessary to address environmental and development challenges facing underserved regions. He directs the international education, research and engagement program, Eastern/Southern Africa Virginia Networks and Associations (ESAVANA).

References

Brown-Glazner

Gutierrez

Heil

(2009) “Engaging people, not projects: Re-defining the standards of service-learning through a community led project in Tshapasha, South Africa”, JPC Journal Public, 1: 5–10.

Cunningham

(1998) The social dimension of transformative learning. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning 7: 15–28.

Dirkx

(2000) Transformative learning and the journey of individuation. ERIC Digest, No. 223. ERIC-Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Dirkx

Mezirow

Cranton

(2006) Musings and reflections on the meaning, context, and process of transformative learning: a dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack Mezirow. Journal of Transformative Education 4(2): 123–139.

Erikson

(1986) Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In: Wittrock

(ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd edn. New York: Macmillan, 119–161.

Ettling

(2006) Ethical demands of transformative learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 109: 59–67.

Freire

(1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Harshfield

Jemec

Makhado

. (2009) Water purification in rural South Africa: ethical analysis and reflections on collaborative community engagement projects in engineering. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering 4(1): 1–14.

Heil

Nengwenani

Raedani

. (2010) Student-led, community driven improvement of the drinking supply in a rural village in South Africa. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering 5(1): 94–110.

10.

Kenny

(2002) Reinventing Undergraduate Education: Three Years After the Boyer Report. The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. Council on Undergraduate Research: Washington DC.

11.

Mezirow

and Associates (eds) (2000) Learning as Transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Moore

(2005) Is higher education ready for transformative learning? A question explored in the study of sustainability. Journal of Transformative Education 3(1): 76–91.

13.

Ninnes

Hellstén

(2005) Internationalizing Higher Education: Critical Explorations of Pedagogy and Policy. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center.

14.

Olson

Green

Hill

(2005) Building a strategic framework for comprehensive internationalization. For the American Council on Education, Report published by The American Council on Education, Washington DC.

15.

Prawat

Floden

(1994) Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychology 29(1): 37–48.

16.

Richardson

(2003) Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record 105(9): 1623–1640.

17.

Robertson

Bond

(2005) The research/teaching relation: a view from the ‘edge’. Higher Education 50(3): 509–535.

18.

Ruther

(2002) Barely There, Powerfully Present: Thirty Years of US Policy on International Higher Education. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

19.

Safarik

(2002) Theorizing feminist transformation in higher education. Teachers College Record. Available at: http://www.tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp?ContentID=11039.

20.

Stanton

(2008) New times demand new scholarship: opportunities and challenge for civic engagement at research universities. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 3(1): 19–42.

21.

Swap

Annegarn

Otter

(2002) Southern African Regional Science Initiative (Safari 2000) summary of science plan . South African Journal of Science 98 (3–4): 119–124.

22.

Swap

Annegarn

Suttles

. (2003) Africa burning: a thematic analysis of the Southern African Regional Science Initiative-SAFARI 2000. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(D13): doi:10.1029/2003JD00374710.1029/2003JD003747.

23.

Swap

Walther

Annegarn

(2008) SAVANA: Implementation and evolution of an international research and education consortium, IIE Networker, Fall: 34.

24.

Taylor

E W

(2007) An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999-2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education 26(2): 173–191.