Introduction to the matrix for cross-sectional analysis and research synthesis by segment

The classification of program types is combined with the codification for modes of program delivery' to create the matrix for cross-sectional analysis presented in Table 3.3. Program type classifications are in rows, or the y axis, reflecting the primary activity and the degree of to which a program is classroom-based relative to community-based. The greater degree of classroom activity is at the top and the greater degree of community activity is at the bottom. Program modality codifications are in columns, or the x axis, reflecting the primary party delivering the program and the extent to which a program is affiliated with the home institution.

Table 3.3 Matrix for cross-sectional analysis

Modes of Program Delivery

Those most affiliated to the home institution are to the left while those least affiliated with the home institution are to the right. As can be observed, there are sixteen segments labeled within the matrix that each combine one program type with one mode of program deliver}'.

Research synthesis by segment, focused on the cross-sectional analysis of educational value

Research related to the educational value of study abroad through a home institution (Segment 1) is most closely aligned to the literature on general study abroad and includes the extent to which a university’s own programming may have an increased connection to the home curriculum content or enhanced pre-and post-program mentoring (Calhoon et al., 2003). Research related to the educational value of faculty-directed study abroad (Segment Two) extrapolates from the literature about short-term study abroad regarding gains in cross-cultural understanding, increased access for diverse student populations, and the opportunity' to build community' within student cohorts (Gaia, 2015; Sachau, Brasher, and Fee, 2009; Bradshaw, 2013; Peppas, 2005). Research related to the educational value of study abroad through a host institution (Segment Three) includes positive impact of the local learning context and recommendations to support varying degrees of student services (Norris and Dwyer, 2005).

No known study exists that focuses on the educational value of study abroad through third-party' provider (Segment Four) or research abroad through a home institution (Segment Five).

Research related to the educational value of faculty-directed research abroad (Segment Six) indicates enhanced learning outcomes in the areas of collaboration with others, critical thinking, problem solving, and informed decision making (Lewis and Niesenbaum, 2005; McLaughlin and Johnson, 2006). Additional benefits include expanded worldview, stronger student-faculty’ relationships, and incorporating the experience into future research or presentations (Barkin, 2016; Ruth et al., 2018; Shostya and Morreale, 2017).

The literature related to the educational value of research abroad through a host institution (Segment Seven) indicates students gain a unique perspective on their field of research, experience with international research practices, refinement of personal and educational goals, potential joint publications, and invigoration toward further study (Mohunlol et al., 2014). Studies related to the educational value of research abroad with a third-party provider (Segment Eight) are limited to those that highlight a unique opportunity' to explore individual connections to career goals or consider the long-term impacts on local communities (School for Field Studies, 2017; SIT, 2018).

Further study is needed related to the educational value of global service-learning through a home institution (Segment Nine) and international internships through a home institution (Segment Thirteen). When reviewed as a part of overall student engagement in either a local or global context, service-learning and internships demonstrate a greater level of deep learning and are cited as high-impact practices that increase self-directed or lifelong learning (Kuh and O’Donell, 2013; Kilgo, Ezell Sheets, and Pascarella, 2015; Jiusto and DiBiasio, 2006; Montrose, 2015).

The literature related to the educational value of faculty-directed global service learning indicates increased connectedness to the world and expanded engagement with lifelong volunteerism (Parker and Altman Dautoff, 2007; Kuh, 2008; Lewis and Niesenbaum, 2005; Horn and Fry, 2013). While these benefits are consistent with domestic sendee-learning and are seen across all modes of delivery, they are highlighted here because of the expectation for reflective exercises enhancing the learning as part of faculty-directed programs.

Particularly striking is the research related to education abroad in environments least consistent with the home campus experience. The literature finds these experiences provide the most significant increases in resiliency, ability' to make connections across global contexts, enhancements in comparative or critical thinking, and other aspects of transformative learning (Engle and Engle 2003; Lilley et al., 2014; McLeod et al., 2015; Strange and Gibson, 2017). These studies are relevant to global sendee learning through a host institution (Segment Eleven), global sendee-learning with a third-party' provider (Segment Twelve), international internships through a host institution (Segment Fifteen), and international internships with a third-party’ provider (Segment Sixteen).

Research related to the educational value of faculty-directed international internships (Segment Fourteen) indicates internships help participants understand the global workforce, enhance technical knowledge, and increase employability' (Steinberg, 2015; Gates, 2014; Knouse and Fontenot, 2011; Nohara, Norton, Saijo, and Kusakabe, 2008). While these benefits are seen across modes of delivery', they are highlighted here because of the expectation for reflective exercises enhancing the learning as part of faculty-directed programs.

When compared to travel abroad for recreation, education abroad programs show improvements in understanding the complexities of global issues and applying disciplinary knowledge to a global context (Stebleton, Soria, and Cherney, 2013). When compared to control groups back on campus, general benefits to education and career trajectories were affirmed across a range of program types (Chieffo and Griffiths, 2004; Dwyer, 2004; Anderson and Lawton, 2011).