study trips

What We Learn From Our Neighbours: Measuring How Outcomes Are Met On Overseas Study Trips

cdtlsd Paper Presentations , , , , ,

Lynette TAN Yuen Ling*, LI Jingping, and TAN Lai Yong
Residential College 4
*rc4lynette@nus.edu.sg

 

Tan, L. Y. L., Li, J., & Tan, L. Y. (2023). What we learn from our neighbours: Measuring how outcomes are met on overseas study trips [Paper presentation]. In Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2023, 7 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecc2023proceedings/what-we-learn-from-our-neighbours-measuring-how-outcomes-are-met-on-overseas-study-trips/

 

SUB-THEME

Communities and Education 

 

KEYWORDS

Learning outcomes, out-of-classroom learning, study trips, experiential learning, community engagement

 

CATEGORY

Paper Presentation 

 

ABSTRACT

In the trajectory of effort in implementing out-of-classroom activities, overseas study trips are likely placed at the zenith—they often incur high costs, heavy faculty teaching commitment, and onerous administrative support. Whether the student learning gained is commensurate with the time and financial costs of such trips has yet to be established definitively. In particular, little empirical research exists on learning outcomes associated with overseas study trips of short duration. A study that examined the impact of a two-week study tour on the perceptions of American college students concluded that a longer exposure would likely have a more substantial impact on learning (Carley & Tudor, 2010). Even when there is a more prolonged exposure, such as in study-abroad programmes, there are still concerns about evidencing student learning and development (Dwyer, 2004). In a system-wide research initiative on study-abroad learning outcomes across the University System of Georgia (comprising 34 public institutions), Sutton and Rubin (2004) compared the self-reported learning outcomes of study-abroad participants and non-participants and concluded that while studying abroad does add value to students’ academic achievements, further studies are needed.

 

At the National University of Singapore (NUS), overseas study trips have been a staple programme of the Global Relations Office—whether through the long-term student exchange experience (with over 300 partner universities in more than 40 countries) or the Study Trips for Engagement and EnRichment (STEER) (National University of Singapore, n.d.). In AY 2022/23, a new kind of overseas study trip was launched—the Southeast Asia Friendship Initiative (SFI).

 

The SFI was designed to increase NUS students’ exposure to neighboring Southeast Asian (SEA) countries through experiential learning. Students are given opportunities to engage with local communities and partner universities, local non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and enterprises in destined Southeast Asian (SEA) countries to gain first-hand insights into the nuances and challenges the local stakeholders face when they tackle various aspects of sustainable development. The common academic theme of the SFI programmes is linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or innovation and enterprise. Ranging from 7-10 days, the SFI aptly fits the category of the short-duration study trip, and it has several generic learning outcomes. These include gaining intercultural intelligence of the SEA country and deepening knowledge of key SDG(s) within it, as well as expanding the student’s social and professional networks to aid their future prospects in the region.

 

This study seeks to investigate if the SFI trips meet these generic and specific learning outcomes, and the extent to which those learning outcomes are met via student perception surveys as well as questions that test student knowledge administered just before and immediately after the trip. Held during the Special Term, the first SFI trip comprised 21 students and the second 20, with both trips also including one student teaching assistant and two staff from Residential College 4, NUS. The location was Indonesia, with half the trip in Lombok and the rest in Pulau Sumba.

The survey questions were grouped within four constructs:

  1. Exposure to SEA countries
  2. Knowledge on SDGs and their local solutions
  3. Understanding of collaboration between Singapore and targeted SEA countries
  4. Understanding leadership at the fringe (specific learning outcome of the course)

 

Results from the surveys indicate that the intended learning outcomes were met. The study trip increased students’ exposure to SEA countries and local communities: the results show that students had a better knowledge of local language and geography features, and also developed a deeper understanding of local challenges and solutions from the perspective of SDGs through the trip. Moreover, exposure to the local communities had a positive impact on students’ willingness to engage in work and business opportunities in SEA countries, which might strengthen the collaboration between Singapore and SEA countries at the individual levels.

 

The significance of the study is twofold—firstly, and more generally, it supports the SFI as a value proposition that it does indeed merit the time and financial costs incurred. Secondly, the study serves as a measure of how short-term study trips can meet learning outcomes based on community engagement, leading to intercultural growth and a change in attitudes of students towards our SEA neighbours.

. 

 

REFERENCES

Carley, S., & Tudor, R. K. (2010). Assessing the impact of short-term study abroad. Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective. 1(2), Article 5. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jgi/vol1/iss2/5

Dwyer, M. M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers (Boston, Mass.), 10(1), 151–64. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v10i1.139

Sutton, R. C., & Rubin, D. L. (2004). The GLOSSARI project: Initial findings from a system
-wide research initiative on study abroad learning outcomes. Frontiers (Boston, Mass.), 10(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v10i1.133

National University of Singapore. (n.d.). Student Exchange Programme. https://www.nus.edu.sg/gro/global-programmes/student-exchange

 

Choices and Collaborations in University-Community Partnerships: Intentional Pedagogy and Its Impact on Student Learning

NUS CDTL Paper Presentations , , , , ,

Kankana MUKHOPADHYAY*, Siok Kuan TAMBYAH, and Daniel JEW
College of Alice & Peter Tan (CAPT)
*kankana.m@nus.edu.sg 

 

Mukhopadhyay, K., Tambyah, S. K., & Jew, D. (2023). Choices and collaborations in university-community partnerships: intentional pedagogy and its impact on student learning [Paper presentation]. In Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2023, 7 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecc2023proceedings/choices-and-collaborations-in-university-community-partnerships-intentional-pedagogy-and-its-impact-on-student-learning/ 
 

SUB-THEME

Communities and Education 

 

KEYWORDS

University-community partnership, study trips, experiential learning, survey analysis, intentional pedagogy 

 

CATEGORY

Paper Presentation 

 

ABSTRACT

The current discourse on “communities and education” in higher education emphasises building partnerships with diverse community stakeholders to create authentic learning opportunities for students. Studies have indicated that university-community partnerships (UCPs) can provide positive pedagogical outcomes, like enhanced quality of teaching and student access to applied learning (Buys & Bursnall, 2007). Although a great deal of research has focused on the impact of the different forms of collaboration (Kellet & Goldstein, 1999; Waddock & Walsh, 1999; Watson, 2003), research on how to organise effective UCPs in overseas experiential learning is still limited.  

 

Over the past decade, study trips at the College of Alice & Peter Tan (CAPT-STEERs)1 have invested in building relationships with overseas community partners as an intentional pedagogical practice (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2022). Classroom discussions have been complemented with field visits and real-world experiences, where students had engagements and interactions with different partners and communities and in different contexts.  

 

Careful choices were made in selecting partners, communities2 and sites3 visited, and in designing a range of interactive activities and engagements. In this presentation, we specifically examine the impact of choices of sites and communities visited, and collaborations with various partners on learning outcomes.  

 

Data for this quantitative study is derived from surveys conducted by three different CAPT STEERs—India, Myanmar, and Nepal—from 2015-2019 (see Table 1). We asked participants about the effectiveness of visits to the different sites, communities and partners, which include non-governmental organisations (NGOs), institutions of learning, businesses4, and government (see Table 2). We then examined their relationship with the multi-faceted learning outcomes of the programme, indicating participants’ perception of relevance and meaningfulness of the engagements, and level of satisfaction. We also explored whether the STEER experience had broadened students’ perspectives and enhanced their ability to perform in a globalised environment. Table 3 shows the average degree of agreement among the participants on these learning outcomes across STEERs over the years.  

 

Table 1
Number of survey respondents across STEERs (India, Myanmar, Nepal) from 2015-2019  

STEERs/Year  Frequency 
STEER India 2015  18 
STEER India 2017  11 
STEER Myanmar 2016  21 
STEER Myanmar 2017  24 
STEER Nepal 2018  13 
STEER Nepal 2019  18 

 

 Table 2
Sites, communities, partners in different STEERs/years 

STEER/Year  Sites  Communities  Partner-organisation  Partner-institution  Partner-business  Partner-government 
India 2015/2017  N = 4-6  

E.g., Gandhi Ashram, Ahmedabad;  

Lake Pichola, Udaipur; 

Rann of Kutch, Bhuj  

 N = 2-5  

E.g., Gujari market, Ahmedabad;  

Hodka village, Udaipur;  

Shilpgram, Bhuj 

 N = 6-8  

E.g., Aajeevika Bureau;  

Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA);  

Khamir;  

Hunnarshala 

 N = 1  

Indian Institute of Technology, Ahmedabad 

 N = 1-2  

Aavaran 

  
Myanmar 2016/2017  N = 6-9  

E.g., Shwedagon Pagoda Yangon;  

Bagan Archaeological Museum;  

U Bein Bridge 

 N = 1-2  

Community clinic 

 N = 2-3  

E.g., Inle Heritage Centre;  

Community Agency for Rural Developmentin Mandalay;  

Shwe Min Tha Foundation 

 N = 2  

E.g., University of Mandalay; University of Global Peace in Mandalay 

 

   N = 1 

Mandalay Regional Parliament; Singapore Embassy in Yangon 
Nepal 2018/2019  N = 6-12 E.g., Durbar Square, Kathmandu;  

Boudanath Temple 

 N = 1-7  

Bhujung village 

 N = 7  

E.g., Bikas Udhyami; Avni Centre for Sustainability (ACS); Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP); Namaste Community Foundation 

 N = 2-3  

E.g., Prithvi Narayan Campus, Tribhuban University;  

Madan Puraskar Putakalaya 

 N = 1-2  

Ecoprise 

  

N = number of sites visited/interactions with communities/engagement with partners 

 

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of the learning outcomes 

Learning Outcomes  N  Mean  SD 
Balance in pedagogies was appropriate.  95  3.45  .56 
Overall satisfaction  71  3.55  .69 
Overall field visits were relevant and meaningful   95  3.65  .54 
Broadened perspectives in an academic area/realm  70  3.5  .63 
Enhanced ability to perform in a globalized environment  70  3.41  .602 

N = Total sample size across six STEERs from 2015-2019; SD = Standard deviation 

 

Correlational analysis and the means comparisons (ANOVA) across STEERs over time were conducted. The results reveal, firstly, that the choice of sites, communities and engagement activities can significantly enhance the learning for students across STEERs. Secondly, having collaborations with diverse partners—organisations, institutions, businesses—is effective in creating positive programme outcomes. Thirdly, having well-designed programmes make a significant difference in the depth of learning among students. The findings additionally inform broader institutional best practices when seeking to integrate UCPs within the formal and co-curriculum, in terms of policy, resource deployment, and local support.  

 

These results confirm that impactful learning in experiential learning requires a mediated learning experience (Moon, 2004; Roberts, 2012). The choice of sites, communities and collaborations with partners as intentional pedagogies should provide opportunities for students to have firsthand field experience and engagement with partners to enhance their learning (Savicki, 2008; Meyers & Jones, 1993). When experiential learning is intentionally designed and employed in intercultural teaching opportunities, deep learning happens. Understanding in this area can potentially contribute to the broader knowledge base of how universities can best develop valued, sustainable UCPs to promote learning.  

 

ENDNOTES

  1. CAPT-STEERs refer to short-term overseas experiential learning programmes conducted under the auspices of the NUS Global Relations Office (GRO)’s Study Trip for Engagement and EnRichment (STEER) programme. CAPT conducted 19 STEER trips to India, Myanmar, Eastern Europe, Botswana, the Balkans, and Nepal from 2012-2022.   
  2. The term “communities” here is defined as specific places visited during the study trips where students experienced interactions and economic and cultural activities with groups of persons associated with the space. 
  3. Places of interest with respect to geography/society/history/culture. 
  4. Including social businesses and social enterprises. 

 

REFERENCES 

Buys, N., & Bursnall, S. (2007). Establishing university-community partnerships: Processes and benefits. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800601175797 

Kellet, C., & Goldstein, A. (1999). Transformation in the university and the community: The benefits and barriers of collaboration. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 91(2), 31–35. https://www.proquest.com/docview/218162491  

Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. Jossey-Bass Publishers. 

Moon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. Routledge Falmer. 

Mukhopadhyay, K., Balachandran, L., Wong, S.F., Lai, C. Y. J., Tan, X. Y. A., McGahan, K., Toh, T. C., Wong, R., & Tan, L. Y. (2022). Steering towards the internationalisation of higher education: Lessons from pedagogical interventions in overseas experiential learning programmes. Asian Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 1-19. https://nus.edu.sg/cdtl/engagement/publications/ajsotl-home/archive-of-past-issues/v12n1/steering-towards-the-internationalisation-of-higher-education-lessons-from-pedagogical-interventions-in-overseas-experiential-learning-programmes  

Roberts, J. W. (2012). Beyond learning by doing: Theoretical currents in experiential education. Routledge. 

Savicki, V. (2008). Experiential and affective education for international educators. In V. Savicki (Ed.), Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research, and application in international education (pp. 74-91). Stylus. 

Waddock, S. A., & Walsh, M. (1999). Paradigm shift: Toward a community–university community of practice. International Journal of Organisational Analysis, 7(3), 244–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028902  

Watson, D. (2003). The university in the knowledge society. In S. Bjarnason & P. Coldstream (Eds.), The idea of engagement: Universities in society (pp. 25–47). Association of Commonwealth Universities.

Skip to toolbar