The on-campus international seminar vs. international travel: changed perceptions.
Deck, Alan B. ; Luthy, Michael R. ; Schrader, Richard W. 等
INTRODUCTION
It is widely accepted that exposure to foreign cultures and
business practices is a key ingredient to the success of educational
business programs. Now that industry and commerce truly span the globe
and are no longer limited by national boundaries, an understanding of
how the customs of various countries affect business practice is
essential. A belief that business practices that work in the United
States will work in other cultural environments likely will ultimately
lead to business failure in those countries. These practices relate to
how employees within a company interact with each other and to how
customers in those countries relate to businesses. The best way for a
student to gain an appreciation of these differences is to experience it
for one's self; traveling and studying in a culture that differs
significantly from their own.
The current study explores an international travel experience in an
American MBA program. The curriculum of this program requires an
international component. Most students satisfy the international
component by traveling (as a class) to a foreign country and
experiencing the culture first hand. Some students cannot travel for the
10-day experience due to family or work commitments. For these students
they elect to satisfy the requirement by an on-campus international
seminar course. This latter option however, fails to move students out
of their 'comfort zones' and is not considered to be as
realistic as the foreign travel experience, despite similar objectives
for the two courses.
For those who selected the option of studying in Spain, surveys
were administered immediately prior to and immediately after the travel.
Surveys were divided into three major sections; why students chose the
Spain-travel option, their perceptions of business practices in Spain,
and views on the larger-scale European educational experience. They were
further asked if they would recommend foreign travel over the on-campus
option to others in order to satisfy the international travel experience
requirement.
An additional set of surveys were administered to students in the
on-campus international seminar course. While the phrasing of select
questions was not identical to the ones for the other cohort of
students, there were sufficient areas of overlap to allow for
comparisons in areas of perceptions of the business arena relative to
the U.S.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Providing opportunities to understand international business
practices is a fundamental responsibility of an MBA program. White &
Griffith (1998, p. 104) suggest that critical thinking and analytic
skills should be developed beyond one's "inherent
biases." In addition, the internationalization of the MBA
curriculum requires MBA programs to develop graduates' skills to
manage business competently in the global environment (Tuleja, 2008).
The normal study abroad experience, however, often emphasizes the what
... how capital is acquired in Germany as opposed to the United States,
for example. Varner (2001) says of international experiences:
"Culture expresses itself in politics, government policies,
business regulations, educational systems, and business practices ...
one cannot separate culture from these issues and study culture in
isolation" (p. 104).
Ortiz (2004) noted that going to another country on an academic
study program ... is the best way to begin the process of understanding
what it means to function in a global economy. Other authors (Davis
& Redmann, 1991) note that even short-term study abroad can help the
student to a better understanding of another culture, as well as
one's own culture in contrast. The Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB, 2002) has stated that "the
length of the program must be balanced against intended results....
Short term programs, when well- structured and value-added, are quite
useful ..." (p. 6). While there cannot be a substitution for an
extended period of work or study in a non-native culture, the awareness
of cultural differences is critical for the MBA.
In light of this, many schools, both in the United States and
overseas, have adopted some form of multicultural experience in their
MBA programs. For example, the WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management
partners with the Kellogg school at Northwestern University, which
requires two weeks in the United States (Bryant, 2008), while King, et.
al. (2009) describes the success of short-term foreign travel MBA
programs offered by St. Bonaventure University. Short-term programs are
particularly useful for MBA students in weekend or part-time programs
who are also employed full-time, and for whom lengthy foreign study is
simple not possible. This is the program offered at this university in
the current paper.
BACKGROUND
The Spain Experience
The MBA trip to Spain covers a period of 11 days (including 1 1/2
days for air travel). In Spain, students spend 5 1/2 days in class at a
Madrid-based university and 1 1/2 days visiting Spanish businesses. The
remainder of the time is used by students, either individually or in
groups, exploring Madrid and/or visiting other Spanish cities.
When Franco was the leader of Spain, the use or teaching of English
was forbidden. Although Spain is now a democracy, the anti-English
language sentiment has persisted. As a result students experienced
significant language barriers. Students encountered these barriers in
restaurants, in shopping areas, and in their attempts to travel to other
parts of Spain, many relying on a very limited Spanish vocabulary.
The university in Spain provides a series of European professors
with different specialties. These professors coordinated their lectures
which provided a lock-step presentation approach. Whereas the MBA
program at home primarily employs a case-based approach, the professors
at the Spanish university use a more European style lecture delivery.
Although the professors in Spain indicated that student questions were
welcomed, they allowed little time for questions and the answers
provided were relatively brief.
The On-Campus Seminar Experience
Students enrolled in the on-campus international seminar attend
three weekends of classes Friday evenings and all day on Saturdays for a
total of 31 and 1/2 contact hours. Sessions involved readings, case
studies, problems, and a team-based interactive simulation game. This
departed markedly from the teaching pedagogy used in Spain but was more
in keeping with the approach of the MBA domestic program. Themed lunches
on Saturdays from different cultures rounded out the experience. While
more cultures were explored at the on-campus seminar than for those
students travelling, it was accomplished with less depth of experience.
METHODOLOGY
A pre-trip survey was administered to students at the airport prior
to their departure for Spain. The survey focused on three areas; why the
students chose the Spain option instead of the on-campus seminar option,
their perceptions of business practices in Spain, and their views on the
educational experience. A follow-up survey was administered at the end
of the trip to determine how their pre-trip perceptions may have changed
based upon their individual experiences.
Both surveys were voluntary. A total of 30 students were enrolled
in the class. All 30 students answered the pre-trip survey, but only 22
completed the post-trip survey. Because the purpose of the study was to
examine changes in perceptions based on the trip, only the surveys of
the 22 students completing both surveys were used. It should be further
noted that a few students may not have answered all questions on both
surveys. For this reason, the number of respondents for each question is
noted in the tables presented here.
The first set of questions examined which factors influenced the
students' decision to go to Spain. The second set of questions
examined their pre-trip expectations regarding elements of the Spanish
travel experiences and how well these expectations were met by their
actual experiences. The third set of questions (post-trip only) examined
the students' comparison of the Spanish university educational
system with that of their home University.
Similarly, a pre- and post-course survey approach was employed with
students enrolled in the on-campus international seminar. Individual
questions were modified to reflect the multicultural nature of the
course. Twenty-three of the 26 students completed both surveys. Their
opinions were solicited related to their wider view of Europe concerning
worker hours and benefits, tax and regulation burdens on businesses, and
business practices among others.
RESULTS
Twenty-two students participated in both surveys that elected to
travel to Spain rather than satisfying the international component of
their MBA program through the on-campus course. The pre-trip questions
concerned the factors why they chose the Spain option. Responses ranged
from 0-7, with zero being an isolated response representing 'Not a
factor at all,' 1 being 'Minimally Important' and 7
representing 'Highly Important.' The post-trip survey asked
the respondents to rate how successful they felt the trip was related to
each factor.
As shown in Table 1, the international trip fell short of student
expectations in the observance of business practices and in making
business connections. These results are not surprising given the
structure of the trip, with over half the days being spent in the
classroom. Students had several days to choose between exploring Spain
and making business contacts. Several students did use this time to
contact businesspeople, but these were often prearranged by the
students. The majority of the students used this time for travel in and
around metropolitan Madrid.
Students were split on their evaluation of learning from the
faculty at the Madrid university. Although the mean response was .57
higher on the post-trip survey, there were nine who rated this
experience higher versus seven who rated it lower. Those who rated it
higher commented that they enjoyed the related flow of the lectures
while those who rated the educational program lower generally focused on
the fact that there was little open discussion between faculty and
students.
The biggest difference noted in the responses was the practice of
language skills. While this was the lowest rated factor in pre-trips
survey, the rating increased the most of the four factors on the
post-trip surveys. It appears that when students were immersed into a
culture where English was seldom spoken, the students were forced to
expand their limited Spanish conversation skills.
Perceptions of Spanish Business Practices
Prior to the trip, students were assigned readings on the current
economic conditions in Spain. These conditions included an economy on
the decline, high unemployment rates for young adults, and good benefits
for the retired population. Students were also advised that very few
Spanish citizens spoke English or even tried to converse in English.
They were not told that most of the citizenry working in the
services and sales industries earned a fixed wage and that the level of
service they provided meant nothing to them monetarily. These same
topics were included as part of the curriculum at the Spanish university
so that the students would understand the effects of these items on
Spanish business practices.
Survey questions related to Spanish business practices used a
Likert scale ranging from 1-7. For each question, the pre-trip mean and
the post-trip mean are recorded and the number of students whose
responses changed either in a positive or negative direction is noted.
Tables 2 and 3 present the results of the pre-trip and post-trip
surveys. Table 2 issues, related to Spanish culture and business
practices indicate the 1, 4, and 7 points of the Likert scale along with
the mean of the responses. Table 3 presents the comparative educational
perceptions and means from students at the conclusion of their Spanish
university experience.
The questions can be further broken down by the type exposure the
students had regarding the question subject. These results are presented
in Table 2. The number of hours worked (question 1) and the level of
business practices (question 5) were discussed in the classroom and
experienced in person as the students explored Madrid and outlying areas
of Spain. Employee benefits (question 2), government regulation
(question 3), and organizational tax burden (question 4) were items one
does not normally observe in a tourist capacity. The students'
responses to questions concerning meeting Spanish employees (question 6)
and Spanish people in non-work settings (question 7) were most likely
influenced by their casual observations as they ate, shopped and
traveled in the area.
For questions concerning employee benefits, government regulation,
and the tax burden on business, there were only slight changes in the
mean responses, with the highest change being .09 (question 4). For the
pre-trip survey, students had only the suggested readings about the
economic situation in Spain as primary reference, while for the
post-trip survey, they had the benefit of the Spanish classroom
instruction and company visits. This result provides an indication that
students prepared properly for the trip by finishing the suggested
readings and that these readings were fairly consistent with the
information provided in the classroom.
For questions concerning number of hours worked and Spanish
business practices respectively, the change in the mean response was
higher. Concerning the number of hours worked by the Spanish work force
(question1) as compared to that in the United States, the students, in
both surveys rated the Spanish people as working less. The difference in
the mean response, .76, indicates that the observed number of hours
worked by Spanish employees were greater than what the students
initially expected. Just the opposite is true on the question concerning
how business practices compare to that of the U.S. (question 5). The
mean response decreased by .5 on the two surveys which indicates that
the gap concerning business practices was much greater than anticipated.
The largest changes in means from the pre-trip to the post-trip
survey concerned the orientation of Spanish employees towards customers
(question 6) and the friendliness of the Spanish people (question 7).
Initially, students believed that the Spanish people were slightly
friendlier than Americans, but after exposure in everyday life, that
perception turned decidedly negative, with a decrease in mean of 1.13.
The most dramatic mean change concerned the perception of Spanish
business practices toward customers. The mean decreased by 1.81
indicating that the students found Spanish business to be far ruder to
them than they originally thought. The dramatic change in means for
these two questions are likely tied to the fact that most Spanish people
do not speak English and a large majority of the students did not speak
Spanish. The American students, who are taught to be customer oriented
in their business programs, may have expected the Spanish people to at
least attempt English, especially in a business setting.
Comparison of the Spanish University with that of their Home
University
The third set of questions asked students to compare their
experience at the Spanish University to their home university. Due to
their nature, these questions were asked only on the post-trip Survey.
Again, a 7 point Likert scale was employed.
The results of the survey are shown in Table 3. In general, the
students appear to have been disappointed with their overall University
experience in Spain. Questions 8 and 10 refer to the instructional style
and the overall level of education of the two schools (Spain vs. home).
As noted previously, the professors at the Spanish University left
little time in their presentations for questions or discussion. In
contrast, questions and discussions are welcomed and encouraged and
their home university. This major difference in pedagogical styles was
evident as shown by the extremely low mean for question 8. The students
rated the overall education level of the Spanish university lower than
that of their home university (question 10), but were not as negative in
this rating as they were in question 8.
The students also felt that the amenities encountered at the
Spanish University (question 9) were inferior to those of their home
university. From the professors' points of view, the amenities
appeared to be about the same as those of the home university, so it is
unclear why the student evaluations in this regard were so negative.
Spanish Travelers versus On-Campus Seminar Participants
The post-course survey administered to those students taking the
on-campus seminar course does not allow for more than a rudimentary
comparison of select questions. These results are presented in Table 4.
Due to the exploratory nature of the research statistical tests were not
performed. For those students who satisfied the international experience
requirement by going to Spain, the entire focus of the class was on
Spanish business and education. For those who satisfied the
international experience requirement by taking the on-campus course, the
focus was on European business practices and perceptions. Since, at the
time of this study, Spain was one of the economically weaker countries
in the European Union, it is probably not a country that could be
considered representative of the European Union as a whole.
While information was provided to those students going to Spain so
that they could have a feel for their trip and what they might
encounter, no such information was provided for the on-campus seminar
participants. Variations of the first five questions asked of the Spain
participants were also asked of those responding to the on-campus
survey.
As can be seen in Table 4 for two of the questions (employee
benefits and tax burden) the post-international view of the two groups
are extremely close (.04 and .02, respectively). For question number 3,
concerning the regulation of business, the groups differ greatly (.69).
All countries in Europe have a high highly tax burden and provide
extremely favorable work benefits to their employees. Spanish companies
however, face a somewhat higher regulatory environment than many of its
European counterparts. Since the classroom experience in Spain focused
on the Spanish business environment, this contrast in views is not
surprising.
Questions 1 and 5, employed work hours and level of advancement in
business practices, had the highest post-survey differences (.94 and .7,
respectively). There may be two reasons for these larger differences.
One, as noted above, is that the classroom information in Spain focused
more on Spain than on Europe in general. A second reason may be that the
Spain responses were likely partially influenced by the interaction of
the students with Spanish businesses and Spanish employees in their
daily activities, such as shopping, eating, and touring Spain in
general.
Recommendation from Spain Travellers to Other Students
The students were asked one additional question "Would you
recommend the international trip to other students over the on-campus
MBA seminar?" Again, a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Strongly
NO) to 7 (Very Strongly YES) was used. The modal response was a 7 and
the mean response was 6.05, with only one response being below 4.00,
indicating that the international trip was by far more valuable than the
on-campus seminar for satisfying the international experience
requirement of the MBA program, even with the language difficulties
students reported and dissatisfaction with the pedagogy they encountered
in the classroom.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Overall, students had mixed feelings concerning their experiences
in Spain. For the first seven questions related to Spanish business and
cultural behaviors, some means increased and some means decreased. A
change in one direction or the other is not of major importance. What is
important is that there were changes, indicating that their experience
changed their views. For those questions where the students were given
preliminary readings regarding the Spanish economy, the means changed
only slightly, indicating that the students were relatively
well-prepared for what they learned in the classroom. For the remaining
seven questions the change in means was more dramatic. Each of the
questions related to events encountered on the trip.
Despite the fact that students a) encountered language barriers and
differences in customs, and b) did not look favorably upon the teaching
style and accommodations of the Spanish university setting, they
strongly indicated that the travel experience was superior to an
on-campus seminar. Such a strong recommendation provides evidence that
the international trip is successful in introducing students to
different culture and customs and demonstrating how those differences
influence the conduct of business in foreign countries. It reinforces
the prevailing research that shows direct experience has a greater
impact on perceptions that indirect experience and knowledge transfer.
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International
(2002). "Study abroad programs in business schools: Issues and
recommendations by leading educators." Report of the Michigan State
University Center for International Business Education and Research,
2001 roundtable (May) East Lansing, Michigan.
Bryant, C. (2008). Partnership with Kellogg provides international
view, Financial Times, October 27, 10.
Davis, B. J., & Redmann, D. H. (1991). Methods of
internationalizing business communication courses. National Business
Education Yearbook, 29, 53-64.
King, D.L., C.J. Case, K.M. Premo, and E.D. Kallenbach (2009).
"Costs and benefits of foreign educational travel programs, Allied
Academies International conference, Academy for Studies in International
Business Proceedings; Cullowhee: 9, 2, 15.
Ortiz, J. (2004). International business education in a global
environment: A conceptual approach, International Education Journal, 5,
255-265.
Tuleja, E. A. (2008). Aspects of intercultural awareness through an
MBA study abroad program: Going "Backstage," Business
Communications Quarterly, 71, 3, September, 314-337.
Varner, I. (2001). Teaching intercultural management communication:
Where are we? Where do we go? Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 1,
99-111.
White, D.S., & Griffith, D. (1998) Graduate international
business education in the United States-Comparisons and suggestions.
Journal of Education for Business, 74, 103-115.
Alan B. Deck, Bellarmine University
Michael R. Luthy, Bellarmine University
Richard W. Schrader, Bellarmine University
Table 1: Evaluation of factors related to
why students chose the Spain TRAVEL option
Factor Pre- Post- Number of Number of
Trip Trip Responses Responses
Mean Mean Increasing Decreasing
Opportunity to Learn 4.91 5.48 9 7
From Faculty at another
University
Practice Language Skills 3.05 5.00 8 8
See Business Practices 5.23 4.28 5 13
in Spain
Make Business Connections 4.18 4.00 4 15
with Individuals
Table 2: Questions Relating to Spanish Culture and
Business Practices
Q# 1 4 7 Pre- Post-
trip trip
1 Spanish Spanish Spanish N=22 N=22
employees employees employees Mean= Mean=
work work about work 2.55 3.32
considerably the same considerably
fewer hours hours per more hours
per year year as per year
than their their U.S. than their
U.S. counterparts U. S.
counterparts counterparts
2 Spanish Spanish Spanish N=22 N=22
employees employees employees Mean= Mean=
receive receive receive 5.00 4.95
considerably about the considerably
fewer same more
benefits benefits as benefits
than their their U.S. than their
U.S. counterparts U.S.
counterparts counterparts
3 Government Government Government N=22 N=22
regulation regulation regulation Mean= Mean=
of business of business of business 4.82 4.91
in Spain is in Spain is in Spain is
considerably about as considerably
less intrusive more
intrusive as it is in intrusive
than in the the U.S. than in the
U.S. U.S.
4 Spanish Spanish and Spanish N=22 N=22
businesses U.S. businesses Mean= Mean=
face a businesses face a 4.95 4.86
lower tax face about higher tax
burden than the same burden than
businesses tax burden businesses
in the U.S. in the U.S.
5 Spanish Spanish and Spanish N=22 N=22
business U.S. business Mean= Mean=
practices business practices 3.27 2.77
are less practices are more
advanced are equally advanced
than in the advanced than in the
U.S. U.S.
6 The Spanish Spanish and The Spanish N=22 N=22
employees I U.S. employees I Mean= Mean=
meet will business meet will 3.45 1.64
be less employees be more
customer are equally customer
oriented customer oriented
than their oriented than their
U.S. U.S.
counterparts counterparts
7 Spanish Spanish and Spanish N=22 N=22
people I U.S. people people I Mean= Mean=
will meet I meet in will meet 4.36 3.23
in non- non-work in non-
work settings work
settings are equally settings
will be friendly will be
less more
friendly friendly
than those than those
in the U.S. in the U.S.
employees employees
Table 3: Questions Relating to the European
Educational System
Q# 1 4 7 Post-
trip
only
8 The class The class The class N=22
sessions sessions sessions Mean=
held in held in held in 2.1
Madrid were Madrid were Madrid were
less as more
interactive interactive interactive
than those as those at than those
at my home my home at my home
university university university
9 The physical The physical The physical N=22
school school school Mean=
facilities facilities facilities 2.59
in Madrid in Madrid in Madrid
had fewer had about had more
amenities the same amenities
than those amenities as than those
at my home those at my at my home
university home university
university
10 The overall The overall The overall N=22
level of level of level of Mean=
educational education educational 3.14
quality at quality at quality at
the school the school the school
in Madrid in Madrid in Madrid
was worse was about was better
than at my the same as than at my
home at my home home
university university university
Table 4: Comparison of Spain Travellers vs
on-Campus Seminar Student Responses
Q# 1 4 7 Post- Post-
trip trip
Spain On-
campus
1 Spanish Spanish Spanish N=22 N=23
(European) (European (European Mean= Mean=
employees employees employees 3.32 2.38
work work about work
considerably the same considerably
fewer hours hours per more hours
per year year as per year
than their their U.S. than their
U.S. counterparts U. S.
counterparts counterparts
2 Spanish Spanish Spanish N=22 N=23
(European (European (European Mean= Mean=
employees employees employees 4.95 4.91
receive receive receive
considerably about the considerably
fewer same more
benefits benefits as benefits
than their their U.S. than their
U.S. counterparts U.S.
counterparts counterparts
3 Government Government Government N=22 N=23
regulation regulation regulation Mean= Mean=
of business of business of business 4.91 4.22
in Spain in Spain in Spain
(Europe) is (Europe is (Europe is
considerably about as considerably
less intrusive as more
intrusive it is in the intrusive
than in the U.S. than in the
U.S. U.S.
4 Spanish Spanish Spanish N=22 N=23
(European (European (European Mean= Mean=
businesses and U.S. businesses 4.86 4.88
face a lower businesses face a
tax burden face about higher tax
than the same tax burden than
businesses burden businesses
in the U.S. in the U.S.
5 Spanish Spanish Spanish N=22 N=23
(European (European (European Mean= Mean=
business and U.S. business 2.77 3.74
practices business practices
are less practices are more
advanced are equally advanced
than in the advanced than in the
United United
States States
