ABSTRACT Title of the Dissertation: Alternative Break Programs and the Factors that Contribute to Changes in Students' Lives Elizabeth Kathleen Niehaus, Doctor of Philosophy, 2012 Dissertation directed by: Associate Professor Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education The purpose of this study was to explore the extent to and ways in which student participants in Alternative Break (AB) programs report that their AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, or study or travel abroad, or their major or career plans. Additional analysis explored the specific program characteristics related to the influence of the AB experience on students? lives in these six ways, and differences between domestic and international AB programs. The theoretical basis of this study was provided by Mezirow?s (1991, 1997, 2000) theory of Transformative Learning, Fishbein and Ajzen?s (1975) theory of Reasoned Action, and Etzioni (1992) theory of Normative-Affective Decision Making. Building on these three theories, Astin?s (1991) Inputs-Environments-Outcomes (IEO) model provided structure to the analysis and interpretation of the relationships between student, program, and institutional characteristics and the outcomes in question. The data from this study were collected as part of the National Survey of Alternative Breaks, a multi-institutional survey of students who participated in Alternative Spring Break programs in 2011. Overall 2187 students responded to the survey, representing 443 separate AB trips and 97 colleges and universities. Data from the survey were analyzed following the above conceptual framework (modified to account for the nesting of the data) using descriptive analysis and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). The results of this study show that students overwhelmingly do report that their AB experience influences these outcomes, and there are a number of program characteristics related to the influence of the AB programs. The extent to which students were emotionally challenged and able to connect their AB experience to larger social issues, the frequency with which students wrote in individual journals, the amount students learned from their interactions with community members and other students on their trip, and the comprehensiveness of the reorientation program after returning to campus were all significant, positive predictors of all or most of the outcomes explored. Finally, an international program location was significantly related to the influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to study or travel abroad. ALTERNATIVE BREAK PROGRAMS AND THE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CHANGES IN STUDENTS? LIVES by Elizabeth Kathleen Niehaus Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2012 Advisory Committee: Associate Professor Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas, Chair Dr. James Greenberg Professor Dennis Kivlighan Professor Susan R. Komives Associate Professor KerryAnn O?Meara ? Copyright by Elizabeth Kathleen Niehaus 2012 ii Acknowledgements The National Survey of Alternative Breaks was made possible through the generous support of the Mac and Lucille McEwen Research Award, the University of Maryland College of Education Support Program for Advancing Research and Collaboration, the National Association of Campus Activities (NACA), the NASPA Foundation and the ACPA Foundation. In addition to the funding agencies listed above, this project would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of faculty, colleagues, friends, family, and a large group of complete strangers. I first and foremost have to thank my advisor and dissertation chair, Karen Inkelas, who encouraged me to take on such a big research project and helped me figure out how to make it happen. I also appreciate the encouragement and support of my entire committee ? Dennis Kivlighan, Susan Komives, Jim Greenberg, and KerryAnn O?Meara ? who have served as advisors and mentors to me in many ways over the past few years. Although not on my committee, Marylu McEwen was also an amazing source of support throughout this process. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the short-term immersion program research team with whom I worked for my first few years as a doctoral student ? Susan Jones, Heather Rowan-Kenyon, Mei-Yen Ireland, and Kristan Skendall. Our project served as the inspiration for this study. Additionally, this project would not have been possible without the support of Jill Piacitelli and the rest of the staff at Break Away, the staff and student leaders at 97 institutions that agreed to participate in the study, and the over two-thousand students who took the time to fill out an admittedly lengthy survey. I hope that the results of this study are interesting and useful to all those who have been involved. I would also like to thank my parents, who have always been supportive of my educational endeavors, and my three siblings, who have provided a source of academic competition throughout my life. I am also lucky to have the support of amazing friends and colleagues who have supported me through this process, including Letitia Williams, Corbin Campbell, Jennifer King, Michele Mackie, and Daniel Ostick, among others. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my husband, Jeff Price, for being there for me throughout the entirety of my graduate school journey. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction and Problem Statement ..................................................................1 Context of the study .................................................................................................1 Internationalization and study abroad ..........................................................1 Civic engagement.........................................................................................3 Alternative Break programs .....................................................................................5 Purpose of the study .................................................................................................6 Definition of terms ...................................................................................................8 Significance............................................................................................................10 Overview of the study ............................................................................................12 Delimitations ..........................................................................................................13 Summary ................................................................................................................14 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ...................................................................................15 Theoretical framework ...........................................................................................15 Factors that contribute to transformative learning .....................................16 Transformative learning and changes in behavioral intentions .................17 Reasoned Action: The connection between intentions and behavior ........19 Normative-Affective Decision Making .....................................................21 Reasoned Action, Normative-Affective Decision Making, and Transformative Learning ...........................................................................22 Limitations of the connection between intentions and behavior ...............23 Alternative Breaks and transformative learning ....................................................24 Kiely (2004, 2005) ? TL through international service-learning ...............25 Jones, et al. (2012) ? TL through short-term immersion ...........................26 Alternative Breaks and future intentions ...................................................27 Summary ....................................................................................................31 Related literature ....................................................................................................32 Domestic community service and service-learning ...................................32 International service-learning ....................................................................36 Study abroad ..............................................................................................39 Study abroad and re-entry ..............................................................41 Short-term study abroad .................................................................42 Study abroad program characteristics ............................................44 Summary: study outcomes .........................................................................44 Factors that may contribute to changes in future intentions ..................................45 Student characteristics ...............................................................................46 iv Prior experience .............................................................................46 Gender ............................................................................................48 Race................................................................................................49 Institutional characteristics ........................................................................52 Program characteristics ..............................................................................52 Placement quality ...........................................................................53 Engagement with the ?other? .........................................................54 Connections to larger social issues ................................................58 Reflection .......................................................................................59 Program intensity ...........................................................................61 Pre-trip and on-site orientation and training ..................................62 Post-trip reorientation ....................................................................63 International vs. domestic AB programs ...............................................................64 Summary ................................................................................................................70 Chapter 3: Methods ............................................................................................................71 Introduction ............................................................................................................71 Purpose of the study ...............................................................................................71 Conceptual frameworks .........................................................................................72 Transformative learning, reasoned action, and normative-affective decision making .........................................................................................72 Astin?s (1991) IEO model ..........................................................................74 Theoretical modifications ..............................................................74 Modifications for nested data .........................................................75 Multi-level IEO framework .......................................................................79 Outcomes .......................................................................................79 Level 1: Inputs ...............................................................................80 Level 3: Distal environments .........................................................81 Level 1 and 2: Proximal environments ..........................................81 Instrumentation ......................................................................................................84 Data collection .......................................................................................................86 Sampling strategy.......................................................................................86 Survey administration ................................................................................87 Data preparation .........................................................................................88 Sample....................................................................................................................90 Institutions..................................................................................................90 Students ......................................................................................................91 Variables ................................................................................................................94 Outcomes ...................................................................................................94 Level-1: Inputs ...........................................................................................94 Class level ......................................................................................94 Gender ............................................................................................94 Race................................................................................................95 Prior AB experience .......................................................................95 Prior community service and service-learning ..............................95 Prior study and travel abroad .........................................................96 v Level-3: Distal environments .....................................................................96 Level-1 and level-2: Proximal environments .............................................97 Placement quality ...........................................................................97 Engagement with the ?other? .........................................................98 Connection to social issues ............................................................99 Reflection .....................................................................................100 Program intensity .........................................................................100 Orientation and training ...............................................................101 Reorientation ................................................................................102 Trip location .................................................................................103 Data analysis ........................................................................................................104 Research question 1 .................................................................................104 Research question 2 .................................................................................104 Research question 3 .................................................................................106 Limitations ...........................................................................................................106 Summary and conclusions ...................................................................................108 Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................109 Introduction ..........................................................................................................109 Research question one ..........................................................................................110 Intentions or plans to volunteer ................................................................112 Intentions or plans to engage in advocacy ...............................................113 Career plans .............................................................................................114 Major ........................................................................................................116 Intentions or plans to study abroad ..........................................................118 Intentions or plans to travel internationally .............................................120 Summary: Research question one ............................................................122 Research question two .........................................................................................122 Interclass correlations (ICCs) ..................................................................123 Predictors .................................................................................................123 Volunteer......................................................................................124 Advocacy .....................................................................................126 Career ...........................................................................................127 Major ............................................................................................129 Study abroad ................................................................................131 Travel internationally ...................................................................132 Summary: Research question two ............................................................161 Research question three .......................................................................................161 Summary and conclusions ...................................................................................161 Chapter 5: Discussion, implications and conclusions ......................................................163 The influence of the AB experience ....................................................................163 Relationship to the conceptual framework ..............................................166 Limitations ...............................................................................................166 Implications..............................................................................................167 The contribution of specific program characteristics ...........................................168 vi Student characteristics .............................................................................169 The role of prior experience .........................................................171 Institutional characteristics ......................................................................172 Program characteristics ............................................................................173 Placement quality .........................................................................175 Engagement with the ?other? .......................................................175 Connection to social issues ..........................................................177 Reflection .....................................................................................177 Program intensity .........................................................................179 Orientation and reorientation .......................................................180 Trip location .........................................................................................................181 Summary, conclusions and implications ..............................................................182 Appendix: Survey instrument ..........................................................................................185 References ........................................................................................................................202 vii List of Figures Figure 1. Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................12 Figure 2. Student, Institution, and Program Characteristics ............................................46 Figure 3a. Traditional IEO Model .....................................................................................78 Figure 3b. Modified IEO Model........................................................................................78 Figure 4. The Multi-level IEO Framework .....................................................................84 viii List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of Full and Reduced Samples ......................................................91 Table 2. Community Engagement ................................................................................97 Table 3. Service Engagement ........................................................................................98 Table 4. Social Issues ....................................................................................................99 Table 5: Reflection ......................................................................................................100 Table 6. Emotional Intensity .......................................................................................101 Table 7. Frequencies and descriptive statistics for outcome measures ........................110 Table 8. Comparison of volunteer activities before and after the AB experience .......112 Table 9. Cross-tabulation of extent and type of influence: Volunteer .........................113 Table 10. Comparison of advocacy activities before and after the AB experience .......113 Table 11. Advocacy issues in relation to the Alternative Break ....................................113 Table 12. Cross-tabulation of extent and type of influence: Advocacy .........................114 Table 13. Influence of the AB experience on students? career plans .............................115 Table 14. Cross-tabulation of extent and type of influence: Career ..............................116 Table 15. Influence of the AB experience on students? major .......................................117 Table 16. Cross-tabulation of extent and type of influence: Major ...............................118 Table 17. Influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to study abroad .....................................................................................119 Table 18. Cross-tabulation of extent and type of influence: Study abroad ....................120 Table 19. Influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to travel internationally ................................................................................................120 Table 20. Cross-tabulation of extent and type of influence: Travel internationally ......122 Table 21. Variance accounted for at the student, program, and university levels for each outcome variable ....................................................................123 Table 22. HLM results: Volunteer .................................................................................135 Table 23. HLM results: Advocacy .................................................................................139 Table 24. HLM results: Career ......................................................................................143 Table 25. HLM results: Major .......................................................................................147 Table 26. HLM results: Study Abroad ...........................................................................151 Table 27. HLM results: Travel Abroad ..........................................................................155 Table 28. Summary of the blocks of variables that significantly improved model fit for each outcome ............................................................................159 Table 29. Summary of significant predictors for each outcome ....................................159 1 Chapter 1: Introduction and Problem Statement For over thirty years, Alternative Break (AB) programs have provided opportunities for college students to spend their spring, summer, fall, or winter breaks engaged in community service. Break Away (2008), an organization dedicated to promoting quality AB programs, estimated that in 2008, over 64,000 students from 417 colleges and universities participated in AB programs; between 2002 and 2008 participation increased by 10-15%. A simple Google search for ?Alternative Break? or ?Alternative Spring Break? demonstrates the increasing popularity of these programs; web sites like about.com and tripadvisor.com have special sections on AB programs, and in 2008, cheaptickets.com partnered with the United Way to offer special travel deals to students participating in AB (Cheap Tickets Travel Deals, n.d.). On individual campuses such as The University of Maryland, American University, The Ohio State University, and James Madison University, the increasing participation in Alternative Breaks has led to the hiring of part- or full-time staff advisors. Context of the Study The rising popularity of AB programs is best understood in the context of two related trends in higher education ? the recent increased emphasis on internationalization and study abroad and a continued and rising emphasis on civic engagement. Various constituencies view AB programs as a way to fulfill one or both of these goals of colleges and universities. Internationalization and study abroad. Over the past decade a number of national organizations, and even the U.S. federal government, have called on colleges and universities to educate a new generation 2 of globally competent citizens to respond to the increasingly globalized world (e.g. American Council on Education, 2002; Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship, 2005). This call was heightened as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Comparing September 11 to the launching of Sputnik in 1957, the American Council on Education (2002) stated that ?the attacks of September 11 have brought America?s international preparedness to a crossroads. The global transformations of the last decade have created an unparalleled need in the United States for expanded international knowledge and skills? (p. 7). To respond to this new need for international education, in 2005 the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship (the ?Lincoln Commission?) proposed ?a bold vision for the United States: Send one million students to study abroad annually in a decade? (p. v). As a result the U.S. Congress has put forth the Paul Simon Study Abroad Act (H.R. 2410, S. 473), which passed the House of Representatives in June of 2009 but has yet to come to a vote in the Senate. This Act would establish ?an innovative new structure that will provide financial support to students to study abroad, while at the same time requiring U.S. higher education institutions to address the on-campus factors that currently impeded students? ability to study abroad? (NAFSA 2009, para. 3). Despite this push to increase internationalization through study abroad, the number of students actually studying abroad remains quite low. In 2009-2010, only 270,604 U.S. students studied abroad (Institute for International Education [IIE], 2011a). While this number is four times more than the number of students who studied abroad two decades ago, this is still only a small fraction of the over 18 million students enrolled in higher education in the U.S. (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). The 3 Institute for International Education estimated that in a given year, only one percent of the students enrolled in U.S. institutions of higher education study abroad; overall, approximately 14% of students pursuing Bachelor?s degrees study abroad at some point (IIE, 2011b). Of the students who did study abroad in 2009-2010, 56.6% did so for a period of 2 to 8 weeks (up from 54.6% in 2008-2009); only 3.9% did so for an entire academic year (down from 4.3% in 2008-2009) (IIE, 2011a). Students who do not study abroad (particularly men and students of color) often cite financial limitations or the inability or unwillingness to leave campus for such a long period of time (Dessoff, 2006; Salisbury, Umbach, Paulsen & Pascarella, 2009; Van Der Meid, 2004). Civic engagement. Alongside the more recent trends in study abroad, over the past 2-3 decades higher education has seen an increased emphasis on civic engagement. One sign of this trend is the growth of Campus Compact, a national association of college and university presidents who have made a commitment to promoting civic engagement. Campus Compact was founded in 1985 with four member institutions (Campus Compact, 2007); today Campus Compact has grown to over 1100 member institutions that collectively enroll over 6 million students (Campus Compact, 2011). This trend in higher education has run parallel to a similar trend towards volunteerism and civic engagement nationally, as can be seen in President Obama?s emphasis on increasing community service participation. Within just a few months of taking office, President Obama signed legislation tripling the size of AmeriCorps and creating new programs within AmeriCorps that will focus on health care and clean energy (Ewers, 2009). In another example, President Obama launched United We Serve 4 in June of 2009, an initiative to encourage community service over the summer and through the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. While only a few months initially, the goal was for the initiative to ?grow into a sustained, collaborative and focused effort to promote service as a way of life for all Americans? (Corporation for National and Community Service, n.d.). On college campuses, this civic engagement trend often manifests in a focus on community service and service-learning programs. Unlike the case of study abroad, the university-level and national emphasis on civic engagement, community service and service-learning seems to be reflected in the actions of college students. According to the 2009 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) survey, 71.4% of seniors reported having engaged in volunteer work during their time in college (Franke, Ruiz, Sharkness, DeAngelo & Pryor, 2010). As the Center for Liberal Education and Civic Engagement (a partnership between the American Association of Colleges & Universities and Campus Compact) pointed out, however, ?service does not automatically translate into understanding systemic sources of inequities. New research demonstrates that service alone does not provide clear pathways to informed action? (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2009). According to the 2009 CIRP data, far fewer students rate as essential or very important the following after graduating from college: becoming a community leader (42.5%), participating in a community action program (36.0%), becoming involved with programs to clean up the environment (30.2%), or influencing the political structure (23.5%). While students may be volunteering in college, that may or may not be translating into long-term civic engagement (Franke, et al., 2010). 5 Alternative Break Programs Alternative Break (AB) programs have the potential to fulfill many of the goals of the study abroad and civic engagement movements. Related to study abroad, although many AB programs are domestic, students report that both domestic and international AB trips take them out of their ?bubble? and expose them to new people and ideas (Jones, Rowan-Kenyon, Ireland, Niehaus & Skendall, 2012), much like study abroad programs do. Being very short-term (usually one week) and generally less expensive as a result, international AB programs also have the potential to attract students who would not otherwise be able to study abroad due to financial constraints and other commitments (Dessoff, 2006; Salisbury, Umbach, Paulsen & Pascarella, 2009; Van Der Meid, 2004). As a form of service-learning and civic engagement, AB programs also have the potential to contribute to civic-oriented outcomes. The existing research on AB programs suggests that students who participate in these programs learn about themselves and their own privilege, people different from themselves and complex social issues (Chaison, 2008; Jones, et al., 2012); question their values (Jones, et al., 2012; Rhoads & Neururer, 1998); strengthen their compassion for and commitment to helping others and working towards social justice (Chaison, 2008; Cooper, 2002); want to participate in future AB trips or study, travel, or work abroad (Jones, et al., 2012); question or change their major (Jones, et al., 2012; Ivory, 1997); question, change or adapt career plans (Ivory, 1997; Jones et al., 2012; McElhaney, 1998); and increase their self-confidence and sense of empowerment (Chaison, 2008; Rhoades & Neururer, 1998). Despite these very positive findings, there are a number of limitations in the current research. First, most of the existing research consists of case studies of single 6 programs at single institutions, limiting their generalizability. Second, little longitudinal research exists to show what might be the possible lasting impact of these programs. While students? intentions to change their future behavior as a result of their AB experiences (e.g., change their major or career; travel, study, work, or volunteer abroad; participate in volunteerism or activism around particular social issues; etc.) are a recurring theme in the literature, there is little evidence as to the frequency of these outcomes. Finally, although the thick description provided by the qualitative work on Alternative Breaks provides insight into how students are making meaning of their experiences, there is little evidence directly linking different program characteristics to various outcomes. As Hecht (2003) argued, ?service-learning is about the experience, yet research often fails to focus on the experience? (p. 27) ? similarly, few existing studies of AB programs examine what specifically in the experience might lead to the potential outcomes identified in the existing research. As Jones and Steinberg (2011) argued, this is a problem in the literature on service-learning and international service-learning more broadly, where a wide range of programs and experiences are labeled ?service-learning.? Purpose of the Study While there is still much left to explore in Alternative Break programs, the purpose of this study was to explore the extent to and ways in which student participants in Alternative Break programs report that their AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, or study or travel abroad, or their major or career plans. Although there are many other outcomes associated with AB and other similar programs, this study focuses on the influence of the AB experience on outcomes that last 7 well beyond the AB experience itself. These are particularly important outcomes to explore for two reasons. First, little research exists on the long-term influence of the AB experience on students? lives. Although this study only explores students? intentions, understanding intentions is the first step to understanding actual behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Second, many of the criticisms of AB and other short-term service-learning programs focus on the short time period over which these programs take place. Is it really possible to have a positive impact on communities and students in just one week? Are these programs truly ?worth it?? Understanding the ways in which the AB experience might influence students over the long term can begin to answer those questions. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following three research questions: 1. How frequently and in what ways do participants returning from AB programs report that their AB experience influenced their: (a) Intentions or plans to volunteer (b) Intentions or plan to engage in advocacy (c) Intentions or plans to study abroad (d) Intentions or plans to travel abroad (e) Major (f) Career plans 2. What program characteristics of AB programs contribute to reports of these influences? 3. Are students who participate in international AB programs more likely to report these influences than those on domestic programs, controlling for other variables? 8 Definition of Terms Before proceeding with the study, it is important to define some of the key terms utilized. For example, Break Away, a national organization that promotes and supports AB programs, defines an Alternative Break as a program that: places teams of college or high school students in communities to engage in community service? during their summer, fall, winter, weekend or spring breaks? The objectives of an alternative break program are to involve college students in community-based service projects and to give students opportunities to learn about the problems faced by members of communities with whom they otherwise may have had little or no direct contact. (Break Away, n.d. a) Although most AB programs involve travel to a different location within the United States (domestic AB programs), others take place in the same location as the college or university attended by the participating students (local AB programs) or involve travel to a different country (international AB programs). Alternative breaks can be a form of community service or service-learning, and the literature on community service and service-learning can inform our understanding of AB experiences. Service-learning is ?a form of experiential education in which students engage in activities that address human and community needs together with structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote student learning and development. Reflection and reciprocity are key concepts of service-learning? (Jacoby, 1996, p. 5). Service-learning may take place within or outside of an academic course, but must always have an intentional focus on student learning. 9 Although not defined as specifically in the literature, for the purposes of this study community service is defined as a form of volunteerism that has a similar focus to that of service-learning (?address[ing] human and community needs?), but does not include the focus on student learning and development. While community service may result in student learning and development, that is not an intentional focus of community service programs. International service-learning (ISL) programs fit the definition of service- learning above but take place in a country different from the country in which the students attend university. According to Bringle and Hatcher (2011), international service-learning is: A structured academic experience in another country in which students (a) participate in an organized service activity that addresses identified community needs; (b) learn from direct interaction and cross-cultural dialogue with others; and (c) reflect on the experience in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a deeper understanding of global and intercultural issues, a broader appreciate of the host country and the discipline, and an enhanced sense of their own responsibilities as citizens, locally and globally. (p. 19) ISL bridges the three separate yet related fields of service-learning, study abroad, and international education (Bringle & Hatcher, 2011). While some ISL programs take place over an extended period of time (e.g. service-based internships as part of a semester-long study abroad program), they are more typically similar to AB programs in that they take place over a short, intense period of time. Although there are many similarities between 10 ISL and international AB programs, ISL programs typically are tied to academic credit and last longer (2-3 weeks) than AB programs. Finally, while most AB programs are not international, they are related to study abroad in that students participating in both AB and study abroad programs involve travel to a different location and immersion in a different culture. Although commonly used, the term study abroad is not defined in the literature. For the purposes of this study, study abroad is defined as the activity of a student travelling to a country not of his/her citizenship or permanent residency and different from the country in which he or she is receiving a degree in order to earn credits that may be applied toward the academic degree. Study abroad can include programs that last from one week to one academic year and can involve a range of activities from attending classes (either with students in the host country or students from the home country) to internships and service-learning. Short-term study abroad is a study abroad program that lasts between two and eight weeks (IIE, 2011a). Significance Multiple studies have found that participating in AB experiences can lead to intentions to change one?s career or major; work, study, or travel abroad; or engage in further volunteerism or advocacy. While there are many other outcomes associated with AB and other similar programs, this study focuses on the influence of the AB experience on outcomes that last well beyond the AB experience itself ? students? major, career plans, and intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad or travel abroad. These are particularly important outcomes to explore as little research exists on the long-term influence of the AB experience on students? lives. While this study only 11 explores students? intentions, understanding intentions is the first step to understanding actual behavior. Additionally, many of the criticisms of AB and other short-term service- learning programs focus on the short time period over which these programs take place. Is it really possible to have a positive impact on communities and students in just one week? Are these programs truly ?worth it?? Alternative Break programs have great potential to bring together the best of service-learning and short-term study abroad. With the increases in the popularity of these programs, this study is significant in a number of ways. First, this study contributes to the understanding of the potential for these programs to contribute to long-term civic engagement. By identifying how frequently students express intentions to make life- changing decisions upon returning from their AB programs, we can better understand how common it is for students at least to intend to increase their civic engagement over the long-term. Additionally, understanding the frequency of these intentions provides a guide for practitioners who seek to create re-entry programming for students after they return from their AB programs. Understanding what program characteristics can contribute to students? future intentions also helps guide practitioners who seek to create quality AB programs, particularly practitioners who seek to promote long-term civic engagement through these programs. Finally, determining whether or not an international location for AB trips contributes to future intentions, above and beyond other variables, helps practitioners more effectively allocate resources to domestic or international trips. O th A th st li (I b m un w F verview of The th eory of Tran ction, and E eoretical pe udents? fram ves. Buildin EO) model etween stude odified to a iversities. Figure ithin the mo igure 1. Con the Study eoretical ba sformative tzioni (1992 rspectives d es of refere g on these th provides stru nt, program ccommodate 1 illustrate del will be ceptual Fram sis of this st Learning, F ) theory of escribe the w nce, or the b ree theories cture to the , and institu the nesting s the concep explored in m ework udy was pro ishbein and Normative-A ays in whic asis upon w , Astin?s (1 analysis an tional chara of students tual framew ore detail vided by M Ajzen?s (19 ffective De h education hich they m 991) Inputs- d interpretat cteristics an within prog ork for this in subsequen ezirow?s (19 75) theory o cision Mak al experienc ake decision Environmen ion of the re d the outcom rams, and p study; speci t chapters. 91, 1997, 2 f Reasoned ing. These es can alter s about the ts-Outcome lationships es in quest rograms wit fic construc 12 000) ir s ion, hin ts 13 As the conceptual framework illustrates, this study is based on the idea that the influence of the Alternative Break experience on students? major, career plans, and intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, and study or travel abroad is a function of individual characteristics (gender, race, and prior experience), institutional characteristics (type, size, control, commitment to Alternative Breaks as measured by total participation and membership in Break Away), and program characteristics (placement quality, engagement with the ?other,? connection to social issues, reflection, pre-trip orientation, post-trip reorientation, and trip location). The data from this study were collected as part of the National Survey of Alternative Breaks, a multi-institutional survey of students who participated in Alternative Spring Break programs during the spring of 2011. Overall 2187 students responded to the survey, representing 443 separate AB trips and 97 colleges and universities. Data from the survey were analyzed following the above conceptual framework (modified to account for the nesting of the data) using descriptive analysis and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). Delimitations This study is limited in its scope to Alternative Spring Break programs, as those are the most common and involve the greatest number of students. While one might expect similar outcomes from fall, winter, or summer AB programs, it is outside the scope of this study to explore those similarities and differences. Additionally, this study is not meant to compare AB participants and non-participants. As there is no comparison group of students who have not participated in AB programs, no conclusions can be 14 drawn about the overall effect of AB programs. Instead, this study seeks to determine different outcomes associated with various AB program characteristics. Summary This chapter provided an overview of Alternative Break programs in the context of both service-learning and study abroad and briefly outlined the proposed study to explore students? intentions to change their major or career plans, or to volunteer, engage in advocacy, or travel in the future as a result of their AB experience. The following chapter will provide a more in-depth description of the literature related to Alternative Breaks, service-learning, and study abroad. 15 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature This chapter provides an overview of the literature related to Alternative Break programs, beginning with the theoretical frameworks guiding this study, Mezirow?s (1991, 1997, 2000) theory of Transformative Learning, Fishbein and Ajzen?s (1975) theory of Reasoned Action, and Etzioni (1992) theory of Normative-Affective Decision Making. The next section contains a review of the literature on AB programs, particularly as it relates to the influence of the AB experience on students behavior and/or behavioral intentions. As noted above, the literature specifically on AB programs is limited, so related literature on domestic community service and service-learning, international service-learning, and study abroad also inform this study. From this literature, several student and program characteristics that may influence students? behavioral intentions surface, including prior experience, race, gender, placement quality, engagement with the ?other,? connection to larger social issues, reflection, program intensity, pre-trip or on- site orientation and training, and post-trip reorientation. Finally, the chapter concludes with an analysis of the importance of exploring the differences between international and domestic AB programs. Theoretical Framework The primary theoretical framework that guided this study is Mezirow' (1991, 1997, 2000) theory of transformative learning (TL). Mezirow (1997) developed his theory of transformative learning through a longitudinal, qualitative study of adult women returning to higher education. He defined transformative learning as the way in which educational experiences can change the lens through which individuals make meaning of the world ? their frames of reference. According to Mezirow, frames of 16 reference are strongly influenced by our cultural paradigms, which he described as ?collectively held frames of reference? (p. 6). The process of changing these frames is not easy, as ?we have a strong tendency to reject ideas that fail to fit our preconceptions, labeling those ideas as unworthy of consideration ? aberrations, nonsense, irrelevant, weird, or mistaken? (p. 5). In order to transform our frames of reference, we must experience something that we cannot interpret using our current frames (what Mezirow, 1991, referred to as a ?disorienting dilemma?), and must be open to finding a new way to make sense of that experience. Factors that contribute to transformative learning. For many TL scholars, critical reflection is a key component of transformative learning. Mezirow (2000) argued that frames of reference can be transformed ?by becoming critically reflective of their assumptions and aware of their context ? the source, nature, and consequences of taken-for-granted beliefs? (p. 19). Belenky and Stanton (2000) emphasized the importance of critical reflection through discourse. They explained that the assumptions upon which our frames of reference are based can be explored through reflective discourse with others, and that through this discourse we can explore alternate frames of reference. Parks Daloz (2000) elaborated on the importance of discourse in transformative learning by pointing to the importance of ?encounter(s) with the other? in transformative learning. In a study of one hundred people who had dedicated their lives to working for the common good, Parks Daloz (and others) found that all participants described ?a constructive engagement with otherness? (p. 110) as important to their learning and development. In developing a form of ?empathetic connection? (p. 110) with a person 17 different from themselves, participants were able to identify ?alternate ways of being? (p. 113) and thinking about the world. Interacting with others who already have different frames of reference facilitates the transformative learning process. Researchers examining the process of TL have identified other contributing factors. For example, Barlas (2000) conducted a constructivist case study of twenty adult students in a Transformative Learning and Change Program. According to these students, the primary conditions that supported their transformative learning included the design of the program as a learning community; experiential learning; intensive weekend and week-long residential experiences, which facilitated opportunities for students to learn across difference within the group, but which also created conflicts within the group that had to be dealt with; and the professors? learner-centered and participatory approach to the program. In a quantitative assessment of TL, K.P. King (2004) used the Learning Activities Survey to assess the activities that influenced TL for 58 students in an introduction to adult education course over four years. The learning activities that were most frequently cited by those who experienced perspective transformation included discussion (69.4%), journals (52.8%), reflection (47.2%), readings (47.2%), and class activities (36.1%). People influenced 72% of those who experienced transformation ? 33% cited teacher challenge and support (separately) and 28% classmate support. Transformative learning and changes in behavioral intentions. According to Mezirow?s (2000) theory, ?a mindful transformative learning experience requires that the learner make an informed and reflective decision to act on his 18 or her reflective insight? (p. 24). This is reflected in Mezirow?s (1991) ten phases of perspective transformation: 1. A disorienting dilemma 2. Self-examination with feelings of guilt or shame 3. A critical assessment of epistemic, sociocultural, or psychic assumptions 4. Recognition that one?s discontent and the process of transformation are shared and that others have negotiated a similar change 5. Exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions 6. Planning a course of action 7. Acquisition of knowledge and skills for implementing one?s plans 8. Provisional trying of new roles 9. Building of competence and self-confidence in new roles and relationships; and 10. A reintegration into one?s life on the basis of conditions dictated by one?s new perspective. (pp. 168-169) The last six phases all deal with planning and executing actions as a result of the transformative experience. Consistent with Mezirow?s (1991) theory, a number of studies have shown that people who undergo transformative experiences make significant changes to their lives as a result of these experiences. For example, students in Barlas?s (2000) case study of students in the Transformative Learning and Change Program reported an increased sense of agency, empowerment, and clarity of purpose around social justice work. They also reported a desire to integrate their new knowledge into their everyday lives. 19 In one of the few studies of TL experiences of undergraduate students, Hashimoto (2007) explored TL through a constructivist case study of 14 current students and 8 alumni of a course on environmental education. Through the course, Hashimoto found that students became aware of social issues, and the course inspired them to seek out additional knowledge on their own as they realized that there were gaps in their knowledge. Students expressed an increased commitment to addressing social issues and gained skills and confidence in their ability to engage in social change work. According to Hashimoto, 11 out of the 14 participants stated their intention to engage in work that sought to address certain social issues at some point in the future? A number of the participants already had plans to engage in such work even before coming to class, but all of them stated that the course gave them clearer visions about the types of work and the means to find such work for themselves. (p. 240) Four students decided to apply for Teach for America and one student decided to work with disadvantaged communities in South East Asia. Another student continued in her plan to be a teacher, but became more open to working in disadvantaged schools. Many students also began to engage in volunteerism and activism around various social issues, including but not limited to the environment; all participants committed to making life choices that were more congruent with their environmental knowledge. Reasoned Action: The connection between intentions and behavior. While Mezirow?s (1991, 1997, 2000) theory describes that a transformative learning experience can inspire learners to make significant changes in their lives, Meziow failed to detail the mechanism by which TL influences behavior. Fishbein and 20 Ajzen?s (1975) Theory of Reasoned Action can help illuminate in more detail how people form intentions, and the connection between those intentions and behavior. According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), ?intentions are viewed as the immediate antecedents of corresponding overt behaviors? (p. 382). As such, it is important first to understand intention to behave in a certain way before we can understand the actual behavior. Fishbein and Ajzen outline four components of a behavioral intention ? ?the behavior, the target object at which the behavior is directed, the situation in which the behavior is to be performed, and the time at which the behavior is to be performed? (p. 292, emphasis in original) ? and explain that intentions can be more or less specific along each of these components. Global intentions are the most general (non-specific along each component) and tend to be the most closely related to attitudes, but attitudes alone are not enough to predict a person?s behavioral intention. Another important consideration is the subjective norm associated with that behavior ? ?the person?s perception that most people who are important to him think he should or should not perform the behavior in question? (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 302). According to Fishbein?s Model for the Prediction of Intentions, behavioral intentions are a function of an individual?s attitude towards the behavior and the subjective norm associated with that behavior, which can be combined in varying weights. As Fishbein and Ajzen described, changes to behavior must be preceded by changes in behavioral intentions, which result from changes in an individuals? attitude toward the behavior, his or her subjective norm associated with the behavior, or the relative weight given to these components. Underpinning these changes to attitude, subjective norm, or weight is changes to the individual?s primary beliefs, which are the 21 underlying constructs that determine the way an individual perceives information. It is only through changing primary beliefs that attitudes, subjective norms, intentions, and behavior can be changed. Normative-Affective Decision Making Etzioni (1992) provided an alternative view of how a person?s frame of reference (in Mezirow?s terms) influences his or her intentions and behavior, and expanded on Fishbein and Ajzen?s ideas of primary beliefs and subjective norms, through his theory of Normative-Affective Decision Making. According to Etzioni, ?normative-affective factors shape to a significant extent decision making, the extent it takes place, the information gathered, the ways it is processed, the inferences that are drawn, the options that are being considered, and those that are finally chosen? (p. 91). These normative- affective factors influence decision making by exclusion or inference, which limit or completely circumvent an objective, rational decision making process. In exclusion, normative-effective factors can eliminate behavioral options completely by dictating those options that are outside of any consideration, usually due to culturally-defined ethical or moral taboos. These factors dictate what is and is not considered acceptable behavior. Infusion can take place either through loading or intrusion. In loading, an individual gives undue weight to one option or another due to social or cultural norms; in intrusion, factors such as stress, time constraints, and cognitive limitations on the ability to consider all relevant factors interfere with rational, logical decision-making. 22 Reasoned Action, Normative-Affective Decision Making, and Transformative Learning The theories of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and Normative- Affective Decision Making (Etzioni, 1992) help illuminate how a transformative learning experience can change an individual?s behavioral intentions. Mezirow?s (1991, 1997, 2000) ?frames of reference? are parallel to Fishbein and Ajzen?s ?primary beliefs? and Etzioni?s ?normative-affective factors.? All of these constructs describe the ways in which people view the world ? what they believe to be true, the ways in which they interpret the world around them, and the lenses through which they view what is possible and what is not, what is valuable and what is not. When those frames of reference, primary beliefs, or normative-affective factors are transformed, the very foundation upon which an individual makes decisions about his or her life is also transformed. The parallels between these theories can be seen in how Mezirow and Fishbein and Ajzen describe the ways in which a person?s primary beliefs or frames of reference can be changed. For example, one way that Fishbein and Ajzen identified that it is possible to change primary beliefs is through active participation with others. They noted that ?a person rarely questions his own observations? (p. 412), but through interactions with others he or she may be exposed to new observations that lead to the formation of new primary beliefs. As described above, Mezirow (2000) argued that frames of reference can be transformed ?by becoming critically reflective of their assumptions and aware of their context ? the source, nature, and consequences of taken-for-granted beliefs? (p. 19). Other TL scholars, such as Parks Daloz (2000), have expanded on the importance of engagement with diverse others in the transformative learning experience. 23 Limitations of the connection between intentions and behavior. It is important to note that these life changes that people report as a result of their transformative learning experiences are generally not easy to make, and these challenges may prevent the individual from fully acting on his or her transformative experience. As Mezirow (1991) explained, the difficulties that perspective transformations involve for the learner and the typically difficult negotiation, compromise, stalling, backsliding, self-deception, and failure that one observes in transformative learning? It is not enough to understand intellectually the need to change the way one acts; one requires emotional strength and an act of will in order to move forward. Backsliding in the process of transformation may be explained by the learner acquiring an insight that results in a transformation in meaning scheme that may contribute over time toward a change in meaning perspective but at the moment comes into conflict with the established meaning perspective and is overwhelmed by it. The learner then becomes unable to act upon his or her new insight. The power of the threat presented by actions inspired by a new meaning perspective depends upon the nature of the threat, how pressing the disorienting dilemma was that initiated the process, and how effectively the learner has personalized and integrated into his or her experience what has been learned about the epistemic, sociocultural, or psychic forces that affect his or her way of understanding. (p. 171) Both Barlas (2000) and K.P. King (2004) observed this difficulty that students faced in integrating their new perspectives into their existing lives. Barlas noted the difficulty that students found in relating their new worldviews to family members who had not shared in 24 the transformative learning experience. As Barlas described, ?The stories of these learners reflect some of the struggles they experienced with actually living and acting with this shifting awareness and appreciation of different perspectives; they sometimes felt split between their old and new ways of thinking? (p. 211). K.P. King similarly noted the risks associated with perspective transformation; often the biggest barrier to transformative learning is students? fear that they will no longer be accepted by classmates, friends, and family. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) provide further insight into why learners? intentions immediately after a transformative learning experience may not translate into changes in behavior. They describe three factors that influence the connection between intention and behavior ? ?the degree to which intention and behavior correspond in their levels of specificity; stability of the intention; and the degree to which carrying out the intention is completely under the person?s volitional control? (p. 369) ? along with a number of factors that may interfere with this connection. These include a lack of ability or resources to enact the behavior, the lack of cooperation from a necessary other person, or the force of old habits. The amount of time between when the intention is formed/measured and when the behavior is to be carried out also lessens the relationship between the two. This may in part be due to actual changes in intention over time, or to other challenges faced in implementing that intention. Alternative Breaks and Transformative Learning Few if any studies exist that directly and specifically connect AB programs and TL. However, two very closely related studies use TL as a framework for exploring short-term international service-learning (ISL) (Kiely, 2004, 2005) and short-term 25 immersion programs (Jones, et al., 2012). Each of these studies can provide insight into the application of TL theory to AB programs. Kiely (2004, 2005) ? TL through international service-learning. In a longitudinal case-study of a two-week service-learning course in Nicaragua, Kiely (2004) found significant evidence of transformative learning through international service-learning. Interviewing 22 community college students who took part in this ISL program over the course of seven years, Kiely identified three major themes related to transformative learning ? envisioning, transforming forms, and the chameleon complex. In the theme of envisioning, Kiely (2004) identified how students were able to envision how they would live out their commitment to social justice upon returning to the United States. As Kiely explained, ?participants initially ?envisioned? changes to their lifestyles, relationships, and social policies to coincide with their newly found critical awareness of the systemic forces underlying the economic disparities, health problems, and poverty witnessed in Nicaragua? (p. 10). In transforming forms, Kiely identified changes in students? worldviews along one of six dimensions: political, moral, intellectual, cultural, personal, or spiritual. This theme also included evidence of action or intended action; political transformation included advocacy on behalf of the poor or efforts to raise awareness about poverty, and personal transformation involved efforts to live a more socially conscious lifestyle and to change career or educational goals. Finally, the chameleon complex reflected ?the difficulties that perspective transformations involve for the learner? (Mezirow, 1991, p. 171). Upon returning to the United States, students struggled to integrate their changed worldviews into their lives and to implement their envisioned plans. The chameleon complex ?represent[ed] the 26 internal struggle between conforming to, and resisting, dominant norms, rituals, and practices in the United States? (p. 15). Kiely argued that the ?chameleon complex suggests that a transformation in one?s worldview is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for changing lifestyles, challenging mainstream norms, and engaging in collective action to transform existing social and political institutions? (p. 16). Expanding on these findings, Kiely (2005) later developed a model of the process by which students experience transformative learning in these types of experiences. He described five themes in his process model: contextual border crossing, dissonance, personalizing, processing, and connecting, which parallel Mezirow?s (1991) ten-phase model of transformative learning. Jones, et al. (2012) ? TL through short-term immersion. Building on Kiely?s (2004, 2005) findings describing TL through ISL, Jones, et al. (2012) conducted a case study of four short-term immersion programs, three of which were AB programs and one of which was a week-long short-term study abroad program. Related to TL, Jones, et al. found that these experiences took students ?out of the bubble? (p. 207) and challenged their existing frames of reference. As a result of their immersion experiences, students reported coming to ?new understandings of themselves, complex social issues, and other cultures? (p. 214), and upon returning home students reported attempting to act out these new understandings, which ?came in the form of reexamining technology and its place in their lives, reconsidering their role in the world, challenging the bubble in which they found themselves on campus, and determining how their experiences would influence future plans? (p. 212). Students expressed desires to change their future behavior, including participating in another alternative break program; 27 studying, traveling, or working abroad; exploring new majors or courses in which they could learn more about the issues they had come to care about; and changing or adapting career plans. Jones et al.?s (2012) findings reflected Kiely?s (2005) process model, particularly in the areas of ?student interest in incorporating social justice work upon return, shifting world views, and difficult reentry as participants tried to make sense of incorporating new learning into their lives? (Jones, et al., 2012, p. 215). Together these studies demonstrate the ways in which Mezirow?s (1991, 1997, 2000) theory of transformative learning can be applied to experiences such as Alternative Breaks, which take students out of their comfort zone, expose them to new people and ideas, and encourage them to explore their values and future plans. Alternative Breaks and future intentions Kiely (2004) and Jones, et al. (2012) both identified the potential for Alternative Break programs to facilitate transformative learning and thus influence students? future intentions. A number of other studies of AB programs, while not specifically using the framework of transformative learning, also point to the potential for these programs to influence long-term behaviors. For example, Jones, et al. (2009) looked at a single AB trip that had been part of the original Jones, et al. (2012) multi-site case study, following up one year later with 5 students who had participated in an AB trip to New York City to work with people living with HIV/AIDS. They found that even after a year, students ?described their ASB trip experiences as a contributing ?catalyst,? for finding one?s career path? (p. 20). Students reported plans to join the Peace Corps, engage in non-profit 28 work, and attend graduate school, and had ?newfound or reaffirmed ambitions to ?help people? after the ASB trip? (p. 20). Case studies of other AB programs have identified similar findings. Ivory (1997) reported on findings from extensive interviews with 17 participants returning from Alternative Spring Break trips. While he expected students to report a sense of elation and personal satisfaction, he found that students were experiencing a number of cognitive and affective difficulties upon return to campus. Among these difficulties were those related to academics, including questioning of major and career choices. McElhaney (1998) interviewed 22 participants in a local alternative break program, and found that students reported a variety of outcomes, including broadening educational and career goals. While she did not report any major career changes in her participants, she did note that a number of participants came to see how they could include service to the community within their existing plans. For example, a pre-law student came to see the potential power of a person with a law degree working in a non- profit organization and an architecture student saw how urban planning could benefit the community. Through interviews with 24 students participating in an AB trip to rural South Carolina, Rhoads and Neururer (1998) found that students came to new understandings of themselves, others, and community. Of particular relevance to students? future intentions was what they learned about themselves ? students reported that through their experiences in South Carolina they discovered new abilities and increased their own self- confidence. Students also began to question their previously held values and felt a new or increased sense of responsibility to help others. 29 In the only study summarized here to use a completely non-White sample, Chaison (2008) interviewed nine Hispanic/Mexican-American students (many of whom were first-generation American) who participated in an AB trip to Mexico as part of a service-learning course. Students reported that as a result of the experience in Mexico they recognized their own privilege and increased their compassion for others and commitment to helping others. This commitment took different forms depending on the student, with one student resolving to give money to poor people on the street while another committed to work for structural change to address poverty. According to Chaison, each student reported at least one of the transformational learning processes she identified ? ?empowered sense of self, an increase in self-confidence in new roles and relationships, fundamental changes in the way learners see him/herself [sic] and his/her life assumptions, increased functional strategies and resources for taking action and gaining control over one?s life, and compassion for others? (p. 110). Other themes included increases in students? multi- and cross-cultural competence, personal and interpersonal development as a result of interactions with peers and community members, and the importance of critical reflection. While the above are all qualitative studies, Cooper (2002) used a quantitative approach, using the Social Responsibility Inventory to measure changes in students? values and commitments as a result of participation in an AB experience. This Inventory measures the degree to which students agree that community service experiences have strengthened their commitments to items such as ?intention to serve others in need? and ?intention to work on behalf of social justice? (p. 98). He found that students who had participated in an Alternative Spring Break program scored higher on the Social 30 Responsibility Inventory than did students who had participated in a curricular service- learning course; there was no difference between ASB participants and students who participated in traditional community service through a service fraternity. Cooper acknowledged, however, that much of this difference might be explained by initial differences between students who choose to participate in ASB experiences (which require more self-motivation and thus potentially greater pre-experience SRI scores) and those who choose to take a service-learning course. The studies summarized above provide evidence of the potential of AB programs to lead to a number of positive outcomes, particularly related to changes in students? behavioral intentions. Students who participate in these programs learn about themselves and their own privilege, people different from themselves and complex social issues (Chaison, 2008; Jones, et al., 2012); question their values (Jones, et al., 2012; Rhoads & Neururer, 1998); strengthen their compassion for and commitment to helping others and working towards social justice (Chaison, 2008; Cooper, 2002); want participate in future AB trips or study, travel, or work abroad (Jones, et al., 2012); question or change their major (Jones, et al., 2012; Ivory, 1997); question, change or adapt career plans (Ivory, 1997; Jones, et al., 2012; McElhaney, 1998); and increase their self-confidence and sense of empowerment (Chaison, 2008; Rhoades & Neururer, 1998). Despite these positive findings, there are a number of significant limitations to the current research on AB programs. First, most of the current research involves qualitative case studies of individual programs and single institutions. While the thick description provided by some of these studies is helpful in understanding the ways in which those participants understood and made meaning of their own experiences, these findings are 31 limited in their generalizability. The one quantitative study found on AB programs fails to take into account student differences prior to their AB or other service-learning experiences, and so the findings may or may not point to outcomes that result from AB experiences. Individual program/institution studies are also limited in their generalizability in that not all AB programs are the same. It is difficult to draw conclusions about AB programs in general based on the experiences of students in a very specific AB program. While some of these studies (particularly Kiely, 2004, and Jones, et al., 2012) provided detailed description of the program characteristics identified by students as contributing to positive outcomes, qualitative research cannot point to statistical relationships between program characteristics and outcomes. Summary. The above section describes the theoretical frameworks that guide this study ? Mezirow?s (1991, 1997, 2000) theory of Transformative Learning, Fishbein and Ajzen?s (1975) theory of Reasoned Action, and Etzioni (1992) theory of Normative-Affective Decision Making. These theories provide a framework with which to understand the ways in which Alternative Break experiences can influence students behavioral intentions (for example, their intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study or travel abroad, or their major or career plans). The literature that directly connects AB experiences to transformative learning theory and these types of behavioral intentions was also summarized. The next section will describe related research in the areas of domestic community service and service-learning, international service-learning, and study abroad. 32 Related Literature As noted above, the literature specifically on Alterative Break programs is limited in number and content. Therefore, an examination of research on related programs will be examined in order to further explore the possible relationship between students, program characteristics, and changes in future intentions. As AB programs are a form of service- learning, the general service-learning literature will first be explored, followed by the more specific and closely related literature on international service-learning. Finally, the study abroad literature will be examined for its potential to provide insight into the cultural immersion aspect of AB programs. Domestic community service and service-learning. Various quantitative studies (e.g. Astin & Sax, 1998; Astin, Sax & Avalos, 1999; Denson, Vogelgesang & Saenz, 2005; Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000) have used data from the Cooperative Institutional Research Project (CIRP), a large multi-institutional study of college environments and outcomes, and have found a relationship between participating in community service and service-learning and commitment to long-term action-oriented values, such as: ? participating in a community action program ? help others who are in difficulty ? help promote racial understanding ? becoming involved in programs to help clean-up the environment ? influencing social values ? influencing the political structure ? serving the community 33 ? developing a meaningful philosophy of life (Astin & Sax, 1998; Astin, Sax & Avalos, 1999) In terms of future intentions, these studies have found community service and service- learning experience to be a positive predictor of students? plans to: ? do volunteer work ? work for a non-profit organization ? participate in a community service organization in the future (Astin & Sax, 1998) Students who participate in community service and service-learning also are more likely to disagree with the statement ?realistically an individual can do little to bring about changes in our society? (Astin & Sax, 1998, p. 256), and to: ? attend graduate school ? donate money to their alma mater ? socialize with someone from a different racial or ethnic group ? participate in volunteer or community service work after college More specifically, Vogelgesang and Astin (2000) found that the strongest outcome of service participation in general was choosing a service-related career, independent of freshman year career choice, while Denson, Vogelgesang and Saenz (2005) found that students who participated in service-learning were more likely than those who had not participated in any service to be politically engaged after graduating from college, including both voting and non-voting political behavior. These studies based on the CIRP data provide a number of benefits in understanding outcomes related to community service and service-learning participation. 34 First, the CIRP is a large-scale survey utilizing a large sample size across many institutions, which increases the generalizability of these findings. Second, the outcomes listed above are supported by CIRP data over many years ? the studies cited above range from 1998 through 2005. Despite these strengths there are a number of limitations to the CIRP data. First, the definition of community service is broad and left up to the student respondents themselves. There is no clear picture of exactly what students are doing in stating that they participate in ?community service.? As such, while the CIRP data provides a broad overview of the outcomes related to community service participation, there is no way to identify what program characteristics influence these outcomes. As community service programs can differ greatly, this data provides little utility in understanding the details of these programs or in program design. Eyler and Giles (1999) looked much more specifically at service-learning experiences and identified a number of positive outcomes associated with service- learning participation. These included increased tolerance for diversity, personal efficacy, leadership skills, wanting to have a career helping others, openness to new views, ability to identify a systemic problem locus, and placing importance on volunteering, social justice, changing policy, and influencing the political structure. Eyler and Giles also identified individual program characteristics that influenced these outcomes, including placement quality, connection between service work and academic content, reflection (both discussion and writing), community voice, and the opportunity for students to interact with people different from themselves. 35 Other studies have also provided evidence that service-learning has the potential to influence students? future plans. Moely, McFarland, Miron, Mercer, and Ilustre (2002) looked at courses that offered optional service-learning and compared 212 students who had completed the service-learning assignment with 324 who had not. The authors found, among other things, that students who had participated in the service-learning experience showed significantly greater increases than the non-service-learning group in their intentions to be involved in the community in the future. Jones and Hill (2004) explored the long-term influences of a service-learning course and found that students reported a number of enduring influences. As a result of the service-learning experience, students integrated the importance of helping others into their sense of personal identity. Similarly, participants reported making career decisions based on the importance they placed on helping others. Some students changed career plans completely, as in the case of the student who decided to join Americorps instead of taking a high-paying job, while others modified plans, as in the case of the student who decided to go to medical school in order to practice community-based medicine. Some students had directly integrated the social issue they had learned about through their service placement, while others generalized their experiences to work on other social issues. Overall the domestic service-learning literature provides strong support for the relationship between participating in service-learning and students? future intentions. Studies have shown that students who participate in service-learning often intend to participate in volunteerism or advocacy in the future, and that service-learning can have a strong influence on students? career plans. It is unclear how well these outcomes may translate to Alternative Break programs, however, as there are a number of differences 36 between AB programs and the service-learning programs examined in many of these studies. First, most of these studies deal with academic, course-based service-learning, while most AB programs are co-curricular ? AB programs may have formal pre-trip training that includes academic learning, but rarely are they part of a credit-bearing course. Second, AB programs always take place as part of an intensive, week-long (or just slightly longer) experience, while the students engaged in service-learning programs in the studies above generally volunteer weekly over the course of an entire semester. Astin and Sax (1998) found that longer duration of service involvement was associated with significant positive effects on civic engagement outcomes, even after controlling for type of service, so it is quite possible that the short-term AB programs may not show the same outcomes as long-term service-learning programs. International service-learning. While the general service-learning literature generally addresses service-learning as part of a semester-long course, international service-learning is much more likely to happen in an intense, short-term experience. Similar to Alternative Break trips, international service-learning (ISL) involves travel to a different location (in this case, almost always somewhere outside the U.S.) in order to engage in a service-learning project of some sort. ISL almost always involves academic credit, but the academic course can be contained within the international experience or take place before or after the international experience. A number of studies, all single-program qualitative case studies, have explored ISL programs. These studies illustrate the diversity within the broad category of ISL ? these programs can range from two weeks (e.g. Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005; Ferrence & 37 Bell, 2004) to an entire semester (e.g. Pisano 2007); some are self-contained courses (e.g. Pagano 2003), while others involved a course before and after the international experience (e.g. Elble 2009); topics for the courses ranged from women and literature (e.g. Pagano, 2003) to teacher education (e.g. Ferrence & Bell, 2004) to HIV/AIDS (e.g. Elble, 2009). While most of these programs involved travel outside of the U.S., one program immersed students in an immigrant community within the U.S. (Ferrence & Bell, 2004). The outcomes identified in these case studies reflect what has been found in the AB literature. Students reported that as a result of these programs they changed their major (C.E. King, 2006; Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005) or career goals (C.E. King, 2006; Pisano, 2007); committed to integrating their new knowledge into their future career (Ferrence & Bell, 2004); explored different academic courses (Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005); desired to participate in future study or travel abroad (Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005); learned about and gained empathy for the host culture (Pagano, 2003; Ferrence & Bell, 2004); felt that they had changed as people (Pisano, 2007); and became more aware of social problems (Elble, 2009). Interestingly, two of these case studies reported conflicting evidence of the effect of these programs on students? sense of efficacy; Pisano (2007) reported that students gained a more realistic view of their own ability to make a difference through service (lower efficacy), while Elble (2009) reported that students demonstrated an increased efficacy to help others. One of these studies in particular highlighted the great potential of these programs to contribute to students? future plans. Ferrence and Bell (2004) conducted a case study of 25 undergraduate education majors who took part in a two-week cultural immersion 38 with a Latino community in Georgia. While technically a domestic trip, students were immersed in a Latino community where most people spoke Spanish; many of the culture shock and immersion experiences of these students parallel those experienced by students travelling abroad. Students in this program reported that through their own experience being an outsider and not understanding what was going on around them (most students did not speak Spanish) they gained a greater understanding of cultural differences and empathy for immigrant children in their own future classrooms. They also came to a new understanding of the mismatch of immigrant children?s cultural background and the culture of U.S. classrooms, particularly in the ways in which lessons presume cultural knowledge that may be different for Latino children. This experience influenced their philosophies around teaching ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) and their plans to use more culturally relevant and diverse strategies in the classroom. While these qualitative studies provide great insight into the outcome of specific programs for specific students, as with the current literature on AB programs, the research on ISL programs has many limitations. Similar to the AB literature, the reliance in the ISL literature on single-program case studies limits the generalizability of the findings of these studies and the ability to connect program characteristics and outcomes. Additionally, due to the variation in data collection and analysis and in the emergent themes of these studies, it is hard to draw comparisons to find themes among the studies. For example, as mentioned above two studies (Elble, 2009; Pisano, 2007) provided conflicting evidence as to the effect of ISL on students? sense of efficacy; a third study (C.E. King, 2006) reported on a related theme ? students in this program came to recognize that they got more out of the experience than the community being served. 39 Unfortunately it is hard to make sense out of these findings due to the lack of comparability among these studies. Study abroad. While usually not involving a service-learning component, the study abroad literature can also contribute to a greater understanding of AB programs, particularly the immersive nature of these programs. The study abroad literature is also much more extensive than the ISL literature, accounting for some of the limitations therein. A number of different outcomes have been shown to be associated with study abroad participation. These include increased knowledge of other cultures (Williams, 2005) and interest in learning about other cultures (Carson, Burn, Useem & Yachimowicz, 1990; Forgues, 2005; Hadis, 2005; Hutchins, 1996); greater enjoyment of intercultural interactions and questioning and challenging one?s own beliefs (Forgues, 2005); greater intercultural understanding and communication (Bates, 1997; Hutchins, 1996; Williams, 2005); increased openness to diversity (Black & Duhon, 2006; Forgues, 2005); and increased likelihood to personalize people from other cultures (Drews & Meyer, 1996). Students who study abroad also score higher on measures of Global Mindedness (Golay, 2006; Smith, 2008) and intercultural sensitivity (Forgues, 2005) than those who do not. In fact, in a study of predictors of intercultural development in college, studying abroad was one of the strongest environmental predictors of growth (Carter, 2006). Study abroad has also been shown to have an effect on students? career plans; Donahue (2009) and Orahood, Kruze and Pearson (2004) found that students who studied abroad expressed a desire to work overseas. While only 51% of the non-study abroad 40 students in Orhood et al.?s study reported an interest in working overseas, 86% of those who studied abroad did. In a survey of study abroad alumni, Wallace (1999) found that studying abroad had influenced the majority of alumni?s career choice, development, or advancement. Despite the fact that the research on study abroad has employed a wide array of methods, there are some common and significant limitations to the existing research. First, in many of the studies cited above, the analysis of data is quite superficial for both qualitative and quantitative research. In a qualitative example, Dohanue (2009) simply reported a summary of interviews without any cited methodology guiding his analysis. As a result of this, his findings are presented in a very shallow manner. The quantitative studies often do not provide much more sophisticated analysis. For example, Wallace (1999) only provides descriptive statistics on his data without any analysis of significance or relationships between and among variables. Similarly, Orhood, Kruse and Pearson (2004) report on differences between students who had studied abroad and those who had not, but provided no statistical analysis of the significance of these differences. Two other problems limit the methodological rigor of the quantitative studies cited above. First, many of these studies reported a very low response rate (e.g. Golay, 2006 ? 73 responses out of 586 possible cases; Carter, 2006 ? 97 usable cases out of 1952 possible). Second, many of the comparison groups used in these studies are questionable. Forgues (2005) compared students who had studied abroad with those who had not (or had not yet), and found no significant differences in how often students in each group interacted with people different from themselves, perhaps indicating that students who chose to study abroad already value diverse interactions. Other studies (Golay, 2006; 41 Orhood, Kruze & Pearson, 2004; Smith, 2008) compared students who study abroad to general students who had not studied abroad, which may be an inappropriate comparison group, particularly without a pretest to measure differences between those who do and do not choose to study abroad. Other studies (e.g. Wallace, 1999) used no comparison group, which limits the conclusions that can be drawn from those analyses. Study abroad and re-entry. A particularly relevant subset of the study abroad research deals with what happens when students return home after studying abroad. Similar to findings by Kiely (2004) and Ivory (1997) on the challenges that students face when returning from ISL or AB programs, study abroad re-entry research reflects ?the difficulties that perspective transformations involve for the learner? (Mezirow, 1991, p. 171). Butcher (2002) interviewed 50 Asian students after they had returned home from attending university in New Zealand. He found that these graduates experienced a number of struggles upon returning to their countries of origin, including feelings of distance from friends and a change in their worldview. Casteen (2006) identified a number of ways in which American students experience difficulty upon returning home after studying abroad for a semester or year, including strain in relationships with friends and family, feelings of loneliness or depression, changing interests in extracurricular activities, and changes in political views or perspectives on America. Similarly, Raschio (1987) found that students returning from a semester abroad had gained new perspectives on themselves and the world and sought out ways to enact those new perspectives and integrate those perspectives into their lives; unfortunately, he did not describe how students sought to do this. 42 Wilson (1987) described one way that students may act out new perspectives upon returning home by acting as bridge-builders, using their newfound cultural knowledge to make connections between the United States and other cultures. Similar to Jones and Hill?s (2004) finding on career intentions resulting from service-learning experience, Wilson pointed out that these bridge-building activities were often not with the host culture, but were more generalized. Wilson also described three ways that students use their cross-cultural experience in the future. Students? study abroad experiences often lead to desires for further cross-cultural experiences, may influence career plans (either through desiring a career that involves living or travelling abroad or incorporating cultural or language skills into current career plans), and/or inspire the pursuit of greater understanding of international/global issues, which may involve acting out that greater understanding through local volunteer activities, advocacy, or fundraising for international organizations. Short-term study abroad. One limitation of the applicability of the findings of the research on study abroad to AB programs is that many of the programs examined in the study abroad literature last at least one semester, while AB programs typically only last one week. Studies on shorter-term study abroad programs have shown mixed results. For example, Smith (2008) found a weak, positive correlation between the amount of time spent traveling abroad (from one week to over a year) and cognitive outcomes. Casteen (2006) found that program duration had a positive correlation with academic immersion (e.g. taking classes with students of the host culture in the host language), but no correlation with other measures of immersion. She also found, however, that students on longer programs 43 did experience significantly more reverse culture shock upon returning home than did students on shorter programs. Kehl and Morris (2007) compared the global mindset of students who studied abroad for a semester, students who studied abroad for eight weeks or less, and students who had applied for and been accepted into a study abroad program who had not yet studied abroad. Both study abroad experiences were with island programs, where students take classes through their home university and mainly interact with faculty and students from their home campus. Kehl and Morris found no significant differences in global mindedness of students who had studied abroad for eight weeks or less and those who had not yet studied abroad; students who studied abroad for a semester showed significantly higher scores on global mindedness than students in either other group. While this finding might indicate that shorter international programs are not sufficient to influence students? global mindset, it is important to note that island programs do not allow for much interaction with the host community. It is possible that the short-term group did not have enough time to leave the island, while the longer-term group did; a short-term program that encouraged high levels of cross-cultural interaction may show different results. Chieffo and Griffiths (2004) came to a different conclusion about short-term study abroad as a result of a survey of over fifteen hundred students studying abroad for a five-week winter term and over eight hundred students who stayed on campus and took similar courses during the same time period. They found that outcomes associated with this short-term program were similar to those that other studies have found of longer-term study abroad programs. While this study did not compare short-term and long-term study 44 abroad, the outcomes for students on this short-term study abroad program were promising, supporting the possibility of short-term programs to have similar transformative learning outcomes to long-term programs. Study abroad program characteristics. The study abroad literature unfortunately provides much less guidance than the service-learning literature as to specific program characteristics of value. Researchers at the University of Georgia are currently engaged in a project to study learning outcomes associated with study abroad, and Phase V of the study will examine how various program characteristics relate to learning outcomes (Sutton and Rubin, 2004). Unfortunately, nothing has been published on this phase of their research to date. Very few other studies exist that examine specific program characteristics of study abroad related to outcomes; most treat study abroad as a single entity and explore outcomes associated with simply studying abroad. Summary: Study Outcomes The sections above summarize the many positive outcomes associated with Alternative Breaks, domestic community service and service-learning, international service learning, and study abroad. Multiple studies have found that participating in these types of experiences can lead to intentions to change one?s career or major; work, study, or travel abroad; or engage in further volunteerism or advocacy. While there are many other outcomes associated with AB and other similar programs, this study focuses on the influence of the AB experience on outcomes that last well beyond the AB experience itself ? students? major, career plans, and intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad or travel abroad. These are particularly important outcomes to 45 explore for two reasons. First, little research exists on the long-term influence of the AB experience on students? lives. While this study only explores students? intentions, as described by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), understanding intentions is the first step to understanding actual behavior. Second, many of the criticisms of AB and other short- term service-learning programs focus on the short time period over which these programs take place. Is it really possible to have a positive impact on communities and students in just one week? Are these programs truly ?worth it?? Understanding the ways in which the AB experience might influence students over the long term can begin to answer those questions. Factors that May Contribute to Changes in Future Intentions The literature reviewed in the previous sections demonstrates the potential of AB and related programs to influence students? behavioral intentions. The next section will describe the student and program characteristics that may contribute to these intentions. Figure 2 illustrates the student, institution, and program characteristics that may be important to consider when exploring the influence of the AB experience on students? behavioral intentions. F an ou ab in th h p (p igure 2. Stud Stude The li d study abr tcomes rela road, or alt Prior Prior fluence whe e factors tha igh school, ? articipating . 253). Stud ent, Institut nt characte terature on A oad has iden ted to AB p ernative bre experience. experience w ther or not t predict co leadership a in communi ents who ha ion, and Pro ristics. lternative B tified a num articipation ak experienc ith commu students vol mmunity se bility, invol ty action pro ve engaged gram Chara reaks, com ber of stude . These inclu e; gender; a nity service unteer in co rvice partici vement in r grams, tuto in service in cteristics munity serv nt character de prior ser nd race. and service- llege. Astin pation in co eligious acti ring other st the past are ice/service-l istics that m vice-learnin learning ha and Sax (19 llege include vities, comm udents durin more likely earning, ISL ay influenc g, study/trav s been show 98) found th volunteerin itment to g high scho to do so in 46 , e el n to at g in ol? the 47 future, which may influence these students? susceptibility to the influence of AB participation on their future plans. Another possible influence of past experience on outcomes of AB programs is prior AB experience. In a related study, Cook (2004) found that students who had engaged in previous mission work showed lower levels of growth as a result of an ISL experience than those who had no previous related experience. Cook hypothesized that this may be due to the fact that these students had already reached their potential learning from this type of experience. Cook found a similar effect of prior study abroad experience, possibly for the same reason. Prior international experience in general, whether through studying, living, or working abroad, was found to be significant in a study of UC students who had spent their junior year studying abroad in Europe with a control group who had stayed on campus. In this study, Carlson and Widaman (1988) found that students with prior international experience (traveling or living abroad) scored higher on political concern, cultural interest, and cosmopolitanism prior to their junior year, and showed less growth on these factors than students who had not previously lived or traveled abroad. This lack of growth in students who have had previous cross-cultural experiences may be due to the newness of the experience for those who have not done anything similar in the past. In a study of seminary students who were placed in local cross-cultural ministry practica, Marmon (2007) found that ?the variance in disorientation and subsequent reflection could be traced back to, among other things, the amount of prior cross-cultural experience each person described in the initial interview? (p. 123). Marmon explained that ?the depth of surprise, or the level of newness encountered, often [was] proportionate to the depth of 48 transformation that the students identified? (p. 123). The lower level of ?newness? encountered in immersion experiences by those who have been abroad probably also explains why these students exhibit lower levels of reentry adjustment issues (Casteen 2006). Gender. A number of studies have identified gender as a significant factor in service- learning, study abroad, and ISL. In an examination of data from the 2004 and 2005 administrations of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Cruce and Moore (2007) found that being female was a significant predictor of having volunteered during the first year of college and of those who hadn?t volunteered, being female was a positive predictor of intending to volunteer sometime during college. This is consistent with multiple studies that have identified women as being much more likely than men to engage in community service and service-learning (Astin & Sax, 1998; Marks & Jones, 2004; Serow & Dreyden, 1990). Similarly, women are much more likely than men to participate in study abroad (IIE, 2011c; Salisbury, Paulson & Pascarella, 2009). As with prior experience, gender may influence how susceptible students are to the influence of AB programs as they are already more likely to engage in service-oriented and international activities. The study abroad literature also points to the influence of gender on what students learn from study abroad experiences. Carlson and Widaman (1988) found that females in general showed more cultural interest than males, both before and after studying abroad; females also reported greater increase in cultural cosmopolitanism; ?for [females and humanities majors] the sojourn did not have an ?equalizing? effect; these students started 49 higher and ended higher? (p. 14). In Cook?s (2004) study of ISL, women reported higher levels of spiritual and personal growth than men. Independent of study abroad experience, Carter (2006) found that gender was a significant predictor of senior year scores on the Intercultural Development Inventory, indicating that women gained more from their overall college experiences than men in terms of their intercultural development. In terms of career interests, Couper (2001) found that ?women who studied abroad showed a much higher interest in service-oriented jobs (34% versus 8%) and the arts (10% versus none) and less interest in individual oriented jobs (22% versus 40%), compared to those who have not travelled extensively? (p. 130). There was no difference in men who had and had not studied abroad. Couper also found that women rated their study abroad experience as being ?the most important influence in their college years more [frequently] than male [study abroad participants] (59.6% for females compared to 36.8% for males? (p. 162). Similarly, Casteen (2006) found that women returning from study abroad programs experienced greater reverse culture shock and difficulty readjusting to life at home than did men. This evidence strongly points to the importance of exploring how men and women may experience service-learning, ISL, study abroad, and AB programs differently. Race. Paralleling their findings on gender, Cruce and Moore (2007) found that being African American, Latino/a, or Asian American was a significant predictor of having volunteered during the first year of college and of those who hadn?t volunteered, being African American, Latino/a, or Asian American was a positive predictor of intending to 50 volunteer sometime during college. White students and students of color may also differ in how they experience AB programs based on their relative similarity to or difference from the host community. In a study of a Honduran study abroad program for pre-service teachers, Malewski and Phillon (2009) noted the way in which the White students and single Latino student made sense of their experiences differently. For White students, flipping from the majority to minority in terms of race helped them better understand the experiences of minorities in the US. For the Latino/a student, being in the majority helped them to relate to the local community members. For White students, being in the racial minority during their AB experiences may have a profound effect on their racial identity. Bryan (2005) conducted a qualitative study of 11 White students who had studied abroad in countries where they were the racial minority. He found a number of themes, including denial of whiteness (?participants may have had situations in which they had the opportunity to see the material conditions of white privilege or racism but denied being caught up in them? (p. 36)), avoidance of whiteness (?participants may see and recognize the consequences of being white but they name it (and have the power to name it) as other, for example, class, nation, geographic location? (p. 36)), personal engagement of whiteness (?participants are able to see, articulate, and navigate their whiteness in particular situations? (p. 36)), and personal/structural engagement of whiteness (?participants see structural dominance of whiteness and may navigate this in their individual experiences. They may develop a critique of the dominance of whiteness and investigate how they can change their own participation in racial oppression, as well as, society?s? (p. 37)). 51 Students of color may differ from White students in their experiences with cross- cultural immersion, regardless of how closely their race seems to match the race of their host community. For example, Raymondi (2004) explored the experiences of five Latino/a students (all with Dominican heritage) who studied abroad in Senegal. Many students cited learning about their African heritage as a motivation for taking part in the study abroad experience, but were shocked to discover that the Senegalese considered them to be White. These students? racial and ethnic identity strongly influenced their experiences abroad. Through interacting with the Senegalese the students came to feel more American in that they recognized the privilege they had growing up and living in the United States, even if they faced racial discrimination. When they returned to the U.S., however, they struggled with their new identification as ?American? because they still felt that their Dominican heritage made them less than 100% American. Giving a different perspective on the experiences of students of color studying abroad, Jackson (2006) explored the experiences of 9 African American women studying abroad in Europe and Canada. Prior to the trip these students expected to face negative stereotypes of Americans, but thought that being African American would in some ways protect them because they did not look like ?typical? Americans. Similar to the students in Raymondi?s (2004) study, these students also came to have a stronger identification as ?American? through their study abroad experience as they were frequently called upon to defend American culture and foreign policy. Many students felt that their study abroad experience allowed them the opportunity to be free from the racism of the United States and for the first time were able to see what it was like not to be seen first and foremost as a member of their racial group. As a result, when they returned to the United States they 52 felt that racial identification much more strongly than they had before and many struggled to make sense of their racial identity and perceptions of racial inequality. Institution characteristics. In one of the few studies to explore the relationship between service and institutional type, Cruce and Moore (2007) found a number of institutional factors to be significant predictors of first-year students? plans to volunteer. These included institution size and control (public or private). Cruce and More also hypothesized that students at institutions that demonstrate a consistent commitment to community service are more likely to volunteer; paralleling their hypothesis, it is possible that an institution?s commitment to AB programs may be an important consideration in the influence of the AB program on students. While not considering institutional characteristics directly, a number of other studies in the service-learning literature (e.g., Astin, Sax & Avalos, 1999; Denson, Vogelgesang & Saenz, 2005) have pointed to the need to control for variables such as institution type, size, and control when exploring outcomes of service- learning activities. Program characteristics. The key program characteristics of AB programs that may contribute to students? future intentions come from a variety of sources. First, utilizing the conceptual framework of transformative learning, some program characteristics have been identified through the factors that contribute to TL. Second, Break Away, a national organization that provides support and training for AB programs, has identified Eight Components of a Quality Alternative Break (Break Away, n.d. b). These components form the basis of the program characteristics to be studied, as they are often used as a framework for designing 53 quality AB programs. Finally, additional program characteristics have been identified from the AB and related literature on service-learning, ISL, and study abroad. Of particular note are the Standards for Education Abroad Programs and Services, established by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS, 2009). The key program characteristics that have been identified through these means include placement quality (including hands-on service, the extent to which service is meeting real community-identified needs, and the opportunity to work with community members); engagement with the ?other? (including opportunities to interact with community members and to engage with a diverse group of students on the trip); connections to larger social issues; reflection (including ?daily reflection and dialogue on the quality and impact of service work, academic seminars, group reflection, community presentations, reading materials, individual journals, research projects, [and] informal conversations? (Kiely 2005, pp. 13-14)); intensity of the program (including cultural and languages differences between students and the host community); pre-trip and on-site orientation and training; and post-trip orientation. While Break Away (n.d. b) also lists as their eighth quality component that the trips be alcohol and drug free, no other literature has been identified looking at this component and its possible contributions to students? future intentions. Additionally, it is likely that almost all programs in the survey will be alcohol and drug free. Therefore, this will not be included as a variable in this study. Placement quality. Break Away (n.d. b) identified quality AB programs as those that ?provide an opportunity for participants to engage in direct or ?hands-on? service that addresses 54 critical but unmet social needs.? The more general service-learning literature has also identified placement quality as a key predictor of service-learning outcomes. Eyler and Giles (1999) defined placement quality as ?the extent that students?are challenged, are active rather than observers, do a variety of tasks, feel that they are making a positive contribution, have important levels of responsibility, and receive input and appreciation from supervisors in the field? (pp. 32-33). Jones and Abes (2004) added that quality placements should include opportunities for students to develop relationships with individuals at the placement site, and Neururer and Rhoads (1998) found that placement quality should include the extent to which students are able to work with community members. Similarly, Eyler and Giles (1999) identified community voice, or service that ?meets needs identified by members of the community? (p. 178) as a key component of quality service-learning placements. In a study of international volunteers, Lough (2010) found reciprocity to be a strong predictor of the extent to which participants showed gains in intercultural competence through their experience. This included the match between community priorities and the service project performed, shared goals between the participants and local staff, and the extent to which participants saw that the community requested and wanted their services. Engagement with the ?other.? Jones, et al. (2012) identified two levels at which students engaged in short-term immersion (AB and short-term study abroad) may have the opportunity to engage with the ?other? ? first, through their interactions with the host community, and second, through their interactions with other students who are participating in the experience. 55 This echoed Kiely?s (2005) finding of the importance of opportunities to cross borders by interacting with the local community and interacting across difference within the group. Similarly, Eyler and Giles (1999) identified diversity, or the ?opportunity to work with people from diverse ethnic groups during the course of their service-learning? (p. 177) as a key program characteristic. In their study, diversity was a significant predictor of decreasing stereotypes and increased tolerance for diversity, personal development, improved problem solving and critical thinking skills, and perspective transformation (?mov[ing] students toward a more systemic view of social problems and a greater sense of the importance of political action to obtain social justice? (p. 135)). This interaction has also been identified as a key component of study abroad experiences. According to the Standards for Education Abroad Programs and Services, ?students should be encouraged to engage with the host culture and to reflect on the differences and similarities between the intellectual, political, cultural, spiritual, and social institutions of the home and host countries? (CAS, 2009, p. 6). The benefit of interacting with the host community is perhaps the most obvious in AB trips, and the area in which student expect to learn the most. Jones, et al. (2009) found that the ?face-to-face interactions and the opportunity to develop relationships with people living with HIV/AIDS made a deep impression on participants? (p. 17). Even a year after the experience it was the personal interactions with people living with HIV/AIDS that stood out in the students? memories. Wallace (1999) found that alumni of study abroad programs with less contact with the host culture were more dissatisfied than alumni of programs with high levels of host culture contact. The relationship between contact with the host community and program outcomes is not always clear-cut, however. 56 For example, Golay (2006) found no statistical correlation between host contact and global mindedness. Donahue (2009) found that in trips that did not have an intentional focus on cultural interaction, the short-term nature of some study abroad trips prevented these interactions, indicating that just going to a different location does not ensure adequate levels of encounters with the ?other.? The other context in which students encounter the ?other? is through interacting with their own peers. Jones, et al. (2012) found that students reported interacting with students who they never would have met on campus. According to Break Away (n.d. b), ?strong alternative break programs include participants representing the range of students present in the campus community.? In her study of an environmental issues course, Hashimoto (2007) found that peers were very important in students? learning. The close- knit communities formed in the class helped support students in their learning, particularly as they struggled to make meaning of new perspectives that conflicted with their existing frames of reference. The importance of peer interactions in Alternative Break programs is unsurprising in light of the vast research in the field of higher education in the value of diverse peer interactions. In a large analysis of data from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), Astin (1993) found that discussing political and social issues, socializing with students from a different racial-ethnic background, interacting with peers, and participating in learning communities had a positive influence on civic values; social interactions with people from a different racial group positively related to efficacy towards social change; for students from any racial group, having friends of different races tended to have a positive effect on racial attitudes and values; and discussing racial 57 issues and having a social group with people of different races and ethnicities was positively related to increased knowledge of other races and cultures and increased acceptance of cultural differences. More recent studies have also emphasized the importance of diverse peer interactions. For example, in exploring the effects of living learning programs Rowan- Kenyon, Soldner and Inkelas (2007) found that the frequency with which students discussed issues of peace, human rights, justice, multiculturalism, diversity, and different lifestyles, as well as the frequency with which they discussed anything with other students with different values, religious beliefs, and political opinions, was a positive predictor of students? sense of civic engagement. Similarly, in a study of predictors of students? capacity for socially responsible leadership, Dugan and Komives (2010) found that socio-cultural conversations with peers had the strongest relationship of any college environments measured on all eight measures of leadership capacity. The authors focused on the importance of actual conversations with peers: Findings from this study suggest that peer conversations, not just interactions, across a wide array of differences (e.g., social issues, lifestyle, personal values, political ideologies, and multicultural concerns) can contribute to gains in theoretically grounded measures of socially responsible leadership. These conversations may provide a platform for the development of listening skills, clarification of personal values and perspectives, and social perspective-taking. (p. 540) The very nature of Alternative Break programs, which bring together diverse groups of students working together to complete a specific task, facilitates these important 58 interactions and discussions (informally and through formal reflection activities) that are key to students? growth and development. Connections to larger social issues. Break Away identifies education as a key component of quality AB programs. According to Break Away (n.d. b), ?programs [should] establish and achieve educational objectives to give participants a sense of context and understanding of both the region in which they will be working and of the problems they will be addressing during the break.? The broader service-learning literature provides support for this assertion, as does the literature on international service-learning. Eyler and Giles (1999) identified application, or the ability of students to connect their service work to academic learning, as a key program characteristic, and a significant predictor of improved problem solving and critical thinking skills, perspective transformation, and citizenship (feeling a sense of responsibility towards a larger community, having knowledge and understanding of social issues, feeling a sense of efficacy around addressing those issues, and committing to engage in future action to address social problems). Other researchers have found that the opportunity for students to connect service to larger social issues is key (e.g. Jones & Hill, 2003; Marks & Jones, 2004). More closely related to AB programs, Jones et al. (2012) found that a key learning opportunity for students was their ability to personalize previously ambiguous social issues ? they had the knowledge of these social issues through pre-trip learning, and were able to connect individuals they met to those larger issues. Of particular importance in international service-learning, and by extension in domestic AB programs where students travel outside of their own context, is a deep 59 understanding of the local social, political, and cultural context. As Sutton (2011) argued, ISL programs, no matter what the explicit focus, must involve cross-cultural learning and research on the community with which the service project will take place. Reflection. As discussed previously, reflection has been identified by Mezirow (1991, 1997, 2000) and others as being a key component of transformative learning. Reflection, or ?being able to step back and be thoughtful about experience ? to monitor one?s own reactions and thinking process? (Eyler & Giles, 1999, p. 171), has been identified as a core standard in study abroad programs (CAS, 2009), and is also perhaps the most often cited characteristic of quality service-learning programs (e.g. Eyler & Giles, 1999; Jones & Abes, 2004; McCarthy, 1996). Eyler and Giles (1999) found reflection to be a predictor of decreased stereotyping and increased tolerance, personal development, problem solving and critical thinking, and citizenship. In his study of an ISL program in Nicaragua, Kiely (2005) described the importance of processing activities including ?daily reflection and dialogue on the quality and impact of service work, academic seminars, group reflection, community presentations, reading materials, individual journals, research projects, [and] informal conversations with Nicaraguans, peers, faculty, and development professionals? (pp. 13- 14). Pagano (2003) also identified the importance of reflection in ISL, arguing that reflection helped students make connections to less tangible elements of the host culture and draw conclusions about why things were the way they were. Reflection is also one of Break Away?s components of quality AB programs. 60 Through a comparison of students participating in two different international health programs, Gabali (2002) was able to point to the difference between a trip involving reflection and one that did not. The student participating in the program without reflection wrote post-trip narratives that had a ?travelogue quality? and ?describe[ed] the various sites they visited. These narratives had an element of adventure and risk-taking, rather than self-awareness and ethical perspective? (p. 111). Because they were able to reflect on and engage in conversations about the ethical dilemmas they faced, ?students in the ISL program were able to look at social problems, and work with the community together toward creatively solving the problem, in a way that was ethically feasible and beneficial to the well being of the community they were a part of? (p. 112). The traditional program was more focused on tourism and just passing through, while the ISL program participants ?became the partners in the transformation of the self as members of the human race? (p. 113). Reflection may be even more important in short-term programs, such as Alternative Breaks. In a large study of international volunteers, Lough (2010) found that participants in short-term trips (2 weeks) demonstrated fewer gains in intercultural competence than did participants in long-term trips (up to 1 year). This relationship, though, was moderated by the extent to which participants engaged in guided reflection. When participants engaged in high levels of guided reflection during their international service experience, participants in short-term trips demonstrated gains in intercultural competence equivalent to those on long-term trips. 61 Program intensity. Although not identified by Break Away as a key program characteristic, a number of studies have pointed to the importance of the intensity of these types of programs. Jones, et al. (2012) identified the importance of ?getting out of the bubble? in facilitating students? learning. Kiely (2005) also discussed importance of 24/7 immersion in contextual border crossing. The type and intensity of dissonance experienced by the students is also an important factor in transformative learning. High-intensity dissonance, which included experiences such as ?witnessing extreme forms of poverty, hunger, scarcity, and disease? (p. 11) is the type that ?often causes powerful emotions and confusion and leads study participants to reexamine their existing knowledge and assumptions? (p. 11, emphasis in original). This is distinct from low-level dissonance which often had to do with logistical and practical issues such as food and water, language barriers, and dealing with new surroundings, all of which lead to instrumental learning but not transformative learning. In his study of ISL programs in developing countries, Cook (2004) also discussed the importance of intensity. Cook found that more intense programs, measured by number of service hours, led to student reports of more cultural and service growth and satisfaction after controlling for expectations. Students on shorter programs were more academically satisfied, even after controlling for expectations. Although this may be contrary to what one might expect, one possible explanation given by the author is that the shorter programs may have actually been more intense, and may have included more service hours. 62 In addition to the high level of dissonance and number of service hours, the level of cultural difference between students and the host community is another aspect of the intensity of the experience. Malewski and Phillion (2009) found that students were affected by the social class differences between themselves and the host community; differences in gender norms also influenced how students saw themselves within the context of the host community, and influenced how students were able to see the role of gender in education. Other studies have explored the role of language difference in the intensity of the immersion experience. Wallace (1999) found that study abroad alumni who studied in countries where the primary language was not English reported a higher level of satisfaction than those who had studied in English-speaking countries. Wallace postulated that this higher satisfaction might be related to these students? greater sense of immersion in the host culture. Ferrence and Bell (2004) identified the importance of being immersed in a different language in their study of 25 pre-service teachers who took part in a two- week cultural immersion with a Latino community in Georgia. An important experience for the students on the trip was that of being an outsider and not knowing what was going on around them (as everyone was speaking Spanish, a language they did not know). This led students to a greater empathy for the experiences of immigrant children. Pre-trip and on-site orientation and training. Break Away (n.d. b) identifies both training and orientation as being key components of quality AB programs. According to Break Away, participations should be ?oriented to the mission and objectives of both the break program and the host agency or organization with which they will be working,? and should be ?provided with adequate 63 training in skills necessary to carry out tasks and projects during the trip. Ideally this training should take place prior to departure, although in some instances it may occur once participants have reached their site.? Similarly, the Standards for Education Abroad Programs and Services identify pre-departure advising and orientation programs as a key component of study abroad programs (CAS, 2009). Elble (2009) provided support for these assertions through her case study of an ISL program in Swaziland. She found that prior to the trip many students had only vague ideas of what ?Africa? was, many thinking that it was one giant country. She also highlighted the importance of pre-trip preparation through the 8-week course where students learned about the complexities of the problems in Swaziland and that there were multiple possible solutions to those problems. The pre-trip course also led students to a greater awareness of their own culture and the importance of cultural competence, and helped students overcome biases and stereotypes of African people. Post-trip reorientation. As discussed previously in the review of the study abroad literature, there is a significant body of research that points to the difficulties that students may have readjusting to life after a study abroad experience. Re-entry support and orientation programs are one of the core Standards for Education Abroad Programs and Services (CAS, 2009). Ivory (1997), Kiely (2004), and Jones, et al. (2012) also pointed to the difficulties students participating in AB and ISL programs may face in trying to integrate their new learning into their lives when they return to campus, and Long and Saltmarsh (2011) argued that the high level of contact between students and community members 64 may make lead to more severe reentry issues for students participating in ISL (or global service-learning, as they refer to it) than traditional study abroad experiences. Break Away (n.d b) argued that after AB trips, ?there should be a re-orientation session for all participants where they can share their break experiences with one another and with the greater campus community and are actively encouraged to translate this experience into a life-long commitment to service.? This may be a particularly important program characteristic in exploring the role of AB programs on students? future intentions. Casteen (2006) found that students who had attended post-study abroad reorientation, which included information on reverse culture shock, demonstrated less reverse culture shock themselves and fewer readjustment difficulties. International vs. Domestic AB Programs In addition to the above program characteristics, the location where the AB program takes place may also influence students? future intentions ? specifically, whether that program location is within the United States or international. A number of authors have argued that international experience is fundamentally different from domestic experience, even if that domestic experience is cross-cultural in nature. For example, Kraft (2002) argued that: There are, of course, numerous cultural and religious differences in motivation and program design, but involving students outside the ivory tower is now becoming a widespread phenomenon on almost every continent. Crossing national boundaries to do ?service-learning abroad,? however, is more problematic, and in many ways an even more powerful pedagogical tool. Respect of other cultures becomes a critical component of all programs crossing national boundaries, 65 something not always true of service-learning experiences carried out in one?s own community. Cultural and linguistic competency become necessary if the service-learning is to be truly effective. Reciprocity between ?server? and ?served? becomes much more difficult in the international setting, particularly in programs in which students from rich countries serve individuals and organizations in the poorer nations of the world. (p. 303) For Kraft, while domestic service-learning experiences can be profound, the added complexity of international service-learning can be even more powerful. A few empirical studies have supported Kraft?s (2002) assertion. Couper (2001) compared students who had studied abroad with those who had traveled domestically and found that study abroad participants saw a much greater difference in their home community after international travel than did non-study abroad participants after domestic travel. While almost as many non-study abroad participants as study abroad participants experienced culture shock (60.4% of the non-study abroad group and 76.6% of the study abroad group), the experiences that they identified as causing culture shock varied. The non-study abroad group experienced culture shock as a result of moving, a new work environment, and domestic travel. The majority of the study abroad group reported experiencing culture shock while traveling, while to a lesser degree reported culture shock from moving or at work. The general trend was that those who had studied abroad and experienced a different culture did not find new environments at home (e.g. a new job or a move to a different location) to be as stressful ? relative to their international experience, changes at home were much less shocking than for people who had only traveled domestically. 66 Crawford (2008) also pointed to a difference between cross-cultural interactions at home versus those abroad. Crawford studied Finnish students who participated in a voluntary program where they were matched with a group of four to eight international students. She found that the security of being at home led the Finnish students to experience less risk in the cross-cultural interaction than they would be forced to if they were traveling or studying abroad. According to Crawford: Even if [the Finnish students] notice [intercultural] differences in the visiting others, they are not compelled to draw on their personal skills to acclimate to or address them. The at-home individuals always know the nature and implications of the surrounding environment; they cannot truly experience the disorientation, stress, and emotional discomfort that comes with trying to reconcile what one has taken for granted regarding the processes, assumptions, or emotional connection needed to get things done in one?s familiar home culture as compared to the unfamiliar culture? (p. 204) While this may or may not hold completely true for AB participants who are not in the comfort of their own home environment, Crawford raises an important point about the difference between domestic and international cross-cultural interactions. No matter where students go in the United States, they are still surrounded by familiar laws and social and economic structures, which may inhibit their ability to experience the disorienting dilemmas that are so central to transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991). Despite the potential benefit of international experience, there are a number of strong arguments against international service-learning. The international dimension of the program can amplify many of the inherent challenges in service-learning partnerships, 67 including balancing the time and effort required of the community or partner organization with the benefit provided by the service activity (Jacoby, 2009). Cost is particularly important in international programs, as the amount of money required to travel abroad is often quite substantial. If the purpose of these programs is really to provide needed service to a community, it might be hard to justify the amount of money spent on such programs. As Barbour (2006) pointed out, ?Simply by crossing an ocean, you have spent more money than most people in the world will earn in a year -- more than some will earn in a lifetime? (para. 1). If that money was spent directly assisting the community, it is quite possible that the impact would be far greater. An additional argument against international AB programs is that the cost is prohibitive for many students, and that cross-cultural experiences can happen much closer to home (Jacoby, 2009). For example, in a case study of seminary students placed in local, cross-cultural ministry practica, Marmon (2007) found that these students experienced significant cross-cultural learning within their own communities. As Marmon argued: Stories from six seminar students in cross-cultural settings revealed that serving in the same town with different people can be transformative. People do not have to cross international borders to encounter life-changing situations. In many cases, they simply need to drive to a different zip code within the same hometown. What this means is that the perspective transformations that often occur through an international encounter (business relationships, exchange student programs, short- term mission rips), are also possible for people engaged in continuing education at the community college or volunteer work at the area homeless shelter. (p. 133) 68 Grusky (2000) also raised a number of concerns associated with international service-learning programs. As she argued, ?without thoughtful preparation, orientation, program development and critical analysis and reflection, the program can easily become small theaters that re-create historic cultural misunderstandings and simplistic stereotypes and replay? the huge disparities in income and opportunity to characterize north-south relations today? (p. 858). Despite her concerns, Grusky ultimately supported international service-learning programs. While she notes that often these programs result in more benefit to students as opposed to community members, she argued that ?recognizing this reality can help to overcome arrogance, paternalism, or simplistic ideas of charity? (p. 861). Research comparing international and domestic experiences is limited and somewhat contradictory. As noted above, Couper (2001) found a significant difference between those who had studied abroad and those who had only travelled domestically in terms of their interpretations of their home communities and how they experience culture shock in their every-day lives. Dockter (2004) compared students who participated in a service-learning trip to Guatemala with those who remained on campus and participated in a community outreach program (due to the lack of reflection in the program Dockter did not identify it as a service-learning program). He found that students in both groups showed similar increases in social justice attitudes, but only the domestic group showed increases in leadership skills. Both groups also decreased in their perceived ability to solve problems, probably resulting from a more realistic assessment of their own capacity to effect change. Dockter found that students in Guatemala were frustrated by their inability to make a difference and challenged by practical concerns (sleep, food, lodging) 69 and homesickness, and struggled to adapt to living in a developing country, which may have prevented them from making the most of their experiences. In another comparison of study abroad and domestic travel, Uehara (1986) surveyed 96 study abroad returnees and a similar group of students who had travelled domestically. While his intention was to use the domestic travelers as a control group, his study provides some evidence as to the differences between international and domestic travel. He found that students who had studied abroad experienced significantly more reentry shock than students who had travelled domestically. He also found that the only factor measured that was significantly associated with increased levels of reentry shock was the extent to which students? values had changed while abroad. These values related to relationships with family and friends; views about male-female relationships, clothing, religion, and individuality; ways of using money; career goals; and achievement-oriented behavior. An important limitation of Uehara?s (1986) and Couper?s (2001) studies is that they both compared study abroad with general domestic travel, two different experiences which may not be comparable and may not relate to the AB experience. While it is unclear from the existing research whether or not international experience is significantly different from cross-cultural domestic experience, the above studies and arguments highlight the importance of looking at the location of the AB program to determine whether or not location has an effect. As international AB trips typically are more expensive, take more time to plan, and involve potentially more risk than domestic trips, it is vital that we begin to explore whether or not they contribute to student outcomes. 70 Summary The existing literature on Alternative Break programs, along with the related literature on domestic community service and service-learning, international service- learning, and study abroad, all point to the potential for these types of programs to provide the ?disorienting dilemma? that Mezirow identifies as the first, critical step in the process of transformative learning. Through these transformative experiences, students? frames of reference (Mezirow, 1991, 1997, 2000), primary beliefs (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), and/or normative-affective factors (Etzioni, 1992) can be changed in ways that promote changes in behavioral intentions, and eventually, actual behaviors. In this way, AB experiences have the potential to influence students? major, career plans, and intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, and study or travel abroad. While a number of studies have pointed to the potential of student and program characteristics to influence students? experiences in these programs, there is a need to further explore the relationship between student and program characteristics and the influence of the Alternative Break experience on students? intentions and plans. The next chapter outlines the methods that will be used to explore the student and program characteristics that predict this influence of the AB experience. 71 Chapter 3: Methods Introduction This chapter provides a detailed overview of the methods that were used to explore the relationship between Alternative Break (AB) student and program characteristics and the influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, or study or travel abroad, or their major or career plans. The first section contains a review of the purpose of the study and research questions, followed by a description of the conceptual frameworks for the study. This second section provides an overview of Mezirow?s (1991, 1997, 2000) transformative learning theory, Astin?s (1991) Inputs-Environments-Outcomes (IEO) model, the modifications that were made to this model for the purposes of this study, and an illustration of the modified IEO framework. The subsequent sections describe the instrumentation, sampling, and data collection techniques that were employed; the resulting sample and operationalization of the variables; the steps in the data analysis; and the limitations of the study. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to explore the extent to and ways in which student participants in Alternative Break (AB) programs report that their AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, or study or travel abroad, or their major or career plans. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following three research questions: 1. How frequently and in what ways do participants returning from AB programs report that their AB experience influenced their: 72 (a) Intentions or plans to volunteer (b) Intentions or plan to engage in advocacy (c) Intentions or plans to study abroad (d) Intentions or plans to travel abroad (e) Major (f) Career plans 2. What program characteristics of AB programs contribute to reports of these influences? 3. Are students who participate in international AB programs more likely to report these influences than those on domestic programs, controlling for other variables? Conceptual Frameworks Transformative Learning, Reasoned Action, and Normative-Affective Decision Making. The framework of this study was guided by Mezirow?s (1991, 1997, 2000) theory of transformative learning (TL), Fishbein and Ajzen?s (1975) theory of Reasoned Action, and Etzioni?s (1992) theory of Normative-Affective Decision Making. As described in the previous chapter, Mezirow (1997) explained that transformative educational experiences can change individuals? frames of references, or the ways in which they make meaning of the world. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and Etzioni (1992) described similar processes by which individuals change their primary beliefs or normative- affective factors; these are all ways of describing the ways in which individuals view the world and make sense of their experiences. Individuals only transform their existing 73 frames of reference (or primary beliefs or normative-affective factors) through the experience of a disorienting dilemma of which they cannot make meaning based on their existing frames of reference. Scholars of transformative learning have identified a number of factors that can contribute to transformative learning, including reflection (Belenky & Stanton, 2000; Mezirow, 2000); engagement with those different from oneself (Barlas, 2000; Parks Daloz, 2000); and intense, experiential learning opportunities (Barlas, 2000), all of which may be present in quality AB programs. Similarly, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) noted the importance of interactions with others in the modification of one?s primary beliefs. Both Kiely (2004, 2005) and Jones, et al. (2012) found that students participating in AB or international service-learning (ISL) programs demonstrated transformative learning outcomes. A key component of transformative learning is planning and executing actions as a result of the transformative experience (Mezirow, 2000), consistent with Fishbein and Ajzen?s (1975) assertion that behavioral intentions can only be changed as a result of changes in one?s primary beliefs. This is also consistent with findings that students who participate in AB programs do plan to make changes in their lives as a result of their experiences (e.g. Cooper, 2002; Ivory, 1997; Jones, et al., 2009; Jones, et al., 2012; McElhaney, 1998; Rhoads & Neururer, 1998). While many of these studies have pointed to specific program characteristics that contribute to these transformative learning outcomes, no model exists that fully captures the range and organization of variables that contribute to changes in students? future intentions. For this study, this structure was provided by Astin?s (1991) Inputs-Environments-Outcomes model in combination with 74 the previously summarized literature on Alternative Breaks, service-learning, and study abroad. Astin?s (1991) IEO model. In order to organize the variables and guide the analysis, this study utilized Astin?s (1991) Inputs-Environments-Outcomes (IEO) model. Astin developed this model in order to assess the aspects of the college environment that could contribute to desired outcomes. As Astin argued, measures of outputs alone cannot point to the effectiveness of a college or university program in achieving that outcome as they do not take into consideration the skills and talents that students already have before they ever set foot on campus. Similarly, measures that only take into consideration inputs and outputs do not provide adequate information as to why that difference may have occurred; thus, it is important to consider the college environments. Theoretical modifications. Several modifications were made to Astin?s (1991) IEO framework. First, Astin defined inputs as ?those personal qualities the student brings initially to the educational program? (p. 18). While in most IEO studies the ?educational program? is college, in this study the ?educational program? is the Alternative Break. This means that while the typical IEO model would only include pre-college qualities as inputs, in this study all pre-AB qualities will be included as inputs (including both pre-college and college experiences with study or travel abroad, service-learning, and Alternative Breaks). The second modification to Astin?s (1991) IEO framework was in the definition of the comparison group. In a true experimental design a control group is typically used to compare to the treatment group; in many causal comparative or correlational studies 75 that examine existing groups (e.g. students who participate in AB programs), a matched group of students who have not participated in the treatment is used in the comparison. This study did not use a control group or matched group of students who have not participated in AB programs, as that was not the most appropriate level of comparison for the specific research questions of this study. This study did not seek to determine whether students who participate in AB programs show certain outcomes compared with students who do not participate in AB programs, rather, it asked if the presence of certain program characteristics (versus the absence of the program characteristics) is predictive of certain outcomes. The ?control group? for each proximal environmental variable in this study was not students who have not participated in AB programs, but rather students who participated in AB programs that did not include that program characteristic. Modifications for nested data. In addition to the modifications to Astin?s (1991) IEO model from a theoretical perspective described above, additional modifications to this model were made to account for the nesting of the data in this study. Traditionally, studies using the IEO framework analyze data using hierarchical linear regression, blocking input and environmental variables. Each block of variables in the analysis is compared using the change in the variance accounted for in the model, ?R2. Unfortunately, regression analysis is limited when dealing with nested data, which is common in educational research ? students are nested within classrooms, which are nested within schools; in higher education research, at the very least students are nested within universities, and often there are many other levels of nesting. Nesting of data violates one of the core assumptions of linear regression ? that all observations are independent of one another. In this study of Alternative Break 76 programs, students are nested within programs, which are in turn nested within universities. It is likely that students within the same program will have similar experiences, and that there will also be similarities among programs within the same university. Within a regression framework, this nesting of data could lead to a misestimating of the numbers of degrees of freedom and thus an increased risk of Type 1 errors (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) is an analytical approach that accounts for the interdependence of nested data, thus correcting the problems encountered in regression analysis. As Raudenbush and Bryk (2002) described, HLM allows the researcher to partition the variance among different levels of analysis ? in this case, the student (level-1), the program (level-2), and the university (level-3). This allows for more accurate estimation of the effects of variables at these different levels. In order to use HLM to analyze data within an IEO model, two additional modifications to Astin?s (1991) framework were made. The first HLM adjustment to the IEO model was necessary due to the measurement of environmental variables at multiple levels of analysis. Astin (1991) argued that environments fall into two different categories ? distal environments, or those most removed from the student (typically those associated with the university as a whole), and proximal, or those most closely experienced by the student (typically environments such as residence halls, co-curricular activities, etc.). While distal environments can clearly be measured at the university level (level-3), proximal environments can be measured at level-1 (by surveying the student) or level-2 (by surveying the program). Often, and as was the case in this study, the level-2 77 (program/proximal) environments were measured at level-1 but can be aggregated to form a composite measure at level-2. This approach can be problematic, as simply counting each students? response separately (level-1) leads to a dependency in the data, but aggregating students? responses within programs (level-2) can miss out on individual differences in the experience of the program environment. In an attempt to address the question of at which level the group effect should be modeled, Kenny et al. (2002) proposed an Actor-Partner Interaction Model. In this model, the effect of the group for each individual is aggregated from all group members excluding that specific individual. The individual?s measure and the aggregate from other group members are both included at level-1. While this approach works well for small groups in a counseling setting, it is not entirely appropriate in this case. In Kenny et al.?s (2002) examples, the information aggregated from the other group members was of direct interest as a variable in the study (it was hypothesized that the perceptions of others in the group had a direct effect on individual participants). In this study, it is not necessarily an objective measure of the rest of the group that is of interest, but rather an aggregate of the perceptions of all group members as an approximation of the ?real? environment. Keeping with Kenny et al.?s model, in this study both the individual and the aggregate data were included, but the individual data was kept at level-1 and the aggregate at level- 2. In other words, level-1 included the individual?s experience of the environment, and the aggregate at level-2 as meant to approximate the ?true? environment. While each individual has a unique experience of the environment, that experience is influenced by the actual environment plus individual variation; since there was no objective measure of the environment itself, the group-level aggregate of individual perceptions was the best ap se F F th d m m m ca w th th proximatio en in Figure igure 3a. Tra igure 3b. Mo The se e fact that th oes not have odel). Inste easure of th odel fit. Ac n be compa ith the degr e two mode e change in n. The tradit s 3a and 3b ditional IEO dified IEO cond adjust ere is no co the same in ad, HLM mo e lack of fit cording to L red using th ees of freedo ls. For each R2) was use ional and m . Model Model ment made mparable ? terpretation dels can be between the uke (2004), e change in m being the block of the d to determ odified bloc to the traditi R2 statistic i of variance compared u model and HLM mode deviance, w difference model abov ine if the ad king schem onal IEO m n HLM (wh accounted f sing the cha the data ? lo ls in which hich follow in the numb e, the chan dition of the es for the IE odel was ne ile one can or in each st nge in devia wer devian one is a sub s a chi-squar er of param ge in devian variables in O model ca cessary due be calculate ep of the nce, which ce means be set of the oth ed distribut eters betwee ce (rather th that block 78 n be to d, it is a tter er ion n an 79 significantly improved the fit of the model. The last block that significantly improved model fit was the used to determine the significance of the various predictors in the model. Multi-level IEO framework. The sections below outline the multi-level IEO framework used in this study, an illustration of which can be found in Figure 4. Each variable described in the model will be further operationalized later in the chapter. Outcomes. The outcomes for this study were the extent to which students indicated that their AB experience influenced their major, career plans, and intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad, or travel abroad. As described in the review of the literature, prior research has identified these as frequent outcomes of Alternative Break and similar experiences. For example, in their study of students who had participated in short-term immersion programs, including three AB experiences, Jones et al. (2012) found that students expressed desires to change their future behavior, including participating in another alternative break program; studying, traveling, or working abroad; exploring new majors or courses in which they could learn more about the issues they had come to care about; and changing or adapting career plans. Other studies have paralleled these findings, indicating that an Alternative Break experience can inspire students to change their lives in concrete, identifiable ways (e.g., Ivory, 1997; Jones et al., 2009; Kiely, 2004; McElhaney. 1998). 80 Level 1: Inputs. The inputs for this study, measured at level-1 (the student level), were those student characteristics identified in the literature review as having a potential influence on whether or not students will demonstrate the above listed intentions. These included gender, race, and prior experience with service-learning, study/travel abroad, and AB programs. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the outcomes in question (e.g., students who are about to graduate may have less time left to study abroad), class level was also added as an input variable. Gender has been shown to be a significant predictor of participation in community service and service-learning (e.g., Astin & Sax, 1998; Cruce & Moore, 2007; Marks & Jones, 2004; Serow & Dreyden, 1990) and study abroad (e.g., IIE, 2011c; Salisbury, Paulson & Pascarella, 2009), and women have been shown to demonstrate greater outcomes from study abroad than do men (e.g. Carlson & Widaman, 1988; Carter, 2006; Cook, 2004; Couper, 2001). Race similarly has been shown to be a significant predictor of community service, service-learning, and study abroad participation (e.g. Cruce & Moore, 2007; IIE, 2011c; Salisbury, Paulson & Pascarella, 2009), and studies have shown that race may influence how students make meaning of their study abroad experiences (e.g. Bryan, 2005; Jackson, 2006; Malewski & Phillon, 2009; Raymondi, 2004). Finally, prior experience with community service and service- learning learning has been shown to influence whether or not students volunteer in college (Astin & Sax, 1998), and a variety of studies have shown that those students with prior experiences show less growth than students who have never participated in ISL or study/travel abroad before (e.g. Carlson & Widaman, 1988; Casteen, 2006; Cook, 2004; Marmon, 2007). 81 Level 3: Distal environments. As Astin (1991) recommended, the environments for this study were separated into two blocks ? distal (or between-institution) environments and proximal (or program) environments. Distal environments, including institution type, size, and control, are important to include in the model as Cruce and Moore (2007) found institutional factors to be significant predictors of students? plans to volunteer. Cruce and More also hypothesized that students at institutions that demonstrate a consistent commitment to community service are more likely to volunteer; to account for the institution?s commitment to Alternative Break programs, the overall AB participation rates and whether or not the institution is a member of Break Away were included as distal environmental variables. Level 1 and 2: Proximal environments. The proximal environments are the true environments of interest; these are the program characteristics that have been defined in the literature as those that may contribute to student outcomes associated with AB programs. These include placement quality, engagement with the ?other,? connections to larger social issues, reflection, program intensity, pre-trip and on-site orientation and training, post-trip reorientation, and trip location. As described above, to further account for the nested nature of the data using HLM, the proximal environments were divided into those representing the students? own experience of the proximal environment (measured at level-1) and those aggregated to level-2 as an approximation of the ?true? program environment. The first proximal environment of interest, placement quality, has been identified as a key component of service-learning and AB programs by a number of authors, and 82 includes the extent to which the program involves students in direct service and opportunities to work directly with community members, the inclusion of community members in the planning and execution of the project, and the extent to which students feel that they are able to make a positive contribution to the community (e.g. Eyler & Giles, 1999; Kiely, 2005; Neururer & Rhoads, 1998). The level at which students have an opportunity to engage with those different from themselves, either through interactions with the host community or through interactions with other students participating in the AB experience (Jones et al., 2012), also has been shown to be an important aspect of students? AB experiences (e.g., Jones et al., 2009) and is related to students? perspective transformation (Eyler & Giles, 1999) The third proximal environmental variable, the extent to which students are able to connect their experience to larger social issues, has been shown to be a significant predictor of perspective transformation and citizenship (feeling a sense of responsibility towards a larger community, having knowledge and understanding of social issues, feeling a sense of efficacy around addressing those issues, and committing to engage in future action to address social problems) (Eyler & Giles, 1999); Alternative Break trips have specifically been shown to enable students to personalize, or put faces and names, to previously ambiguous social issues (Jones et al., 2012). Students are often able to make these connections through reflection, which is perhaps the most often cited characteristic of quality service-learning or AB programs (e.g. Eyler and Giles, 1999; Gabali, 2002; Jones & Abes, 2004; Kiely, 2005; McCarthy, 1996; Pagano, 2003) and has been found to predict decreased stereotyping and increased tolerance, personal development, problem solving and critical thinking, and citizenship (Eyler & Giles, 1999). 83 Other studies have pointed to the importance of the intensity of the Alternative Break experience in facilitating transformative learning (e.g. Kiely, 2005). This includes the idea of ?getting out of the bubble? (Jones et al., 2012), 24/7 immersion (Kiely, 2005), greater numbers of actual service hours (Cook, 2004), and the level of cultural difference between students and the host community (Malewski & Phillon, 2009). What happens before and after the AB experience is also important in facilitating students? learning. Studies have shown that students must receive proper training and preparation for the trip (e.g. Elble, 2009) in order to prepare for the actual service activity being performed as well as learning about the social and cultural issues related to the experience. When students return, they often face difficulties readjusting to life at home (Ivory, 1997; Kiely, 2004; Jones, et al, 2012); reorientation sessions after study abroad experiences have been shown to be related to less severe reverse culture shock upon return to campus (Casteen, 2006). Finally, the location of the trip itself, whether it be domestic or international, is a key variable of interest. As described in the literature review, the debate over international service-learning, along with the additional resources needed to fund and plan international AB trips, makes this an important variable to consider above and beyond the effect of other program characteristics. In order to assess the influence of an international (versus domestic) trip location above and beyond the influence of all other variables in the model, this variable will be added as a separate, fifth block. As all students in a program experience the same trip location, this will be added into the HLM analysis only at level-2. Figure 4. The Multi-level IEO Framework In re v ou in fe su an o ex ev W strumenta Data f searcher. Q ariable in th tside the sc the field of edback both rvey itself. d the curren f Maryland. perts. Durin aluate the s inter Break tion or this study uestions for e IEO frame ope of this d Alternative on the face These exper t and forme Revisions w g January an urvey desig trips at 9 un were gathe the survey w work; a few issertation. Breaks and validity of ts included r coordinato ere made to d February n. During th iversities w red using a ere written additional q The survey survey rese the survey it the executiv rs of Altern the survey of 2011, a p is time, 309 ere invited t survey instr based on th uestions we questions w arch, who w ems as well e director an ative Break based on fee ilot study w students wh o participate ument devel e existing li re added fo ere then rev ere asked to as the over d other staf programs at dback recei as conducte o participat in the surv oped by the terature on e r use in rese iewed by ex provide all design of f of Break A the Univer ved from th d to further ed in Altern ey. Universi 84 ach arch perts the way sity ese ative ties 85 chosen to participate were those whose gatekeepers had already responded to the request to participate in the spring break survey, and who had indicated that they did have winter break trips; one institution that only had winter break trips was also included in the pilot. Overall, 131 students responded to the survey for a 42.39% response rate. As a result of the pilot study, the following revisions were made to the survey: ? The outcome question was revised for clarity ? Follow-up questions, including free-response items, were added to the outcome question in order to ascertain the manner in which the AB experience influenced students ? Two additional religions affiliation answer options were added (Pentecostal and Christina ? non-denominational) based on write-in responses to this question ? The stem for the racial/ethnic identity question was changed ( from ?Are you?? to ?What is your racial/ethnic identity??) to encourage more response, and an ?Arab/Arab-American? answer option was added ? Age and major/academic interest were added as answer options to the question about the ways in which other students on the trip differed from the respondent ? A number of questions were simplified based on student feedback The resulting final survey included at total of 145 questions (although most students were not asked every question in the survey due to skip logic). The online survey was hosted by Survey Sciences Group (SSG) through a secure server. Data Collection 86 Sampling strategy. Sampling for this study occurred at two levels ? the institution-level and the student-level. At the institution-level, a list of institutions with Alternative Break programs, along with contact information for a staff person involved in the AB program, was provided by the Break Away staff. This list was developed by a student intern at Break Away who used college and university web sites and various Google searches to identify as many institutions with Alternative Break programs as possible. While there may have been institutions with AB programs not included on the list, it was the most comprehensive list of AB programs available. From this list, a stratified random sample of 100 institutions was selected based on institution size, control, and Break Away membership to insure a broad representation of different types of institution in the sample. Once the list of 100 institutions was selected, the institutional contact/gatekeeper at each institution was contacted via e-mail and invited to participate in the study. Each gatekeeper who did not reply received at least two follow-up e-mails and one follow-up phone call. Gatekeepers agreeing to invite their students to participate in the survey were asked to provide some basic information about their programs, including the number of trips, trip destinations and topics, the dates of their spring break, and the total number of students who would be participating in AB trips. As gatekeepers declined to participate, the strata for each institution was re-sampled for a replacement institution, whose gatekeeper was subsequently invited to participate in the same manner. A few weeks prior to the first spring breaks, additional institutions were invited to participate in order to ensure an adequate response to the survey, including 22 additional Break Away members and 17 additional large universities. 87 Ultimately, 102 institutions agreed to participate in the survey, the characteristics of which are described below. Due to the relatively small number of students who participate in AB programs at each institution, all AB participants at these institutions were invited to participate in the survey. Survey administration. Within a week of the end of each institution?s spring break, institutional gatekeepers were contacted via e-mail asking them to send an e-mail to all students who participated in Alternative Breaks inviting them to participate in the online survey. Gatekeepers who had not responded within a week were sent a reminder e-mail, and those who had not responded within a second week received at least one follow-up phone call. Approximately one week after sending out the initial student invitation e-mail, gatekeepers received a second e-mail asking them to send a reminder out to all students; follow-up to the reminder e-mail followed the same pattern as the initial post-break e- mail. Due to a lower than expected response rate in the early weeks of the survey, in subsequent weeks the student invitation and reminder e-mails included information about the opportunity for students who completed the survey to be entered into a drawing for a $200 Amazon.com gift card. The response rate and description of the resulting sample is detailed below. 88 Data Preparation Approximately three weeks after the conclusion of the last spring break of institutions in the sample, the survey was closed and an SPSS file of the data from 2845 respondents was downloaded from the SSG server; this formed the basis of the level-1 data for the analysis. Of those respondents, 325 exited the survey before answering any questions and three refused consent; these cases were deleted from the data set. The remaining respondents were each assigned a random 5-digit identification number. Each respondent?s e-mail address was then separated from the main data file into a separate key file linked to the data with the random identifier; e-mail addresses will be used to contact respondents for a follow-up survey in one year. As the first research question asked only for a frequency based on the outcome questions, any respondent who answered at least one of the outcome questions was kept in the data file; as a result, 315 respondents who did not answer any of the outcome questions were deleted. An additional twelve respondents were deleted because they indicated that they were faculty or staff when asked to provide their class year, one was deleted because s/he indicated that s/he was a student leader who had stayed on campus to coordinate trips during spring break, one was deleted because s/he indicated that s/he had only participated in a winter break trip, and one was deleted because s/he indicated that s/he had travelled to Beijing, China, were there were no AB trips at any participating institution. The remaining responses were then examined for missing data. Of the students who had indicated ?other? for class year and written in a description: ? ?First year, but sophomore by credits? was recoded as ?First Year;? 89 ? ?exchange student (senior)? was recoded as ?Senior;? ? ?5th year? was recoded as ?Senior;? ? ?4th year in a 5 year program (coop)? was recoded as ?Senior;? ? ?3rd year? was recoded as ?Junior;? and ? ?Veterinary student? was recoded as ?Graduate Student,? A few students who had answered ?other? when asked which university they attend were examined, and those who wrote in a university were recoded to the university specified; the same was done for the few who answered ?other? when asked for the location of the AB trip. Finally, a program number was created for each individual Alternative Break trip based on the university, trip location, and where there was more than one trip to the same location for the same university, the topic of the trip. Fourteen students with missing trip locations were assigned program numbers because their institution only had one AB trip; 94 students with missing university or trip location information did not receive program numbers. In order to create a level-2 data set for the analysis, the proximal environmental variables were aggregated (using the mean of all students in that program) based on the program number assigned in the level-1 file. This was done before deleting cases with missing data so as to have the most data contributing to the estimation of the program environment as possible. The original level-1 dataset was kept to answer the first research question (how frequently and in what ways participants returning from AB programs report that their AB experience influenced their major, career plans, or intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad or travel abroad), and a copy of that dataset was used for the HLM analysis. All cases with missing data in variables of 90 interest were subsequently deleted from the HLM level-1 file. The level-3 file was created by downloading data on institutional type, size, and control from the Integrated Post-Secondary Data Set (IPEDS) online, and additional information was added to each institution regarding Break Away membership (provided by Break Away) and total AB participation (provided by the institutional gatekeepers). Sample Institutions. In total, 209 colleges and universities were invited to participate in the study; 102 of those agreed to do so. Four of these institutions dropped out during the survey (one did not actually have an AB program that year, two never responded to multiple requests to send out the e-mail invitation, and one decided not to participate because of problems with the AB program that year); one additional institution had zero responses to the survey. This resulted in a final sample of 97 institutions. There were a total of 443 different AB trips at these institutions, ranging from 1 trip/school to 23 trips/school. After deleting missing data, three additional institutions had fewer than two respondents and thus dropped out of the analysis, resulting in 94 institutions (95.88% of the original) and 405 programs (91.42% of the original) in the HLM analysis. The overall institution sample included 41 members of Break Away, 15 former members, and 41 non-members. Three of these institutions granted associates degrees, 24 baccalaureate, 32 masters, and 38 doctoral. Two institutions had enrollments of under 1,000 students, 34 of between 1,000 and 4,999, 18 between 5,000 and 9,999, 17 between 10,000 and 19,999, and 26 of over 20,000. Twenty-three were private, religious institutions; 25 private, non-religious; and 49 public. Of the four institutions that dropped 91 out of the sample due to too few responses or missing data, one was a Break Away member and three were non-members; two were private, non-religious and two were public; and one had an enrollment of under 1,000 students, one between 1,000 and 4,999, one between 5,000 and 9,000, and one between 10,000 and 19,999. Students. Of the 98 institutions who agreed to participate in the survey and actually sent out the e-mail invitation to students, there were 6216 possible respondents; 2187 students responded to at least one outcome question for an overall response rate of 35.18%. After deleting cases for missing data, 1503 respondents remained in the data set (68.72% of the original sample). In order to determine whether or not the full and reduced (HLM) samples were different in meaningful ways, the two samples were compared on key variables. The results of this comparison are detailed in Table 1. The only significant difference between the two groups was in trip location. All students who participated in local trips were deleted in the reduced sample for the HLM analysis. Table 1. Comparison of Full and Reduced Samples Full Sample 2187 students 443 programs 97 universities Reduced Sample 1503 students 405 programs 94 universities Number Percent Number Percent STUDENTS First Year 439 20.1% 302 20.1% Sophomore 651 29.8% 443 29.5% Junior 592 27.1% 403 26.8% Senior 431 19.7% 299 19.9% Grad Student 56 2.6% 48 3.2% Other 11 .5% 8 .5% ?2=1.335, df=5, p=.931 Female 1723 78.8% 1192 79.3% Male 446 20.4% 311 20.7% ?2=.009, df=1, p=.924 92 African American 130 5.9% 76 5.1% Asian/Pacific Islander 194 8.9% 113 7.5% Hispanic 105 4.8% 67 4.5% Multiracial 135 6.2% 100 6.7% Other Race 34 1.6% 24 1.6% White 1574 71.97% 1123 74.72% ?2=4.748, df=7, p=.691 Prior AB experience 707 32.3% 483 32.1% ?2=.051, df=1, p=.821 Prior Study Abroad 426 19.5% 287 19.1% ?2=.222, df=2, p=.637 High School Service 0 289 12.8% 169 11.2% 1 405 18.5% 278 18.5% 2 472 21.6% 331 22.0% 3 610 27.9% 435 28.9% 4 420 19.2% 290 19.3% ?2=2.209, df=4, p=.697 College Service 0 231 10.6% 134 8.9% 1 478 21.9% 329 21.9% 2 428 19.6% 294 19.6% 3 510 23.3% 364 24.2% 4 540 24.7% 382 25.4% ?2=2.934, df=4, p=.569 # of countries visited outside of the US 0 620 28.3% 430 28.6% 1 270 12.3% 199 13.2% 2-4 726 33.2% 505 33.6% 5-10 424 19,4% 279 18.6% 11-20 107 4.9% 73 4.9% 20+ 23 1.1% 17 1.1% ?2=.942, df=5, p=.967 Local Trips 87 4.6% 0 0% Domestic Trips 1486 78.58% 1248 83.0% International Trips 318 16.8% 255 17.0% ?2=71.220, df=2, p<.001 Outcome: Volunteer 0 48 2.2% 33 2.2% 1 51 2.3% 35 2.3% 2 251 11.5% 175 11.6% 3 695 31.8% 467 31.1% 4 1141 52.2% 793 52.8% ?2=.222, df=4 p=.994 mean (sd) 3.29 (.917) 3.30 (.920) t=0.3250, df=3688, p=0.7452 Outcome: 0 81 3.7% 59 3.9% 93 Advocacy 1 132 6.0% 89 5.9% 2 468 21.4% 305 20.3% 3 751 34.3% 530 35.3% 4 752 34.4% 520 34.6% ?2=.884, df=4, p=.927 mean (sd) 2.90 (1.060) 2.91 (1.064) t=0.2811, df=3688, p=0.7786 Outcome: Major 0 302 13.9% 219 14.6% 1 308 14.1% 207 13.8% 2 471 21.5% 315 21.0% 3 578 26.4% 401 26.7% 4 521 23.8% 361 24.0% ?2=.594, df=4, p=.964 mean (sd) 2.32 (1.346) 2.32 (1.359) t=0, df=3688, p=1.00 Outcome: Career 0 238 10.9% 180 12.0% 1 285 13.0% 194 12.9% 2 573 26.2% 367 24.4% 3 601 27.5% 430 28.6% 4 487 22.3% 332 22.1% ?2=2.479, df=4, p=.648 mean (sd) 2.37 (1.263) 2.36 (1.284) t=0.2347, df=3688, p=0.8144 Outcome: Study Abroad 0 598 27.3% 424 28.2% 1 306 14.0% 199 13.2% 2 458 20.9% 318 21.2% 3 401 18.3% 279 18.6% 4 416 19.0% 283 18.8% ?2=.659, df=4, p=.956 mean (sd) 1.88 (1.474) 1.87 (1.477) t=0.2023, df=3688, p=0.8397 Outcome: Travel Abroad 0 367 16.8% 263 17.5% 1 246 11.2% 154 10.2% 2 394 18.0% 280 18.6% 3 535 24.5% 359 23.9% 4 643 29.4% 447 29.7% ?2=1.434, df=4, p=.838 mean (sd) 2.38 (1.435) 2.38 (1.445) t=0, df=3688, p=1.00 94 Variables All variables used in the analysis were either single-item or a combination of items from the online survey (level-1 and level-2) or IPEDS (level-3). Where appropriate, principle components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was used to identify items that loaded reliably onto single components; item loadings and reliabilities for each resulting scale reported below. Outcomes. Each outcome was measured with a question that asked to students to rate the extent to which their AB experience influenced that outcome. These outcomes included students? intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, or study or travel abroad, or their major or career plans. Students rated the influence of the AB program on each of these outcomes on a five-point scale ranging from ?not at all? (0) to ?a great deal? (4). For each of the six outcome questions where a respondent answered something other than ?not at all,? s/he saw a series of follow-up questions, including one open-ended question for each, meant to ascertain the substance of that influence. Level-1: Inputs. Class level. Students were asked to indicate their current class level (1=first year, 2=sophomore, 3=junior, 4=senior, 5=graduate student, 6=other). Gender. The survey asked students to indicate their gender, and offered response options of male, female, or transgendered. There were not sufficient numbers of students who 95 identified as transgenered for the analysis, so gender was converted to a dichotomous dummy variable (0=female, 1=male). Race. Students were asked to ?choose all that apply? from a list of possible racial/ethnic groups, but in order to analyze the data students had to be classified as only one racial/ethnic group. As such, all students who identified with only one racial/ethnic group were coded into that racial/ethnic group; any student who indicated more than one racial/ethnic group was re-coded as ?multiracial.? This resulted in 8 racial/ethnic groups: White, African American, Hispanic, American Indian, Arab American, Multiracial, and Other Race. Unfortunately there were not enough students who identified as American Indian (6) or Arab American (4) to conduct a reliable analysis based on these racial groups, so these students were combined with the ?Other Race? variable, resulting in six racial/ethnic groups. Five dummy variables were then created with White as the referent group. Prior AB experience. Students prior Alternative Break experience was measured using a yes/no question asking whether or not the student had previously participated in an Alternative Break (0=no, 1=yes). Prior community service and service-learning. The survey first asked students whether or not they had previously participated in community service or service-learning; if they responded affirmatively, students saw two follow-up questions asking how frequently they participated in community service or service-learning in high school and college. These questions were combined into two 96 variables ? prior high school community service/service-learning and prior college community service/service-learning; students who replied ?no? to the screening question were recoded as ?never,? all other answers remained the same (0=never, 1=less than once a month, 2=once a month, 3=more than once a month but less than once a week, 4=once a week or more). Prior study and travel abroad. Students? prior study abroad experience was measured using a yes/no question asking students whether or not they had previously studied abroad (0=no, 1=yes). Similar to prior experience with community service/service-learning, students? prior international travel experience was first assessed with a yes/no question about whether or not they had previously travelled abroad. All students who answered affirmatively saw a follow-up question asking them to indicate to how many countries they had previously travelled, not including the US. These two questions were combined, and students who had not previously travelled abroad were coded as 0 (never) (0=never, 1=1 country, 2=2-4 countries, 3=5-10 countries, 5=11-20 countries, 6=more than 20 countries). Level-3: Distal environments. As noted above, data for level-3 was obtained through IPEDS, Break Away, and institutional gatekeepers. Institution type was based on the Basic Carnegie Classification from IPEDS, including Associates, Baccalaureate, Masters, and Doctoral/Research universities. Three dummy variables were created with Doctoral/Research as the referent group. Size classifications from IPEDS included under 1000 students, 1000-4999 students, 5000-9999 students, 10,000-19,999 students, and over 20,000 students; four dummy variables were created with over 20,000 students as the referent group. 97 Institutional control categories from IPEDS included public, private/religious, and private/non-religious; two dummy variables were created with public as the referent group. The two distal environmental variables not from IPEDS were the total AB participation and Break Away membership status of the institution. The total AB participation was measured by the total number of students participating in all AB trips at that particular university, based on information provided by the institutional gatekeepers. Information on Break Away membership was provided by Break Away; institutions were either current members, former members, or non-members. Two dummy variables were created for Break Away membership with non-members as the referent group. Level-1 and Level-2: Proximal environments. All proximal environments, with the exception of trip location, were included as a measure of the individual?s perception of the environment at level-1, and aggregated to level-2 by program as an approximation of the ?real? environment. Placement quality. Placement quality was measured in the survey by 13 items, which students rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=not at all, 5=very much). Exploratory principle components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation identified two main components. Items for each component were summed to form two new variables labeled ?service engagement? and ?community engagement.? Tables 2 and 3 list the items and loadings for each component, along with the alpha reliability for each scale. Table 2. Community Engagement (alpha=.875) Item Loading You worked directly with the community .859 98 The community was involved in the execution of your project .828 The community was involved in the design of your project .805 You developed relationships with people in the community being served .774 You met community-identified needs .680 Table 3. Service Engagement (alpha=.806) Item Loading You were making a positive contribution .799 You had important levels of responsibility .730 You were an active participant rather than an observer .728 You engaged in a variety of tasks .697 You received input from on-site supervisors .689 You were appreciated by on-site supervisors .669 Two remaining items did not load strongly on either component: the extent to which students felt that they were emotionally and physically challenged by their AB experience. These were kept in the analysis as individual items due to the support in the literature for the importance of these items to the AB experience (Kiely, 2005), and were labeled ?emotional challenge? and ?physical challenge,? respectively. Engagement with the ?other.? Eight items represented the variable of ?engagement with the ?other.?? These items asked students to rate their interactions with the community, host site staff, and other students. Students were asked to rate the frequency of their interaction with the community and host site staff (other students were excluded from this question on the assumption that students in the same group interacted every day during the experience) (1=Never, 2=Once or twice during the week, 3=More than once or twice but less than every day, 4=Once a day, 5=More than once a day), the extent to which students felt that people in each of the three groups were different from themselves (1=not at all different, 99 5=very different), and the amount that students learned from each group (1=nothing, 5=quite a lot). This resulted in eight individual items to operationalize this variable: ? Community interaction (frequency of interaction with the community) ? Community difference (extent of difference between the community and the respondent) ? Community learning (how much the respondent learned from the community) ? Staff interaction (frequency of interaction with the staff) ? Staff difference (extent of difference between the staff and the respondent) ? Staff learning (how much the respondent learned from the staff) ? Student difference (extent of difference between the other students and the respondent) ? Student learning (how much the respondent learned from the other students) Connection to social issues. Six items, measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) represented the extent to which students were able to connect their AB experience to social issues. Exploratory PCA identified one component; the five items were summed and labeled ?social issues.? Table 4 lists the items and loadings for this component, along with the alpha reliability the scale. Table 4. Social Issues (alpha=.844) Item Loading I was able to see the larger context of the social issue addressed by my 2011 ASB trip .846 My 2011 ASB experience allowed me to come to a greater understanding of the social issue being addressed by my trip .823 My 2011 ASB trip helped me connect real people to the social issue being addressed by the trip .808 I was able to connect my 2011 ASB trip to other things I have .739 100 learned outside of the classroom My 2011 ASB experience allowed me to come to a greater understanding of the region where my trip took place .666 Reflection. The survey included eleven questions that asked students to rate the frequency with which they engaged in a number of reflective activities (0=never, 1=once or twice during the week, 2=more than once or twice but less than every day, 3=once a day, 4=more than once a day). Four of these questions loaded strongly onto one component; these items were summed to form a composite item labeled ?reflection.? Items, loadings, and the scale reliability are listed in Table 5. Table 5: Reflection (alpha=.822) Item Loading Spent time with the entire group reflecting on your experiences .809 Discussed the impact of your group?s service work with other students on your trip .795 Engaged in activities with others in your group to help you reflect on your experiences .736 Discussed your experiences with a student trip leader .717 One additional item, the frequency with which students wrote in an individual journal, did not load strongly onto the reflection component, but was kept in the analysis as a single item due to the strong research support for the importance of written reflection in service-learning (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Program intensity. The survey included ten items on program intensity, measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Exploratory PCA identified two components. One component only had three items and a low reliability (alpha=.607), so it was not retained for the analysis. Five 101 items loaded strongly on the other component; these items were summed and labeled ?emotional intensity.? Items, loadings, and the scale reliability are listed in Table 6. Table 6. Emotional Intensity (alpha=.799) Item Loading I experienced strong emotions during my 2011 ASB experience .829 My 2011 ASB trip was an intense experience .793 I was emotionally challenged by the experience. .712 My 2011 ASB experience allowed to experience something totally new .648 My 2011 ASB experience caused me to re-examine my beliefs about the root causes of social issues .608 Because it was measured on a different scale, the number of hours students engaged in service each day (1=less than 1, 2=at least 1 but less than 4, 3=at least 4 but less than 8, 4=8 or emore) was not included in the PCA. This was included in the analysis as a single item due to the research pointing to the importance of the time engaged in service to service-learning outcomes (Cook, 2004). An additional measure of program intensity was the extent to which students felt that the location of their trip was similar to places they had been before (0=not at all similar; 1=mostly different, but similar in a few ways; 2=somewhat similar; 3=very similar; 4=has previously travelled to this location). This was included only at level-1, as this is purely a matter of the students? own experience, and thus an aggregate of this measure would not be meaningful. Orientation and training. The extent to which students engaged in pre-trip and on-site orientation and training was measured using 7 yes/no items. Students were asked to indicate whether they had an opportunity to: 102 ? Learn about the mission and objectives of the agency or organization with whom they were working during your 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip; ? Learn about the history of the location they travelled to for your 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip; ? Learn about the culture of the location they travelled to for their 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip; ? Receive training in skills that would be necessary for the project they would work on during their 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip; ? Learn about the social issue being addressed by their trip; ? Discuss culture shock that they might experience on their trip; and ? Discuss cross-cultural communication skills. As PCA cannot be done on dichotomous variables, these items were summed and labeled ?Orientation? to represent the comprehensiveness of the pre-trip and on-site orientation and training program. Reorientation. Similarly, eight items were included in the survey to measure the reorientation experience of students when they returned to campus after their AB trip. These items included the opportunity to: ? Discuss their experiences with the other students who were with them on the trip; ? Discuss their experience with other students from their college or university who went on different trips; and 103 ? Discuss or share their experiences with others on their campus who were not part of the 2011 Alternative Spring Break program. And whether anyone (affiliated with the AB program or not) had: ? Provided them with information on reverse culture shock; ? Encouraged them to find ways to engage in future community service or service-learning activities; ? Encouraged them to find ways to engage in future community service or service-learning activities; ? Encouraged them to find other ways to build on their Alternative Break experience; and ? Encouraged them to find other ways to build on their Alternative Break experience. Students were able to respond with three possible answers ? ?yes,? ?no, but I expect to soon,? and ?no.? To enable these items to be used in the analysis, the ?no, but I expect to soon? answers were all recoded as ?yes.? These items were then summed and labeled ?reorientation? to represent the comprehensiveness of the reorientation program provided for students. Trip location. Students were asked to indicate if they considered the location of their AB trip to be local (in the same general location as their university), international, or domestic. This item was dummy coded, with domestic as the referent group, and was included only at level-2, as this is an objective measure and thus not subject to individual experiences of 104 the environment. As noted above, this variable was entered as a separate block in the HLM analysis. Data Analysis Research question 1. The first research question was, how frequently and in what ways do participants returning from AB programs report that their AB experience influenced their major, career plans, or their intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad or travel abroad? Frequencies for the outcome measures and the follow-up questions were calculated to answer this research question. Research question 2. The second research question was, what characteristics of AB programs contribute to reports of these influences? Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to answer this research question. First, as recommended by Raudenbush and Bryk (2002), one-way random effects ANOVA?s were used for each outcome variable in order to determine the partitioning of the variance for each level (the amount of variance that can be accounted for by each level of analysis): Level-1 Model ? ? ?? ? ? Level-2 Model ?? ? ??? ? ?? Level-3 Model ??? ? ??? ? ??? In this step of the analysis, the level-1 model assumes that a students? score on each of the outcome measures is a function of the mean score for his or her entire AB program group, plus some amount of individual variation. The level-2 model assumes that the 105 mean score for each AB program group is a function of the mean score for all programs within a particular university, plus some amount of variation between programs within the university. The level-3 model assumes that the mean score for each university is a function of the mean score for all students across all universities, plus some amount of variation between universities. After the partitioning of the variance at each level was determined, predictor variables were entered at each level. As described above, this study combined Astin?s IEO model and the typical HLM analysis to produce a series of HLM analyses. As a result, four separate, nested HLM analyses were performed for each outcome variable. In the first analysis, only the level-1 inputs were added to the model. In the second analysis, level-1 inputs and level-3 distal environments were included in the model. In the third analysis, level-1 inputs, level-3 distal environments, and level-1 proximal environments were included. In the fourth analysis, level-1 inputs, level-3 distal environments, level-1 proximal environments, and level-2 proximal environments (those aggregated from level- 1) were included in the model. This allowed for the examination of the significance of individual predictor variables as well as an analysis of the overall model fit at each step. A significant change in the deviance statistic with the addition of another step of the analysis indicated that the variables in that step, as a whole, significantly improved the fit between the data and the model (similar to the change in R2 in hierarchical linear regression). For each variable, the last step of the analysis (Blocks 1-4) to improve model fit significantly was used to interpret the significance of various predictor variables. 106 Research question 3. The third research question was, are students who participate in international AB programs more likely to report these influences than those on domestic programs, controlling for other variables? This research question was answered by examining whether or not an international program location (compared to a domestic location), added in at level-2 in the final step of the HLM analysis, was a significant predictor of any of the outcome variables. Limitations Before moving on to the results of this study, it is first important to note its limitations. First, this study employed a post-test only design with no comparison group. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether or not the outcomes associated with Alternative Breaks in this study are truly due to the AB experience, rather than some other factor (such as student predisposition to the particular outcome). Second, this study only included students who participated in Alternative Spring Break programs. While the limited data available from Break Away indicate that spring break is the most popular time for these programs, it is possible that there are differences between spring, summer, and winter breaks (e.g., length of time of the AB trip, the type of work that can be completed, or the type of student who chooses to participate during different break times); as a result, the results of this study cannot be generalized to all AB programs, only those occurring over spring break. Additional limitations to this study stem from the institutions that were invited and chose to participate. The sampling for this study relied on the willingness of a staff contact person to participate, which may have led to a program-level selection bias. Staff 107 contacts who agreed to participate may have been those who felt that their programs were stronger, while some who refused might have perceived their programs to be weaker. In fact, one school explicitly dropped out of the study after spring break trips did not go as well as the staff contact had hoped. Similarly, only those programs that had been found by Break Away, and within that group, only those for which a contact person could be identified, had a chance to be selected to participate in the study. It is therefore possible that there are other programs not known to Break Away, or for whom a staff contact could not be identified, that would be significantly different than those programs that were selected to participate. Finally, as noted above, while the stratified random sample of institutions guaranteed a variety of institutional types in the study, there is an overrepresentation of large universities and Break Away member institutions in the study, which may influence the results. Other limitations to this study are a result of the manner in which survey questions were asked. Students may have perceived that their AB experience should have influenced them in some or all of the ways asked, particularly if programs advertise in such a way as to lead students to believe that they will have a life changing experience through Alternative Breaks. It is also limiting to measure students? behavioral intentions immediately after the experience, particularly in realms (such as a students? future career) that may take place far in the future. As Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) noted, the amount of time between the behavioral intention and the actual behavior decreases the relationship between the two. Finally, measuring constructs such as race and ethnicity with a single check-box question (even if students are allowed to check multiple boxes) does not 108 adequately capture the complexities of respondents? multiple identities. Analysis based on identities such as race and gender are inherently limited as a result. Summary and Conclusions This chapter provided an overview of the methods used in this study. It began with an overview of the conceptual frameworks for the study, Mezirow?s (1991, 1997, 2000) theory of Transformative Learning and Astin?s (1991) Inputs-Environments- Outcomes (IEO) model. The modifications to this model were described, including the modified IEO model for use with hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). The development of the survey instrument for this study was detailed, along with the methods of sampling and data collection. The institution and student samples were then described, and the variables used in the analysis were described. Finally, the steps in the data analysis were outlined and the limitations of the study discussed. The following chapter will describe the findings from this study. 109 Chapter 4: Results Introduction The purpose of this study was to explore the extent to and ways in which student participants in Alternative Break (AB) programs report that their AB experience influenced their major, career plans, or intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad or travel abroad. This study also sought to identify the specific program characteristics of AB programs that contributed to these outcomes. This chapter presents the results of this study in answer to the three main research questions, using descriptive analysis and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM): 1. How frequently and in what ways do participants returning from AB programs report that their AB experience influenced their: (a) Intentions or plans to volunteer (b) Intentions or plan to engage in advocacy (c) Intentions or plans to study abroad (d) Intentions or plans to travel abroad (e) Major (f) Career plans 2. What program characteristics of AB programs contribute to reports of these influences? 3. Are students who participate in international AB programs more likely to report these influences than those on domestic programs, controlling for other variables? 110 Research Question One The first research question was, how frequently and in what ways do participants returning from AB programs report that their AB experience influenced their major, career plans, or intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad or travel abroad? Students were asked to rate, on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 4 (quite a lot) the extent to which their Alternative Break experience influenced these outcomes. For all six outcome questions, students overwhelmingly indicated that their Alternative Break had at least some influence (see Table 7), rating each item at least a ?1?: 97.8% indicated at least some influence on their intentions or plans to volunteer, 96.3% on their intentions or plans to engage in advocacy, 89.1% on their career plans, 86.1% on their major or the way that they think about their major, 72.6% on their intentions or plans to study abroad, and 83.2% on their intentions or plans to travel internationally. Table 7. Frequencies and descriptive statistics for outcome measures Not at all 0 1 2 3 4 Quite a lot Overall Sample Number Percent Your intentions or plans to volunteer? 0 48 2.2% 1 51 2.3% 2 251 11.5% 3 695 31.8% 4 1141 52.2% Mean 3.29 stdev .917 Your intentions or plans to engage in advocacy? 0 81 3.7% 1 132 6.0% 2 468 21.4% 3 751 34.4% 4 752 34.4% Mean 2.90 stdev 1.060 Your career plans? 0 238 10.9% 1 285 13.0% 2 573 26.2% 111 3 601 27.5% 4 487 22.3% Mean 2.37 stdev 1.263 Your major or the way that you think about your major? 0 302 13.9% 1 308 14.1% 2 471 21.6% 3 578 26.5% 4 521 23.9% Mean 2.32 stdev 1.346 Your intentions or plans to study abroad? 0 598 27.4% 1 306 14.0% 2 458 21.0% 3 401 18.4% 4 416 19.1% Mean 1.88 stdev 1.474 Your intentions or plans to travel internationally? 0 367 16.8% 1 246 11.3% 2 394 18.0% 3 535 24.5% 4 643 29.4% Mean 2.38 stdev 1.434 Considering only those students who indicated that their Alternative Break experience had a substantial influence (a rating of 3 or 4 on the scale), the majority of students responded affirmatively for almost all outcomes. Eighty-four percent of students indicated that their AB experience had a substantial influence on their intentions or plans to volunteer, the highest rate of any of the outcomes measured. This was followed by 68.8% of students who indicated a substantial influence on their intentions or plans to engage in advocacy, 53.9% on intentions or plans to travel internationally, 50.4% on their major or the way that they think about their major, 49.8% on career plans, and 37.5% on intentions or plans to study abroad. 112 Intentions or plans to volunteer. As a follow-up, students who indicated at least some influence on their intentions or plans to volunteer (i.e., did not respond ?not at all?) were asked to indicate how their plans to volunteer in the future compared to their volunteer activities prior to their AB trip. Just under one third (30.0%) indicated that they planned to volunteer about the same as they had prior to their AB experience, while approximately two-thirds (67.0%) indicated that they planned to volunteer more than they had prior to their AB experience (see Table 8). Table 8. Comparison of volunteer activities before and after the AB experience Overall Sample Number Percent I plan to volunteer less than I did before my Alternative Spring Break experience 8 0.4% I plan to volunteer about the same as I did before my Alternative Spring Break experience 657 30.0% I plan to volunteer more than I did before my Alternative Spring break experience 1466 67.0% In order to explore the relationship between the extent to which students? indicated their AB experience influenced their intentions to volunteer and how they indicated their future volunteer activities would compare to their past activities, these two variables were cross-tabulated (see Table 9). This analysis showed that there was a significant relationship between the extent of the influence and the direction of the influence (?2=303.596, df=6, p<.001). Students who said that they planned to volunteer more than they had in the past were more likely to have indicated that the AB experience had a stronger influence on their plans to volunteer, while those who indicated that they would volunteer about the same were less likely to have indicated a strong influence of the AB experience (See Table 9). 113 Table 9. Cross-tabulation of extent and type of influence: Volunteer Extent of influence Volunteer less Volunteer the same Volunteer more 1 1 (<1%) 42 (2.0%) 7 (<1%) 2 1 (<1%) 166 (7.8%) 83 (3.9%) 3 3 (<1%) 236 (11.1%) 454 (21.3%) 4 3 (<1%) 212 (10.0%) 922 (43.3%) Intentions or plans to engage in advocacy. Students who indicated that their Alternative Break experience had at least some influence on their intentions or plans to engage in advocacy were asked to indicate how their plans to engage in advocacy in the future compared to their advocacy activities prior to their Alternative Break experience, and were also asked to indicate the primary issue around which they planned to engage in advocacy (in relation to their Alternative Break experience). Just over half (53.8%) indicated that they planned to engage in advocacy more than they had prior to their Alterative Break, while 45.7% indicated they would engage in advocacy about the same (see Table 10). Over three quarters (77.3%) indicated that they would engage in advocacy around issue related to their AB experience, while 12.3% indicated they would engage in advocacy around other unrelated issues. Table 10. Comparison of advocacy activities before and after the AB experience. Overall Sample Number Percent I plan to engage in advocacy less than I did before my Alternative Spring Break experience 10 0.5% I plan to engage in advocacy about the same as I did before my Alternative Spring Break experience 940 45.7% I plan to engage in advocacy more than I did before my Alternative Spring break experience 1107 53.8% Table 11. Advocacy issues in relation to the Alternative Break. Overall Sample Number Percent Issues related to my 2011 Alternative Spring Break 1598 77.3% 114 trip Issues not related to my 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip 254 12.3% I do not plan to engage in advocacy 214 10.4% In order to explore the relationship between the extent to which students? indicated their AB experience influenced their intentions to engage in advocacy and how they indicated their future advocacy would compare to their past activities, these two variables were cross-tabulated (see Table 12). This analysis showed that there was a significant relationship between the extent of the influence and the direction of the influence (?2=516.770, df=6, p<.001). Students who said that they planned to engage in advocacy more than they had in the past were more likely to have indicated that the AB experience had a stronger influence on their plans to engage in advocacy, while those who indicated that they would engage in advocacy about the same were less likely to have indicated a strong influence of the AB experience (See Table 12). Table 12. Cross-tabulation of extent and type of influence: Advocacy. Extent of influence Engage in advocacy less Engage in advocacy the same Engage in advocacy more 1 1 (<1%) 114 (5.5%) 13 (<1%) 2 4 (<1%) 351 (17.1%) 104 (5.1%) 3 2 (<1%) 348 (16.9%) 387 (18.8%) 4 3 (<1%) 127 (6.2%) 601 (29.2%) Career plans. Students who indicated at least some influence of the AB experience on their career plans were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a series of four follow-up questions meant to ascertain the content of that influence. Very few students (7.5%) indicated that their AB experience made them want to change their career plans 115 completely. Many more students (68.9%) planned to continue with their prior career plans but wanted to alter those plans in some way to focus more on helping others. Over half of the students (53.0%) indicated that they were considering participating in a volunteer program such as the Peace Corps, Americorps, Teach for America, or Doctors without Borders (see Table 13). Table 13. Influence of the AB experience on students? career plans. Overall Sample Number Percent My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my career plans. Strongly Disagree 433 22.7% Disagree 754 39.5% Neutral 468 24.5% Agree 197 10.3% Strongly Agree 56 2.9% Mean* 2.31 stdev 1.026 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me want to change career plans completely. Strongly Disagree 676 35.5% Disagree 731 38.4% Neutral 355 18.6% Agree 114 6.0% Strongly Agree 28 1.5% Mean 2.00 stdev .956 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me want to stay with the same general career plans but alter them in some way to focus on helping others. Strongly Disagree 28 1.5% Disagree 130 6.8% Neutral 435 22.8% Agree 914 48.0% Strongly Agree 398 20.9% Mean 3.80 stdev .896 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me want to take time off after college (or graduate school) to participate in a volunteer program such as the Peace Corps, Americorps, Teach for America, or Doctors without Borders. Strongly Disagree 164 8.6% Disagree 264 13.9% Neutral 466 24.5% Agree 595 31.2% Strongly Agree 416 21.8% Mean 3.44 stdev 1.215 * Strongly Agree = 5, Strongly Disagree = 1 116 As 13.2% of the students who indicated that the AB experience had influenced their career plans agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, ?My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my career plans,? a cross-tabulation of these two variables was calculated. This analysis showed that there was a significant relationship between the extent of the influence and whether or not students agreed with this statement (?2=906.060, df=12, p<.001). Students who indicated a stronger influence of the AB experience on their career plans were significantly less likely to agree with the statement, ?My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my career plans,? than students who had indicated a weaker influence of the AB experience (See Table 14). Table 14. Cross-tabulation of extent and type of influence: Career Extent of influence My 2011 AB experience had no influence on my career plans Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 5 (<1%) 56 (2.9%) 104 (5.5%) 88 (4.6%) 26 (1.36%) 2 28 (1.5%) 219 (11.5%) 233 (12.2%) 67 (3.5%) 11 (<1%) 3 115 (6.0%) 339 (17.8%) 106 (5.6%) 33 (1.7%) 1 (<1%) 4 285 (15.0%) 137 (7.2%) 25 (1.3%) 9 (<1%) 18 (1.0%) Major. Students who indicated at least some influence of the AB experience on their major or the way that they think about their major were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a series of five follow-up questions. Very few students (4.1%) indicated that they wanted to change their major completely; likewise, only 4.7% indicated that their AB experience made their major seem pointless. Similar to the influence of the AB experience on students? career plans, the more common influence on students? major was to inspire them to take a new direction within their existing major 117 (27.9%). For most students (64.4%), the AB experience also helped them see real-world applications of their current major (see Table 15). Table 15. Influence of the AB experience on students? major Overall Sample Number Percent My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me want to change my major completely. Strongly Disagree 913 50.9% Disagree 600 33.5% Neutral 205 11.4% Agree 50 2.8% Strongly Agree 24 1.3% Mean* 1.70 stdev .876 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience helped me see real-world applications of my major. Strongly Disagree 75 4.2% Disagree 204 11.4% Neutral 357 20.0% Agree 711 39.8% Strongly Agree 439 24.6% Mean 3.69 stdev 1.089 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made my major seem pointless. Strongly Disagree 962 53.8% Disagree 558 31.2% Neutral 183 10.2% Agree 67 3.7% Strongly Agree 17 1.0% Mean 1.67 stdev .875 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me want to take a new direction within my existing major. Strongly Disagree 249 13.9% Disagree 507 28.3% Neutral 533 29.8% Agree 433 24.2% Strongly Agree 67 3.7% Mean 2.76 stdev 1.083 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my major. Strongly Disagree 332 18.5% Disagree 566 31.6% Neutral 474 26.5% Agree 292 16.3% Strongly Agree 127 7.1% Mean 2.62 stdev 1.166 * Strongly Agree = 5, Strongly Disagree = 1 118 As 23.4% of the students who indicated that the AB experience had influenced their major agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, ?My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my major,? a cross-tabulation of these two variables was calculated. This analysis showed that there was a significant relationship between the extent of the influence and whether or not students agreed with this statement (?2=430.749, df=12, p<.001). Students who indicated a stronger influence of the AB experience on their major were significantly less likely to agree with the statement, ?My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my major,? than students who had indicated a weaker influence of the AB experience (See Table 16). Table 16. Cross-tabulation of extent and type of influence: Major Extent of influence My 2011 AB experience had no influence on my major Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 13 (<1%) 53 (3.0%) 73 (4.1%) 101 (5.7%) 54 (3.0%) 2 34 (1.9%) 110 (6.2%) 172 (9.6%) 91 (5.1%) 34 (1.9%) 3 90 (5.0%) 225 (12.6%) 147 (8.2%) 67 (3.8%) 21 (1.2%) 4 195 (10.9%) 175 (9.8%) 81 (4.5%) 31 (1.7%) 18 (1.0%) Intentions or plans to study abroad. Students who indicated at least some influence of the AB experience on their intentions or plans to study abroad were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a series of three follow-up questions. Most students (61.0%) who felt that the AB experience had influenced their intentions or plans to study abroad felt that it had reinforced an existing desire to study abroad; others (34.9%) saw that their AB experience had inspired a new desire to study abroad (see Table 17). 119 Table 17. Influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to study abroad Overall Sample Number Percent My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience inspired a new desire to study abroad. Strongly Disagree 82 5.4% Disagree 328 21.5% Neutral 585 38.3% Agree 352 23.0% Strongly Agree 182 11.9% Mean* 3.15 stdev 1.056 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience reinforced my existing desire to study abroad. Strongly Disagree 55 3.6% Disagree 161 10.5% Neutral 380 24.9% Agree 530 34.7% Strongly Agree 401 26.3% Mean 3.69 stdev 1.079 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my desire to study abroad. Strongly Disagree 398 26.1% Disagree 475 31.1% Neutral 395 25.9% Agree 199 13.0% Strongly Agree 59 3.9% Mean 2.37 stdev 1.118 * Strongly Agree = 5, Strongly Disagree = 1 As 26.9% of the students who indicated that the AB experience had influenced their plans to study abroad agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, ?My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my desire to study abroad,? a cross-tabulation of these two variables was calculated. This analysis showed that there was a significant relationship between the extent of the influence and whether or not students agreed with this statement (?2=420.006, df=12, p<.001). Students who indicated a stronger influence of the AB experience on their intentions or plans to study abroad were significantly less likely to agree with the statement, ?My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my desire to study abroad,? than students who had indicated a weaker influence of the AB experience (See Table 18). 120 Table 18. Cross-tabulation of extent and type of influence: Study abroad Extent of influence My 2011 AB experience had no influence on my desire to study abroad Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 27 (1.8%) 61 (4.0%) 95 (6.3%) 82 (5.4%) 32 (2.1%) 2 57 (3.8%) 125 (8.2%) 160 (10.5%) 84 (5.5%) 14 (1.0%) 3 99 (6.5%) 167 (11.0%) 89 (5.9%) 23 (1.5%) 5 (<1%) 4 213 (14.0%) 122 (8.0%) 50 (3.3%) 8 (<1%) 7 (<1%) Intentions or plans to travel internationally. Students who indicated at least some influence of the AB experience on their intentions or plans to travel internationally were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a series of five follow-up questions. Similar to the influence of the AB experience on students? plans to study abroad, for most students (68.9%) the AB experience reinforced an existing desire to travel internationally, while a smaller number (42.2%) indicated that the experience had inspired a new desire to do so. Most students also felt that the AB experience had given them more confidence in international travel (59.0%), and had inspired them to focus future international travel on learning more about people and cultures (68.8%) (see Table 19). Table 19. Influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to travel internationally Overall Sample Number Percent My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my plans to travel internationally. Strongly Disagree 396 23.1% Disagree 648 37.7% Neutral 416 24.2% Agree 196 11.4% Strongly Agree 62 3.6% Mean* 2.35 stdev 1.065 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me more confident in travelling internationally. Strongly Disagree 36 2.1% Disagree 131 7.6% Neutral 536 31.2% Agree 691 40.2% 121 Strongly Agree 323 18.8% Mean 3.66 stdev .938 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me want to focus future international travel on learning more about people and cultures. Strongly Disagree 19 1.1% Disagree 108 6.3% Neutral 407 23.8% Agree 710 41.5% Strongly Agree 467 27.3% Mean 3.88 stdev .921 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience inspired a new desire to travel internationally. Strongly Disagree 57 3.3% Disagree 249 14.5% Neutral 684 39.9% Agree 485 28.3% Strongly Agree 239 13.9% Mean 3.35 stdev .999 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience reinforced my existing desire to travel internationally. Strongly Disagree 28 1.6% Disagree 79 4.6% Neutral 426 24.9% Agree 671 39.2% Strongly Agree 509 29.7% Mean 3.91 stdev .932 * Strongly Agree = 5, Strongly Disagree = 1 As 15.0% of the students who indicated that the AB experience had influenced their international travel plans agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, ?My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my desire to travel internationally,? a cross-tabulation of these two variables was calculated. This analysis showed that there was a significant relationship between the extent of the influence and the influence itself (?2=590.243, df=12, p<.001). Students who indicated a stronger influence of the AB experience on their intentions or plans to travel abroad were significantly less likely to agree with the statement, ?My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my desire to travel internationally,? than students who had indicated a weaker influence of the AB experience (See Table 20). 122 Table 20. Cross-tabulation of extent and type of influence: Travel internationally. Extent of influence My 2011 AB experience had no influence on my desire to travel internationally Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 11 (<1%) 54 (3.1%) 69 (4.0%) 75 (4.4%) 25 (1.5%) 2 22 (1.3%) 112 (6.5%) 168 (9.8%) 59 (3.4%) 14 (1.0%) 3 75 (4.4%) 261 (15.2%) 112 (6.5%) 47 (2.7%) 7 (<1%) 4 287 (16.7%) 220 (12.8%) 67 (3.9%) 15 (1.0%) 16 (1.0%) Summary: Research question one. The first research question sought to explore the extent to and manner in which students? AB experience influenced students? major, career plans, or intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, or study or travel abroad. As described above, students overwhelmingly reported that the AB experience did have an influence on these outcomes. The AB experience inspired many students to volunteer or engage in advocacy more than they had prior to the experience, helped students see real-world applications of their majors, motivated students to think about new avenues within their existing career plans, inspired new and reinforced existing plans to travel or study abroad, gave students confidence in travelling internationally, and shifted the focus of students? future international travel. The next section will examine the program characteristics that were related to the influence of the AB experience on these outcomes. Research Question Two The second research question was, what characteristics of AB programs contribute to the extent to which students report that their AB experience influenced their major, career plans, or intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad or travel abroad? As described in Chapter 3, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was 123 used to determine which variables and groups of variables significantly contributed to these outcomes. Interclass correlations (ICCs). The first step in the HLM analysis was to determine the amount of variance in each of the outcome variables that could be accounted for at each level of analysis ? the university (level-3), the program (level-2), and the student (level-1) ? using a random- effects ANOVA model (in HLM 6.02). This is often referred to as the interclass correlation, or ICC. Table 21 lists the variance accounted for at each level of analysis for each outcome variable. The proportion of variance accounted for at level-2 and level-3 was significant at the .05 level for all outcome variables except for Major; the proportion of variance accounted for at level-2 for Major was significant at the .10 level. Table 21. Variance accounted for at the student, program, and university levels for each outcome variable Volunteer Advocacy Career Major Study Abroad Travel Abroad Level-1 91.28% 86.66% 91.99% 91.73% 89.62% 87.02% Level-2 4.82%** 8.95%*** 3.70%** 3.99%* 4.16%** 7.14%*** Level-3 3.90%*** 4.40%*** 4.31%*** 4.29%*** 6.22%*** 5.84%*** *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.001 Predictors The second step in the HLM analysis was to add predictors to each level of the model, following the blocking procedure outlined in Chapter 3. The sections below outline the results of the HLM analysis for each outcome variable. Tables 22-27 detail the results of the HLM analysis for each variable; the last block entered into the model that significantly improved model fit (significantly reduced the deviance) is outlined in bold, and the significant predictors within that block are in bold. Table 28 summarizes the 124 blocks that significantly improved model fit and Table 29 provides a summary of the significant predictors for each outcome. Volunteer. Table 22 details the HLM results for the extent to which the AB experience influenced students? intentions or plans to volunteer. Block 1 (level-1 inputs), Block 2 (level-3 distal environments) and Block 3 (level-1 proximal environments) all significantly improved the model fit for this variable (Block 1: ?D=23.61891, df=12, p<.05; Block 2: ?D=26.752564, df=11, p<.05; Block 3: ?D=440.330001, df=20, p<.05); adding the level-2 proximal environments (Block 4) did not significantly improve model fit (?D=23.595961, df=19, p>.05), indicating that the inclusion of variables at this level was not necessary in the analysis. As a result, the Block 3 results were used in interpreting which variables were significant predictors of this outcome variable. Inputs. The first significant predictor of the influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to volunteer was students? class level (?=-.059, p<.05); students at higher class levels were less likely to indicate that the AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to volunteer than did students at lower class levels. While in earlier blocks male students were less likely than female students to indicate this influence, in Block 3 gender was no longer significant, indicating that the differences between men and women in earlier blocks could be explained by their different experiences of the program environments. Three racial/ethnic group variables were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to volunteer. Compared to White 125 students, Multiracial (?=.169, p<.05) students were more likely to indicate this influence. It is important to note here, however, that this racial/ethnic group was relatively small (n=100). No other racial group classification was a significant predictor of influence on students? intentions or plans to volunteer, nor was any measure of prior experience. Distal environments. Type of institution and size were not significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to volunteer; nor was attending a private, non-religious institution (compared to attending a public institution). Students attending religious institutions, however, were significantly less likely than those at public institutions to indicate an influence on their intentions or plans to volunteer (?=-.205, p<.05). Similarly, students at institutions that were current Break Away members (?=- .179, p<.05) or former Break Away members (?=-.164, p<.05) were less likely than those at non-Break Away institutions to indicate an influence on their intentions or plans to volunteer. Proximal environments. A number of level-1 proximal environments were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to volunteer. Service engagement (?=.019, p<.05), physical challenge (?=.054, p<.05), community learning (?=.131, p<.05), social issues (?=.047, p<.05), journaling (?=.046, p<.05), emotional intensity (?=.034, p<.05), reorientation (?=.062, p<.05), and trip location similarity (?=.033, p<.05) were all significant positive predictors of this influence. Students who indicated that these program characteristics were a greater part of their AB experience were more likely to indicate that their AB experience influenced their intentions or plans 126 to volunteer. Conversely, community interaction (?=-.058, p<.05) was a significant negative predictor of this influence; students who indicated that they interacted with the community more frequently were less likely to say that their AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to volunteer. Advocacy. Table 23 details the HLM results for the extent to which the AB experience influenced students? intentions or plans to engage in advocacy. Only Block 3 (level-1 environments) significantly improved model fit (?D=406.045146, df=20, p<.05), so the Block 3 results were used in interpreting which variables were significant predictors of this outcome variable. Inputs. Unlike the first variable, no student-level variables were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to engage in advocacy. While in earlier blocks gender was a significant negative predictor, this significant difference disappeared with the addition of the program environments. Distal environments. As with the first outcome variable, type of institution and size were not significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to engage in advocacy; nor was attending a private, non-religious institution (compared to attending a public institution). Students attending religious institutions, however, were significantly less likely than those at public institutions to indicate an influence on their intentions or plans to engage in advocacy (?=-.296, p<.05). Unlike the first variable, students at institutions that were currently or formerly members of Break Away were no 127 more or less likely to indicate that their AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to engage in advocacy than students at non-member institutions. Proximal environments. A number of level-1 proximal environments were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to engage in advocacy. Emotional challenge (?=.082, p<.05), community learning (?=.140, p<.05), student learning (?=.082, p<.05), social issues (?=.052, p<.05), journaling (?=.052, p<.05), reorientation (?=.089, p<.05), and the similarity of the trip location to places students had previously travelled (?=.027, p<.05) were all significant positive predictors of this influence. Students who indicated that these program characteristics were a greater part of their AB experience were more likely to indicate that their AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to engage in advocacy. Career. Table 24 details the HLM results for the extent to which the AB experience influenced students? career plans. Block 1 (level-1 inputs) significantly improved model fit (?D=63.46178, df=12, p<.05), as did Blocks 3 (level-1 proximal environments, ?D=279.969615, df=20, p<.05) and 4 (level-2 proximal environments, ?D=31.851234, df=10, p<.05). Interestingly, adding Block 2 (level-3 distal environments) did not significantly improve model fit (?D=9.490047, df=11, p>.05). As a result, the Block 4 results were used in interpreting which variables were significant predictors of this outcome variable. 128 Inputs. Three student-level input variables were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students career plans: gender and prior experience with Alternative Breaks and college community service or service-learning. Men were less likely than women to indicate an influence on their career plans (?=-.208, p<.05). Students? prior experience had a mixed relationship with influence on their career plans: students with prior AB experience were less likely than those with no prior AB experience to say that their current AB experience influenced their career plans (?=-.227, p<.05), while students with more prior college community service or service-learning experience were more likely than students with less experience to do so (?=.102, p<.05). Distal environments. Two distal environment variables were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? career plans. Students at Associate-level institutions were less likely than those at Doctoral-level institutions (?=-.683, p<.05) and students at religious institutions were less likely than those at public institutions (?=-.231, p<.05) to indicate that the AB experience influenced their career plans. Proximal environments. A number of level-1 proximal environments were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? career plans. Emotional challenge (?=.109, p<.05), staff learning (?=.129, p<.05), student learning (?=.101, p<.05), social issues (?=.031, p<.05), reorientation (?=.087, p<.05), and trip location similarity (?=.037, p<.05) were all significant positive predictors of this influence. Students who indicated 129 that these program characteristics were a greater part of their AB experience were more likely to indicate that their AB experience influenced their career plans. Additionally, a number of level-2 proximal environments (aggregated from all students in a particular program) were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? career plans. The extent to which students as a whole felt emotionally challenged by the experience (?=.190, p<.05), interacted with host site staff (?=.177, p<.05), and learned about social issues related to their trip (?=.060, p<.05) were all positive predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? career plans. Conversely, the extent to which students as a whole said that they learned from the host site staff was a negative predictor of this influence (?=-.154, p<.05). Major. Table 25 details the HLM results for the extent to which the AB experience influenced students? major. As with the influence on students career plans, adding Block 2 (level-3 distal environments) did not significantly improve model fit (?D=8.934534, df=11, p>.05). Likewise, Block 1 (level-1 inputs, ?D=58.23872, df=12, p<.05), Block 3 (level-1 proximal environments, ?D=259.204171, df=20, p<.05), and Block 4 (level-2 proximal environments, ?D=31.848593, df=19, p<.05) significantly improved the model fit for this variable. As a result, the Block 4 results were used in interpreting which variables were significant predictors of this outcome variable. Inputs. Five student-level input variables were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? majors: class level, gender, and prior experience with Alternative Breaks, college community service or service-learning, and study abroad. 130 Students who were further along in college (at a higher class level) were less likely than those newer to college to indicate that the AB experience influenced their major (?=-.070, p<.05); as with previous variables, men were less likely than women to indicate an influence on their major (?=-.241, p<.05). Students? prior experience had a mixed relationship with influence on their major: students with prior AB experience were less likely than those with no prior AB experience to say that their current AB experience influenced their major (?=-.247, p<.05), while students with more prior college community service or service-learning experience (? =.078, p<.05) and those who had studied abroad (? =.234, p<.05) were more likely than students with less experience to say that the AB experience influenced their major. Proximal environments. Seven level-1 proximal environments were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? major. Community engagement (?=.029, p<.05), emotional challenge (?=.148, p<.05), staff learning (?=.088, p<.05), student learning (?=.112, p<.05), journaling (?=.071, p<.05), reorientation (?=.054, p<.05), and trip location similarity (?=.036, p<.05) were all significant positive predictors of this influence. Students who indicated that these program characteristics were a greater part of their AB experience were more likely to indicate that their AB experience influenced their major. Additionally, five level-2 proximal environments (aggregated from all students in an individual program) were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? major. The extent to which students overall were emotionally challenged (?=.265, p<.05), interacted with the host-site staff (?=.184, p<.05), and learned about 131 social issues related to their trip (?=.065, p<.05) were all positive predictors of the influence on students? major. Conversely, the extent to which students as a whole engaged with the community (?=-.047) and found the experience to be emotionally intense (?=-.074, p<.05) were both negative predictors of this influence. Study Abroad. Table 26 details the HLM results for the extent to which the AB experience influenced students? intentions or plans to study abroad. Block 1 (level-1 inputs, ?D=91.28612, df=12, p<.05), Block 2 (level-3 distal environments, ?D=21.682802, df=11, p<.05) and Block 3 (level-1 proximal environments, ?D=135.699148, df=20, p<.05) all significantly improved the model fit for this variable; adding the level-2 proximal environments (Block 4) did not significantly improve model fit (?D=22.574651, df=19, p>.05), indicating that the inclusion of variables at this level was not necessary in the analysis. As a result, the Block 3 results were used in interpreting which variables were significant predictors of this outcome variable. Inputs. Four student-level input variables were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students career plans: class level, gender, identifying as Asian American, and prior experience with Alternative Breaks. As with previous variables, students who were further along in college (at a higher class level) and men were less likely than students newer to college and women to indicate an influence on their intentions or plans to study abroad (Class: ?=-.280, p<.05; Gender: ?=-.311, p<.05). Asian American (?=.314, p<.05) students, on the other hand, were more likely than their White peers to indicate an influence on their intentions or plans to study abroad. As with 132 previous variables, students with prior AB experience were less likely than those with no prior AB experience to say that their current AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to study abroad (?=-.214, p<.05). Distal environments. As with most of the previous variables discussed, institution type and size were not significant predictors of an influence on students? intentions or plans to study abroad. Students attending religious institutions (?=-.603, p<.05) were significantly less likely than students at public institutions to say that their AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to study abroad; there was no significant difference between students at public and private, non-religious institutions. Break Away membership was not a significant predictor of this outcome. Proximal environments. Five level-1 proximal environments were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? career plans. Physical challenge (?=.094, p<.05), student learning (?=.146, p<.05), journaling (?=.083, p<.05), orientation (?=.064, p<.05), and reorientation (?=.068, p<.05) were all significant positive predictors of this influence. Students who indicated that these program characteristics were a greater part of their AB experience were more likely to indicate that their AB experience influenced their career plans. Travel Internationally. Table 27 details the HLM results for the extent to which the AB experience influenced students? intentions or plans to travel internationally. While the addition of Block 2 did not significantly improve model fit (?D=16.49407, df=11, p>.05), the 133 addition of Block 1 (level-1 inputs, ?D=35.91903, df=12, p<.05) Block 3 (level-1 proximal environments, ?D=210.678026, df=20, p<.05) and Block 4 (level-2 proximal environments, ?D=32.033623, df=19, p<.05) did. As the addition of Block 4 did significantly improve model fit, the results from this block were used in interpreting significant predictors. Inputs. Two student-level input variables were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? plans to travel abroad: gender and identifying as Asian American. As with previous variables, men were less likely than women to indicate an influence on their intentions or plans to study abroad (Gender: ?=-.320, p<.05). Asian American (?=.421, p<.05), on the other hand, were more likely than their White peers to indicate an influence on their intentions or plans to study abroad. Distal environments. As with most of the previous variables discussed, institution type was not a significant predictor of an influence on students? intentions or plans to travel abroad. Students attending Masters-level institutions were more likely than those at Doctoral- level universities to say that their AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to travel abroad (?=.295, p<.05). Similar to previous outcome variables, students at private religious institutions(?=-.299, p<.05) were significantly less likely than students at public institutions to say that their AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to travel abroad; there were no significant differences between students at public and students at private, non-religious institutions. Break Away membership was not a significant predictor of this outcome. 134 Proximal environments. Five level-1 proximal environments were significant predictors of the influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to travel abroad. Community engagement (?=.026, p<.05), physical challenge (?=.098, p<.05), community learning (?=.195, p<.05), and reorientation (?=.057, p<.05) were all significant positive predictors of this influence. Students who indicated that these program characteristics were a greater part of their AB experience were more likely to indicate that their AB experience influenced their intentions or plan to travel abroad. Community interaction, on the other hand, was a significant negative predictor of influence on students? intentions or plans to travel abroad (?=-.132, p<.05). In addition to the level-1 proximal environments, three level-2 proximal environments were significant predictors of students? intentions or plans to travel abroad. Students who participated in AB programs where students as a whole rated the emotional challenge of the trip highly were more likely than those on less emotionally challenging trips to indicate an influence on their intentions or plans to study abroad (?=.224; p<.05), as were students who participated in programs where there was overall more interaction with the host site staff (?=.204, p<.05) and the community (?=.157, p<.05). Table 22. HLM results: Volunteer Block 1: Level 1 - Inputs Block 2: Level 1 ? Inputs + Level 3 Block 3: Level 1 Inputs + Level 3 + Level 1 - environments Block 4: Level 1+2+3 Block 5: Level 1+2+3+ international Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Level 1- Inputs Class level -0.062 0.007 -0.068 0.003 -0.059 0.004 -0.056 0.005 0.062 0.361 Gender: Male -0.125 0.033 -0.124 0.035 -0.047 0.362 -0.054 0.295 -0.058 0.004 African American -0.082 0.458 -0.056 0.608 -0.051 0.597 -0.056 0.564 -0.053 0.305 Asian American 0.099 0.278 0.109 0.230 0.127 0.114 0.139 0.086 -0.064 0.509 Hispanic 0.089 0.443 0.059 0.608 0.112 0.261 0.101 0.310 0.138 0.088 Multiracial 0.193 0.042 0.183 0.055 0.169 0.042 0.181 0.030 0.096 0.335 Race: Other -0.018 0.922 0.019 0.920 -0.073 0.649 -0.048 0.769 0.182 0.029 Prior AB experience -0.021 0.691 -0.027 0.612 -0.018 0.711 -0.002 0.970 -0.046 0.777 High School CSSL 0.000 0.987 0.002 0.932 -0.020 0.271 -0.022 0.232 -0.002 0.970 College CSSL -0.008 0.700 -0.009 0.637 -0.026 0.143 -0.024 0.183 -0.022 0.224 Prior Study Abroad 0.050 0.440 0.046 0.477 0.044 0.440 0.045 0.429 -0.023 0.185 Prior Travel Abroad -0.016 0.362 -0.010 0.581 -0.006 0.688 -0.009 0.553 0.045 0.426 Level 3 Associates 0.338 0.207 0.127 0.525 0.166 0.405 0.155 0.439 Baccalaureate 0.120 0.491 0.072 0.583 0.006 0.966 0.010 0.937 Masters 0.138 0.152 0.065 0.360 0.052 0.471 0.048 0.503 >1000 0.325 0.487 -0.063 0.869 -0.122 0.748 -0.110 0.773 1000-4,999 -0.130 0.431 -0.099 0.418 -0.064 0.601 -0.067 0.585 5,000-9,999 -0.096 0.405 -0.131 0.129 -0.091 0.293 -0.087 0.314 10,000-19,999 -0.128 0.165 -0.106 0.119 -0.075 0.275 -0.081 0.239 Religious -0.160 0.097 -0.205 0.005 -0.218 0.004 -0.217 0.005 Private, non- religious -0.215 0.052 -0.133 0.113 -0.078 0.354 -0.081 0.337 Break Away member -0.314 <.001 -0.179 0.006 -0.159 0.017 -0.155 0.019 Break Away former member -0.405 <.001 -0.164 0.039 -0.126 0.117 -0.124 0.124 Level 1 - Environments Service Engagement 0.019 0.011 0.016 0.062 0.016 0.060 Community Engagement 0.008 0.177 0.014 0.054 0.014 0.052 Emotional Challenge -0.017 0.548 -0.028 0.385 -0.028 0.390 Physical Challenge 0.054 0.002 0.047 0.037 0.047 0.037 Community Interaction -0.058 0.006 -0.063 0.014 -0.062 0.014 Community Difference 0.034 0.112 0.022 0.364 0.023 0.362 Community Learning 0.131 <.001 0.171 <.001 0.171 <.001 Staff Interaction 0.001 0.952 -0.011 0.663 -0.012 0.639 Staff Difference 0.001 0.956 0.018 0.465 0.018 0.468 Staff Learning -0.005 0.822 0.002 0.944 0.002 0.936 Student Difference -0.023 0.248 -0.024 0.308 -0.024 0.301 Student Learning 0.052 0.058 0.042 0.195 0.041 0.200 Social Issues 0.047 <.001 0.056 <.001 0.056 <.001 Reflection 0.012 0.108 0.007 0.447 0.007 0.441 Journaling 0.046 0.004 0.057 0.005 0.057 0.005 Emotional Intensity 0.034 0.001 0.027 0.019 0.027 0.021 Service Hours -0.013 0.731 -0.062 0.211 -0.062 0.214 Orientation 0.015 0.276 0.018 0.263 0.018 0.273 Reorientation 0.062 <.001 0.050 0.002 0.049 0.002 Trip location similarity 0.033 0.005 0.033 0.005 0.033 0.004 Level 2 - Environments Service Engagement 0.007 0.663 0.008 0.626 Community Engagement -0.018 0.165 -0.019 0.146 Emotional Challenge 0.033 0.604 0.030 0.634 Physical Challenge 0.008 0.837 0.005 0.896 Community Interaction 0.050 0.270 0.045 0.327 Community Difference 0.044 0.339 0.041 0.375 Community Learning -0.136 0.047 -0.131 0.057 Staff Interaction 0.045 0.340 0.038 0.417 Staff Difference -0.054 0.232 -0.058 0.200 Staff Learning -0.047 0.350 -0.046 0.355 Student Difference -0.001 0.980 -0.001 0.977 Student Learning 0.021 0.730 0.024 0.694 Social Issues -0.023 0.181 -0.024 0.170 Reflection 0.003 0.826 0.003 0.851 Journaling -0.018 0.568 -0.019 0.543 Emotional Intensity 0.031 0.173 0.032 0.165 Service Hours 0.108 0.178 0.116 0.149 Orientation -0.001 0.965 -0.005 0.860 Reorientation 0.053 0.080 0.055 0.069 International 0.062 0.361 Deviance? 3984.680438 3957.927874 3517.597873 3494.001912 3493.188524 Parameters 16 27 47 66 67 ? Deviance 23.61891 26.752564 440.330001 23.595961 0.813388 ? Parameters 12 11 20 19 1 ?Empty model deviance=4008.299352, parameters=4 p<.05 Table 23. HLM results: Advocacy Block 1: Level 1 - Inputs Block 2: Level 1 ? Inputs + Level 3 Block 3: Level 1 Inputs + Level 3 + Level 1 - environments Block 4: Level 1+2+3 Block 5: Level 1+2+3 +international Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Level 1- Inputs Class level -0.012 0.639 -0.018 0.500 -0.007 0.767 -0.001 0.950 -0.001 0.977 Gender: Male -0.160 0.018 -0.159 0.019 -0.083 0.170 -0.091 0.132 -0.091 0.129 African American -0.192 0.134 -0.172 0.179 -0.174 0.126 -0.194 0.089 -0.190 0.097 Asian American 0.114 0.277 0.117 0.264 0.142 0.132 0.135 0.153 0.135 0.154 Hispanic 0.088 0.509 0.066 0.623 0.104 0.378 0.101 0.387 0.103 0.379 Multiracial -0.045 0.680 -0.055 0.620 -0.083 0.393 -0.070 0.475 -0.071 0.471 Race: Other 0.068 0.749 0.088 0.681 0.004 0.984 0.023 0.905 0.022 0.907 Prior AB experience -0.088 0.157 -0.098 0.116 -0.079 0.159 -0.073 0.188 -0.073 0.188 High School CSSL 0.008 0.753 0.009 0.715 -0.015 0.467 -0.015 0.467 -0.015 0.471 College CSSL 0.039 0.095 0.038 0.098 0.021 0.297 0.017 0.397 0.017 0.397 Prior Study Abroad 0.056 0.452 0.052 0.485 0.035 0.600 0.033 0.612 0.034 0.608 Prior Travel Abroad -0.026 0.201 -0.021 0.303 -0.018 0.323 -0.019 0.293 -0.019 0.312 Level 3 Associates 0.290 0.408 0.085 0.748 0.170 0.509 0.175 0.496 Baccalaureate 0.204 0.383 0.134 0.442 0.068 0.686 0.066 0.693 Masters 0.193 0.138 0.119 0.215 0.147 0.118 0.148 0.113 >1000 0.003 0.995 -0.429 0.363 -0.513 0.271 -0.520 0.265 1000-4,999 -0.196 0.378 -0.107 0.514 -0.078 0.626 -0.076 0.632 5,000-9,999 -0.134 0.382 -0.162 0.157 -0.182 0.102 -0.183 0.100 10,000-19,999 -0.165 0.187 -0.116 0.205 -0.112 0.212 -0.109 0.225 Religious -0.194 0.135 -0.296 0.003 -0.306 0.002 -0.306 0.002 Private, non- religious -0.150 0.298 -0.097 0.376 -0.060 0.574 -0.059 0.581 Break Away member -0.238 0.034 -0.112 0.182 -0.086 0.303 -0.088 0.292 Break Away former member -0.367 0.011 -0.107 0.309 -0.050 0.633 -0.049 0.635 Level 1 - Environments Service Engagement 0.011 0.205 0.015 0.141 0.015 0.143 Community Engagement 0.011 0.148 0.016 0.067 0.016 0.067 Emotional Challenge 0.082 0.015 0.060 0.115 0.059 0.117 Physical Challenge 0.005 0.799 0.008 0.749 0.008 0.747 Community Interaction -0.045 0.069 -0.030 0.311 -0.030 0.309 Community Difference -0.005 0.835 0.021 0.453 0.021 0.452 Community Learning 0.140 <.001 0.146 0.001 0.146 0.001 Staff Interaction -0.003 0.914 -0.028 0.341 -0.028 0.347 Staff Difference 0.036 0.138 0.028 0.321 0.028 0.321 Staff Learning 0.029 0.297 0.040 0.216 0.039 0.218 Student Difference -0.024 0.307 -0.025 0.355 -0.025 0.358 Student Learning 0.082 0.012 0.058 0.119 0.058 0.118 Social Issues 0.052 <.001 0.054 <.001 0.054 <.001 Reflection 0.015 0.087 0.013 0.243 0.013 0.245 Journaling 0.052 0.006 0.066 0.005 0.066 0.005 Emotional Intensity 0.014 0.243 0.006 0.674 0.006 0.670 Service Hours -0.061 0.182 -0.064 0.261 -0.064 0.260 Orientation 0.023 0.149 0.035 0.058 0.035 0.057 Reorientation 0.089 <.001 0.064 0.001 0.064 0.001 Trip location similarity 0.027 0.043 0.024 0.071 0.024 0.073 Level 2 - Environments Service Engagement -0.014 0.492 -0.014 0.478 Community Engagement -0.017 0.280 -0.017 0.291 Emotional Challenge 0.104 0.169 0.106 0.164 Physical Challenge -0.006 0.892 -0.005 0.917 Community Interaction -0.035 0.523 -0.032 0.562 Community Difference -0.117 0.035 -0.116 0.037 Community -0.003 0.975 -0.005 0.954 Learning Staff Interaction 0.102 0.070 0.104 0.065 Staff Difference 0.061 0.260 0.063 0.245 Staff Learning -0.055 0.365 -0.055 0.365 Student Difference -0.002 0.970 -0.002 0.972 Student Learning 0.066 0.368 0.064 0.382 Social Issues 0.002 0.933 0.002 0.920 Reflection -0.005 0.739 -0.005 0.744 Journaling -0.048 0.219 -0.047 0.227 Emotional Intensity 0.022 0.429 0.022 0.435 Service Hours 0.034 0.726 0.030 0.755 Orientation -0.043 0.216 -0.041 0.242 Reorientation 0.097 0.008 0.096 0.009 International -0.029 0.733 Deviance? 4412.262118 4398.739304 3992.694158 3962.702975 3962.594707 Parameters 16 27 47 66 67 ? Deviance 19.6294 13.522814 406.045146 29.991183 0.108268 ? Parameters 12 11 20 19 1 ?Empty model deviance=4431.891517, parameters=4 p<.05 Table 24. HLM results: Career Block 1: Level 1 - Inputs Block 2: Level 1 ? Inputs + Level 3 Block 3: Level 1 Inputs + Level 3 + Level 1 - environments Block 4: Level 1+2+3 Block 5: Level 1+2+3 +international Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Level 1- Inputs Class level 0.034 0.277 0.025 0.423 0.038 0.192 0.032 0.266 0.028 0.334 Gender: Male -0.309 <.001 -0.308 <.001 -0.217 0.004 -0.208 0.006 -0.206 0.007 African American -0.144 0.344 -0.104 0.497 -0.177 0.210 -0.232 0.102 -0.249 0.080 Asian American 0.173 0.166 0.191 0.128 0.216 0.065 0.184 0.119 0.183 0.121 Hispanic 0.131 0.411 0.120 0.451 0.142 0.333 0.131 0.367 0.121 0.407 Multiracial 0.144 0.272 0.132 0.318 0.077 0.524 0.072 0.553 0.075 0.537 Race: Other -0.087 0.734 -0.068 0.791 -0.116 0.622 -0.136 0.563 -0.133 0.572 Prior AB experience -0.257 0.001 -0.271 0.001 -0.227 0.001 -0.227 0.001 -0.227 0.001 High School CSSL -0.029 0.313 -0.030 0.300 -0.049 0.061 -0.047 0.076 -0.048 0.071 College CSSL 0.127 <.001 0.126 <.001 0.106 <.001 0.102 <.001 0.102 <.001 Prior Study Abroad -0.006 0.945 -0.008 0.928 -0.004 0.963 0.000 1.000 -0.001 0.994 Prior Travel Abroad -0.033 0.185 -0.028 0.256 -0.023 0.308 -0.026 0.254 -0.030 0.199 Level 3 Associates -0.492 0.193 -0.716 0.022 -0.683 0.026 -0.708 0.022 Baccalaureate 0.198 0.434 0.128 0.519 0.086 0.667 0.100 0.620 Masters 0.125 0.377 0.068 0.526 0.073 0.509 0.065 0.562 >1000 0.641 0.330 0.179 0.752 -0.115 0.839 -0.087 0.878 1000-4,999 -0.121 0.615 -0.020 0.913 0.011 0.956 0.003 0.988 5,000-9,999 -0.050 0.767 -0.090 0.486 -0.075 0.567 -0.067 0.614 10,000-19,999 0.007 0.961 0.045 0.659 0.040 0.708 0.022 0.836 Religious -0.067 0.631 -0.179 0.099 -0.231 0.044 -0.230 0.047 Private, non- religious -0.128 0.418 -0.086 0.493 -0.067 0.603 -0.073 0.569 Break Away member -0.189 0.118 -0.061 0.523 -0.029 0.768 -0.019 0.854 Break Away former member -0.210 0.174 0.023 0.848 0.047 0.703 0.052 0.674 Level 1 - Environments Service Engagement 0.005 0.645 0.018 0.146 0.018 0.141 Community Engagement 0.019 0.034 0.021 0.052 0.021 0.051 Emotional Challenge 0.157 <.001 0.109 0.022 0.109 0.021 Physical Challenge 0.009 0.737 0.063 0.055 0.063 0.055 Community Interaction -0.048 0.116 -0.065 0.074 -0.065 0.076 Community Difference -0.048 0.122 -0.031 0.388 -0.031 0.389 Community Learning 0.091 0.046 0.083 0.114 0.081 0.122 Staff Interaction <.001 0.997 -0.035 0.344 -0.037 0.320 Staff Difference 0.021 0.486 0.004 0.907 0.004 0.910 Staff Learning 0.082 0.016 0.129 0.002 0.129 0.002 Student Difference 0.010 0.744 0.014 0.665 0.014 0.678 Student Learning 0.130 0.002 0.101 0.031 0.100 0.032 Social Issues 0.045 0.002 0.031 0.041 0.032 0.036 Reflection -0.001 0.922 -0.005 0.739 -0.004 0.750 Journaling 0.071 0.003 0.052 0.073 0.052 0.074 Emotional Intensity 0.000 0.982 0.000 0.986 0.000 0.989 Service Hours -0.051 0.368 -0.113 0.114 -0.112 0.117 Orientation 0.010 0.595 0.023 0.317 0.022 0.335 Reorientation 0.091 <.001 0.087 <.001 0.087 <.001 Trip location similarity 0.039 0.020 0.037 0.030 0.037 0.026 Level 2 - Environments Service Engagement -0.035 0.149 -0.033 0.177 Community Engagement -0.011 0.566 -0.013 0.506 Emotional Challenge 0.190 0.040 0.184 0.046 Physical Challenge -0.102 0.056 -0.110 0.042 Community Interaction 0.024 0.721 0.010 0.882 Community Difference -0.074 0.272 -0.081 0.233 Community -0.021 0.832 -0.010 0.920 Learning Staff Interaction 0.177 0.010 0.165 0.018 Staff Difference 0.078 0.240 0.069 0.300 Staff Learning -0.154 0.037 -0.154 0.036 Student Difference 0.004 0.955 0.002 0.973 Student Learning 0.102 0.254 0.110 0.217 Social Issues 0.060 0.019 0.059 0.021 Reflection 0.006 0.753 0.006 0.781 Journaling 0.029 0.533 0.026 0.579 Emotional Intensity -0.034 0.310 -0.033 0.324 Service Hours 0.193 0.102 0.213 0.072 Orientation -0.053 0.218 -0.061 0.158 Reorientation 0.012 0.787 0.016 0.722 International 0.141 0.163 Deviance? 4948.689231 4939.199184 4659.229569 4627.378335 4625.457345 Parameters 16 27 47 66 67 ? Deviance 63.46178 9.490047 279.969615 31.851234 1.92099 ? Parameters 12 11 20 19 1 ?Empty model deviance=5012.151008, parameters=4 p<.05 Table 25. HLM results: Major Block 1: Level 1 - Inputs Block 2: Level 1 ? Inputs + Level 3 Block 3: Level 1 Inputs + Level 3 + Level 1 - environments Block 4: Level 1+2+3 Block 5: Level 1+2+3 +international Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Level 1- Inputs Class level -0.062 0.060 -0.069 0.039 -0.064 0.041 -0.070 0.024 -0.073 0.019 Gender: Male -0.352 <.001 -0.348 <.001 -0.245 0.003 -0.241 0.003 -0.239 0.003 African American -0.266 0.099 -0.213 0.189 -0.236 0.117 -0.262 0.082 -0.278 0.067 Asian American 0.064 0.630 0.090 0.501 0.142 0.258 0.136 0.279 0.135 0.285 Hispanic -0.075 0.657 -0.078 0.645 -0.077 0.623 -0.103 0.505 -0.112 0.469 Multiracial 0.073 0.600 0.069 0.623 0.018 0.893 0.032 0.803 0.035 0.786 Race: Other 0.262 0.337 0.296 0.279 0.270 0.286 0.275 0.276 0.278 0.270 Prior AB experience -0.250 0.002 -0.255 0.002 -0.242 0.001 -0.247 0.001 -0.247 0.001 High School CSSL -0.019 0.526 -0.020 0.509 -0.038 0.178 -0.037 0.193 -0.037 0.185 College CSSL 0.099 0.001 0.100 0.001 0.079 0.005 0.078 0.005 0.078 0.005 Prior Study Abroad 0.236 0.013 0.224 0.018 0.233 0.009 0.234 0.008 0.235 0.008 Prior Travel Abroad -0.040 0.131 -0.032 0.227 -0.027 0.273 -0.031 0.209 -0.034 0.170 Level 3 Associates -0.238 0.549 -0.447 0.161 -0.403 0.200 -0.423 0.178 Baccalaureate 0.179 0.495 0.069 0.738 -0.007 0.972 0.001 0.996 Masters 0.271 0.062 0.200 0.081 0.185 0.106 0.179 0.118 >1000 0.748 0.282 0.222 0.710 -0.028 0.963 -0.006 0.993 1000-4,999 -0.068 0.783 0.033 0.865 0.117 0.551 0.110 0.571 5,000-9,999 -0.115 0.505 -0.170 0.215 -0.144 0.292 -0.137 0.315 10,000-19,999 -0.085 0.537 -0.056 0.605 -0.043 0.690 -0.055 0.610 Religious -0.053 0.714 -0.176 0.124 -0.234 0.047 -0.233 0.048 Private, non- religious -0.223 0.176 -0.141 0.290 -0.133 0.319 -0.137 0.301 Break Away member -0.142 0.258 -0.008 0.936 0.034 0.740 0.041 0.690 Break Away former member -0.092 0.561 0.123 0.326 0.156 0.221 0.159 0.209 Level 1 - Environments Service Engagement 0.002 0.883 0.013 0.341 0.013 0.332 Community Engagement 0.017 0.083 0.029 0.012 0.029 0.012 Emotional Challenge 0.208 <.001 0.148 0.004 0.149 0.004 Physical Challenge 0.002 0.946 0.025 0.484 0.025 0.484 Community Interaction -0.014 0.665 -0.036 0.361 -0.036 0.365 Community Difference -0.032 0.336 -0.040 0.302 -0.040 0.303 Community Learning -0.001 0.980 0.004 0.944 0.003 0.963 Staff Interaction 0.012 0.735 -0.025 0.519 -0.027 0.494 Staff Difference 0.006 0.865 -0.018 0.640 -0.018 0.636 Staff Learning 0.059 0.106 0.088 0.041 0.088 0.040 Student Difference 0.017 0.595 0.026 0.470 0.025 0.481 Student Learning 0.138 0.002 0.112 0.026 0.111 0.027 Social Issues 0.044 0.004 0.032 0.051 0.033 0.046 Reflection 0.002 0.843 -0.014 0.352 -0.014 0.358 Journaling 0.085 0.001 0.071 0.024 0.071 0.024 Emotional Intensity 0.010 0.529 0.020 0.254 0.020 0.265 Service Hours -0.075 0.217 -0.089 0.246 -0.089 0.250 Orientation 0.018 0.396 0.018 0.474 0.017 0.491 Reorientation 0.066 0.003 0.054 0.028 0.053 0.029 Trip location similarity 0.031 0.088 0.036 0.046 0.037 0.042 Level 2 - Environments Service Engagement -0.026 0.312 -0.025 0.343 Community Engagement -0.047 0.023 -0.049 0.018 Emotional Challenge 0.265 0.007 0.260 0.009 Physical Challenge 0.001 0.981 -0.003 0.952 Community Interaction 0.076 0.280 0.067 0.350 Community Difference 0.039 0.581 0.034 0.638 Community -0.061 0.568 -0.051 0.630 Learning Staff Interaction 0.184 0.012 0.172 0.020 Staff Difference 0.116 0.096 0.108 0.121 Staff Learning -0.128 0.101 -0.127 0.103 Student Difference -0.013 0.858 -0.013 0.854 Student Learning 0.063 0.504 0.068 0.469 Social Issues 0.065 0.016 0.064 0.018 Reflection 0.035 0.099 0.035 0.106 Journaling 0.018 0.721 0.016 0.755 Emotional Intensity -0.074 0.038 -0.073 0.041 Service Hours 0.041 0.742 0.057 0.649 Orientation -0.020 0.652 -0.028 0.544 Reorientation 0.034 0.468 0.039 0.414 International 0.115 0.276 Deviance? 5130.906566 5120.932755 4861.728584 4829.879991 4828.676038 Parameters 16 27 47 66 67 ? Deviance 58.23872 9.973811 259.204171 31.848593 1.203953 ? Parameters 12 11 20 19 1 ?Empty model deviance=5189.145288, parameters=4 p<.05 Table 26. HLM results: Study Abroad Block 1: Level 1 - Inputs Block 2: Level 1 ? Inputs + Level 3 Block 3: Level 1 Inputs + Level 3 + Level 1 - environments Block 4: Level 1+2+3 Block 5: Level 1+2+3+international Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Level 1- Inputs Class level -0.279 <.001 -0.291 <.001 -0.280 <.001 -0.288 <.001 -0.301 <.001 Gender: Male -0.374 <.001 -0.402 <.001 -0.311 0.001 -0.288 0.002 -0.282 0.002 African American 0.219 0.210 0.281 0.105 0.280 0.099 0.218 0.203 0.171 0.316 Asian American 0.380 0.008 0.390 0.006 0.314 0.024 0.300 0.033 0.308 0.027 Hispanic 0.056 0.758 0.055 0.759 0.077 0.659 0.059 0.734 0.024 0.888 Multiracial 0.123 0.408 0.112 0.453 0.066 0.647 0.048 0.743 0.063 0.660 Race: Other 0.272 0.350 0.307 0.291 0.266 0.340 0.255 0.362 0.282 0.310 Prior AB experience -0.234 0.006 -0.252 0.003 -0.214 0.010 -0.209 0.012 -0.214 0.010 High School CSSL 0.015 0.654 0.018 0.575 0.001 0.983 0.013 0.680 0.010 0.745 College CSSL 0.025 0.432 0.025 0.419 0.024 0.425 0.022 0.479 0.021 0.489 Prior Study Abroad -0.096 0.342 -0.096 0.343 -0.085 0.386 -0.082 0.399 -0.082 0.396 Prior Travel Abroad -0.012 0.676 0.001 0.980 0.015 0.579 0.009 0.738 -0.002 0.947 Level 3 Associates 0.706 0.114 0.447 0.286 0.441 0.299 0.380 0.354 Baccalaureate 0.144 0.639 0.076 0.789 0.104 0.723 0.136 0.633 Masters 0.302 0.083 0.228 0.161 0.194 0.254 0.167 0.312 >1000 0.616 0.419 0.486 0.501 0.215 0.768 0.378 0.597 1000-4,999 -0.358 0.225 -0.225 0.413 -0.168 0.556 -0.187 0.500 5,000-9,999 -0.079 0.700 -0.118 0.535 -0.078 0.690 -0.041 0.831 10,000-19,999 -0.025 0.882 -0.046 0.768 <.001 0.998 -0.056 0.723 Religious -0.471 0.008 -0.603 0.001 -0.701 <.001 -0.705 <.001 Private, non- religious -0.282 0.139 -0.311 0.082 -0.368 0.047 -0.396 0.029 Break Away member -0.339 0.022 -0.207 0.135 -0.202 0.165 -0.171 0.224 Break Away former member -0.205 0.275 -0.036 0.838 -0.043 0.814 -0.039 0.829 Level 1 - Environments Service Engagement -0.007 0.567 -0.002 0.881 -0.001 0.963 Community Engagement 0.020 0.072 0.019 0.124 0.020 0.119 Emotional Challenge 0.036 0.467 -0.040 0.470 -0.038 0.492 Physical Challenge 0.094 0.003 0.124 0.002 0.123 0.002 Community Interaction -0.004 0.923 -0.053 0.218 -0.051 0.234 Community Difference -0.006 0.879 -0.012 0.781 -0.012 0.771 Community Learning 0.058 0.282 0.046 0.458 0.038 0.537 Staff Interaction -0.012 0.747 -0.027 0.532 -0.034 0.437 Staff Difference 0.037 0.309 0.021 0.609 0.020 0.627 Staff Learning 0.058 0.151 0.065 0.166 0.067 0.151 Student Difference -0.034 0.329 -0.027 0.496 -0.029 0.459 Student Learning 0.146 0.003 0.159 0.004 0.154 0.005 Social Issues -0.001 0.941 -0.001 0.944 0.002 0.919 Reflection 0.004 0.778 -0.008 0.642 -0.007 0.672 Journaling 0.083 0.003 0.051 0.133 0.050 0.145 Emotional Intensity 0.006 0.732 0.026 0.188 0.024 0.211 Service Hours -0.073 0.282 -0.099 0.239 -0.096 0.249 Orientation 0.064 0.007 0.061 0.023 0.059 0.029 Reorientation 0.068 0.005 0.068 0.010 0.067 0.012 Trip location similarity 0.026 0.196 0.030 0.141 0.031 0.116 Level 2 - Environments Service Engagement 0.006 0.849 0.014 0.633 Community Engagement -0.016 0.507 -0.024 0.312 Emotional Challenge 0.363 0.002 0.341 0.003 Physical Challenge -0.024 0.714 -0.055 0.400 Community Interaction 0.142 0.086 0.084 0.308 Community Difference 0.006 0.940 -0.018 0.829 Community 0.022 0.858 0.067 0.580 Learning Staff Interaction 0.101 0.235 0.050 0.548 Staff Difference 0.094 0.253 0.060 0.456 Staff Learning -0.045 0.621 -0.043 0.623 Student Difference 0.001 0.988 -0.005 0.955 Student Learning -0.056 0.607 -0.025 0.819 Social Issues 0.010 0.745 0.006 0.849 Reflection 0.033 0.190 0.030 0.224 Journaling 0.076 0.202 0.057 0.330 Emotional Intensity -0.118 0.005 -0.113 0.006 Service Hours 0.072 0.616 0.138 0.336 Orientation -0.009 0.871 -0.044 0.404 Reorientation -0.006 0.918 0.009 0.867 International 0.581 <.001 Deviance? 5333.001538 5311.318736 5175.619588 5153.044937 5132.849445 Parameters 16 27 47 66 67 ? Deviance 91.28612 21.682802 135.699148 22.574651 20.195492 ? Parameters 12 11 20 19 1 ?Empty model deviance=5424.287659, parameters=4 p<.05 Table 27. HLM results: Travel Abroad Block 1: Level 1 - Inputs Block 2: Level 1 ? Inputs + Level 3 Block 3: Level 1 Inputs + Level 3 + Level 1 - environments Block 4: Level 1+2+3 Block 5: Level 1+2+3 +international Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Level 1- Inputs Class level -0.060 0.090 -0.070 0.049 -0.059 0.080 -0.065 0.052 -0.085 0.010 Gender: Male -0.421 <.001 -0.430 <.001 -0.318 <.001 -0.320 <.001 -0.308 <.001 African American -0.011 0.951 0.060 0.728 0.044 0.787 0.046 0.778 -0.052 0.746 Asian American 0.428 0.003 0.460 0.001 0.402 0.004 0.421 0.002 0.423 0.002 Hispanic 0.035 0.845 0.067 0.709 0.107 0.528 0.100 0.553 0.028 0.865 Multiracial 0.137 0.353 0.161 0.279 0.114 0.416 0.116 0.409 0.149 0.277 Race: Other -0.086 0.766 -0.023 0.938 -0.087 0.749 -0.091 0.738 -0.031 0.907 Prior AB experience -0.162 0.053 -0.168 0.045 -0.151 0.059 -0.154 0.054 -0.153 0.049 High School CSSL -0.030 0.349 -0.029 0.367 -0.047 0.118 -0.043 0.159 -0.046 0.119 College CSSL 0.025 0.422 0.025 0.423 0.019 0.527 0.020 0.495 0.019 0.506 Prior Study Abroad 0.094 0.348 0.087 0.386 0.112 0.240 0.104 0.271 0.125 0.178 Prior Travel Abroad -0.006 0.820 0.001 0.982 0.021 0.438 0.009 0.730 -0.013 0.609 Level 3 Associates 0.188 0.678 -0.074 0.852 -0.016 0.966 -0.137 0.688 Baccalaureate 0.067 0.827 -0.031 0.904 -0.110 0.662 -0.052 0.817 Masters 0.431 0.013 0.320 0.029 0.295 0.038 0.237 0.061 >1000 0.512 0.504 0.334 0.626 0.262 0.700 0.492 0.439 1000-4,999 -0.199 0.491 -0.075 0.761 0.041 0.864 0.002 0.991 5,000-9,999 -0.255 0.207 -0.303 0.079 -0.278 0.097 -0.212 0.158 10,000-19,999 0.078 0.629 0.062 0.652 0.071 0.595 -0.031 0.795 Religious -0.058 0.732 -0.193 0.184 -0.299 0.039 -0.287 0.027 Private, non- religious -0.068 0.718 -0.073 0.654 -0.085 0.594 -0.140 0.335 Break Away member -0.248 0.089 -0.088 0.482 -0.093 0.456 -0.038 0.732 Break Away former member -0.091 0.621 0.116 0.464 0.062 0.689 0.091 0.510 Level 1 - Environments Service Engagement 0.002 0.898 0.016 0.244 0.019 0.177 Community Engagement 0.032 0.004 0.026 0.036 0.027 0.027 Emotional Challenge 0.058 0.234 0.013 0.804 0.015 0.782 Physical Challenge 0.085 0.005 0.098 0.009 0.097 0.009 Community Interaction -0.073 0.037 -0.132 0.002 -0.130 0.002 Community Difference -0.021 0.560 -0.051 0.208 -0.051 0.201 Community Learning 0.175 0.001 0.195 0.002 0.182 0.003 Staff Interaction -0.014 0.715 -0.052 0.217 -0.062 0.135 Staff Difference 0.032 0.367 0.001 0.977 -0.001 0.982 Staff Learning 0.069 0.082 0.055 0.229 0.061 0.175 Student Difference -0.013 0.692 -0.007 0.852 -0.013 0.739 Student Learning 0.047 0.312 0.039 0.466 0.028 0.589 Social Issues 0.013 0.406 0.015 0.382 0.021 0.236 Reflection 0.003 0.800 0.001 0.963 0.002 0.889 Journaling 0.089 0.001 0.063 0.056 0.061 0.061 Emotional Intensity 0.014 0.408 0.025 0.186 0.023 0.227 Service Hours -0.070 0.290 -0.038 0.642 -0.039 0.629 Orientation 0.059 0.009 0.040 0.128 0.036 0.170 Reorientation 0.066 0.005 0.057 0.027 0.054 0.034 Trip location similarity 0.005 0.815 0.014 0.462 0.018 0.340 Level 2 - Environments Service Engagement -0.039 0.185 -0.024 0.375 Community Engagement 0.008 0.725 -0.005 0.812 Emotional Challenge 0.224 0.042 0.181 0.083 Physical Challenge 0.020 0.756 -0.036 0.547 Community Interaction 0.157 0.049 0.066 0.385 Community Difference 0.123 0.127 0.080 0.293 Community Learning -0.153 0.202 -0.073 0.519 Staff Interaction 0.204 0.013 0.100 0.201 Staff Difference 0.116 0.143 0.051 0.493 Staff Learning -0.020 0.818 -0.009 0.912 Student Difference 0.025 0.754 0.025 0.736 Student Learning 0.071 0.504 0.122 0.222 Social Issues 0.010 0.749 <.001 0.991 Reflection 0.004 0.872 -0.003 0.883 Journaling 0.050 0.374 0.025 0.643 Emotional Intensity -0.068 0.091 -0.059 0.122 Service Hours -0.078 0.575 0.065 0.623 Orientation 0.061 0.232 0.001 0.991 Reorientation 0.012 0.815 0.043 0.396 International 1.009 <.001 Deviance? 5314.515313 5298.021243 5087.343217 5055.309594 4982.023844 Parameters 16 27 47 66 67 ? Deviance 35.91903 16.49407 210.678026 32.033623 73.28575 ? Parameters 12 11 20 19 1 ?Empty model deviance=5350.434339, parameters=4 *p<.05 Table 28. Summary of the blocks of variables that significantly improved model fit for each outcome. Block 1: Level 1 - Inputs Block 2: Level 1 ? Inputs + Level 3 Block 3: Level 1 Inputs + Level 3 + Level 1 - environments Block 4: Level 1+2+3 Block 5: Level 1+2+3+ international Volunteer * * * Advocacy * Career * * * Major * * * Study Abroad * * * * Travel Abroad * * * * Table 29. Summary of significant predictors for each outcome Volunteer Advocacy Career Major Study Abroad Travel Abroad Inputs Class level -0.059 -0.070 -.0280 Gender: Male -0.208 -0.241 -.0311 -0.320 Asian American 0.314 0.421 Multiracial 0.169 Prior AB experience -0.227 -0.247 College CSSL 0.102 0.078 Prior Study Abroad 0.234 -0.214 Distal Environments Associates -0.683 Masters 0.295 Religious -0.205 -0.296 -0.231 -0.234 -0.603 -0.299 Break Away member -0.179 Break Away former member -0.164 Proximal Environments L1 L1 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L1 L2 Service Engagement 0.019 Community Engagement 0.029 -0.047 0.026 Emotional Challenge 0.082 0.109 0.190 0.148 0.265 0.224 Physical Challenge 0.054 0.094 0.098 Community Interaction -0.058 -0.132 0.157 Community Learning 0.131 0.140 0.129 0.088 0.195 Staff Interaction 0.177 0.184 0.204 Staff Learning -0.154 Student Learning 0.082 0.101 0.112 0.146 Social Issues 0.047 0.052 0.031 0.060 0.065 Journaling 0.046 0.052 0.071 0.083 Emotional Intensity 0.034 -0.074 Orientation 0.064 Reorientation 0.062 0.089 0.087 0.054 0.068 0.057 Trip location similarity 0.033 0.027 0.037 0.036 International 0.581 1.009 161 Summary: Research question two. Table 29 summarizes the results of the HLM analysis, listing the coefficients for the significant predictors for each outcome variable at the last significant block of the analysis, as described above. Level-1 and level-2 proximal environments are listed side- by-side when applicable. The implications of these findings will be discussed further in Chapter 5. First, the next section will explore the relationship between an international program location and the influence of the Alternative Break program. Research Question Three The third research question was, are students who participate in international AB programs more likely to report these influences than those in domestic programs, controlling for other variables? The only outcome variables for which the addition of the program location significantly improved model fit were the influence of the AB program on students intentions or plans to study abroad (?D=20.195492, df=1, p<.05) and travel abroad (?D=73.28575, df=1, p<.05). The international program location was also a significant positive predictor of both of these outcomes. Students who participated in international AB experiences were more likely than those on domestic trips to indicate that the AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to study abroad (?=.581, p<.05) and travel abroad (?=1.009, p<.05). For the other four variables, the addition of the program location did not significantly improve model fit, and the international program location was not a significant predictor (see Tables 15-20). Summary and Conclusions This chapter detailed the results of the analyses to answer the three main research questions in this study: (1) How frequently and in what ways do participants returning 162 from AB programs report that their AB experience influenced their major, career plans, or intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad or travel abroad? (2) What program characteristics of AB programs contribute to reports of these influences? and (3) Are students who participate in international AB programs more likely to report these influences than those on domestic programs, controlling for other variables? The results of this study show that students overwhelmingly do report that their AB experience influences these outcomes, and there are a number of program characteristics that predict the influence of the AB programs. The extent to which students were emotionally challenged and able to connect their AB experience to larger social issues, the frequency with which students wrote in individual journals, the amount students learned from their interactions with community members and other students on their trip, and the comprehensiveness of the reorientation program after returning to campus were all significant, positive predictors of all or most of the outcomes explored. Finally, an international program location was not significantly related to the influence of the AB program on students? major, career plans, or intentions or plans to volunteer or engage in advocacy, but was significantly related to the influence of the AB experience on students? intentions or plans to study or travel abroad. The next chapter will provide a discussion of the meaning and implications of these findings. 163 Chapter 5: Discussion, Implications and Conclusions The purpose of this study was to explore the extent to and ways in which student participants in Alternative Break (AB) programs report that their AB experience influenced their major, career plans, or intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad or travel internationally. This study also sought to identify the specific program characteristics of AB programs that contributed to these outcomes. The previous chapters presented a review of the related literature and conceptual framework guiding the study, outlined the methods of data collection and analysis, and detailed the results of this study in answer to the three main research questions, using descriptive analysis and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). This chapter provides a discussion of the results within the context of the conceptual framework and prior literature and offers implications for practice and future research. The Influence of the AB Experience The first research question was, how frequently and in what ways do participants returning from AB programs report that their AB experience influenced their major, career plans, or intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad or travel abroad? As described in the previous chapter, the results of this study show that students overwhelmingly indicated that their AB experience influenced all six of these outcomes. Most (84%) indicated that the AB experience substantially influenced their intentions or plans to volunteer and over two thirds (68.8%) said that their experience influenced their intentions or plans to engage in advocacy. In both of these cases, most of these students said that they planned to volunteer or engage in advocacy more than they 164 had prior to their AB experience, and around three quarters planned to engage in advocacy related to their AB experience. Interestingly, though, many students who said that the AB experience influenced their plans to volunteer or engage in advocacy also said that they planned to engage in volunteerism or advocacy about the same amount as they had prior to their AB experience, which may mean that there were other influences not measured by this study. For example, students may have been influenced to volunteer or engage in advocacy in different ways or around different issues than they had prior to their AB experience. About half of the students surveyed said that their AB experience had a substantial influence on their major (50.4%) or career plans (49.8%). While one can only speculate as to the specifics of the influence on students? advocacy or volunteer plans, the follow-up questions about students? major and career plans were much more revealing. Of those who indicated at least some influence on their major, the most common influence was that the AB experience helped students see real-world applications of their current major, while almost a third of students were inspired to take a new direction within their existing major. Similarly, the majority of students who saw an influence on their career planed to alter their current career plans in some way to focus on helping others. These results point to subtle ways that the AB experience may influence students? future intentions and behaviors. While the numbers were small, it is still important to note that for some students, the AB experience radically transformed their future plans. Just over 4% wanted to change their major completely and over 7% wanted to change their career plans completely. It is particularly important to note these small numbers, as the few students 165 who do experience these radical shifts in their plans and priorities may be easily missed by practitioners who could provide support in that process. The one potentially radical change in students? future plans experienced by many students was that over half of those who saw some influence on their career plans indicated that they were considering participating in a volunteer program such as the Peace Corps, Americorps, Teach for America, or Doctors without Borders. Similar to the influence on students? major and career plans, the influence of the AB experience on students plans to study or travel abroad was mostly in the area of reinforcing existing desires to do so, although over one third of the students who saw any influence in these areas indicated that their AB experience inspired a new desire to study or travel abroad. Overall, one third of students thought that their AB experience substantially influenced their intentions or plans to study abroad, while half saw an influence on their intentions or plans to travel abroad. Most of these students also felt that their AB experience gave them more confidence and inspired them to focus future international travel on learning about people and cultures. It is interesting to note that while an international program location was a significant predictor of whether or not the AB experience influenced students? intentions to study or travel abroad, there were still many students on domestic AB trips who indicated that their experience influenced them in this way. Only seventeen percent of students in the study participated in international programs, but two to three times as many saw some relationship with these international outcomes. It may be that for these students, simply getting out of their comfort zone and experiencing a new place and culture inspired them to consider future international travel and study. 166 The findings from the first research question point to a more nuanced way of thinking about the influence of an Alternative Break experience on students? lives. Although this study is framed in terms of possible changes to students lives, it is likely that for most students, Alternative Break experiences are one part of a broader life journey or developmental path. A few students experience radical changes that they attribute to the Alternative Break experience, but most students report more subtle shifts in their perspectives (for example, focusing career plans on helping others, seeing practical implications of one?s major, or wanting to focus future international travel on learning more about people and cultures). Relationship to the conceptual framework. The findings in research question one echo the prior research on students returning from Alternative Breaks. This study has demonstrated quantitatively what other studies (e.g. Ivory, 1998; Jones et al., 2012; Kiely, 2004) have found using qualitative methods. While transformative learning was not measured directly, the findings from this study are consistent with previous research on transformative learning, both through Alternative Breaks and other related educational experiences. For example, Kiely (2004) found that an international service-learning experience was transformative for students in that after the trip they demonstrated a desire to engage in advocacy on behalf of the poor, to raise awareness about poverty in general, to change career or educational goals, and to live a more socially conscious lifestyle. Similarly, Barlas (2000) found that students who underwent a transformative learning experience reported a desire to integrate their new knowledge and perspectives into their everyday lives. The ways in which the Alternative 167 Break experience influenced students? lives in this study may reflect these students? efforts to integrate a transformed perspective into their lives back on campus. Limitations. While the results of research question one were quite positive, there are a number of limitations to the data and analysis that are important to note. First, it is possible that students responded positively about the influence of their Alternative Break experiences because they thought that these experiences should have had a significant influence on their lives. This could occur due to the marketing of these programs, which may promote Alternative Breaks as a life-changing experience. Another limitation of the results of research question one is the disconnect between intentions and actions. The survey simply asked students to indicate the extent to which their AB experience influenced the six different outcomes, all dealing with intentions or plans rather than concrete behaviors. As described in Chapter 2, research on transformative learning has pointed to the difficulties faced by learners who attempt to make significant changes in their lives (Barlas, 2000; K.P. King, 2004; Mezirow, 1991). Similarly, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) posited that the disconnect between intention and action can be due to a number of factors, including old habits, lack of specificity of the intention, lack of cooperation from others, and the amount of time between the intention and the action ? all things that may negatively influence students returning from Alternative Breaks. Although intentions may be good immediately after the experience, when students face resistance, conflict, or even just the distraction of every-day life, they may not follow-through with the ways in which they planned to act on what they learned through their AB experience. Future research is needed to determine the extent to which students follow through with these intentions. 168 Implications. Despite these limitations, there are a number of implications for both research and practice from the results of research question one. First, since many students return from AB experiences are interested in volunteering, engaging in advocacy, and studying or travelling abroad, practitioners should facilitate opportunities for students to explore these activities. Practitioners may want to organize information sessions with the campus study abroad office or volunteer activities for groups of students who participated in the same trips. These can also serve as opportunities for practitioners to provide support for students who are exploring new paths within their major or career plans. As noted above, only a small number of students are likely to be radically rethinking their major or career plans, but these may be the students who need the most support. At the same time, many students may be exploring more subtle shifts in their plans and may also need support in this process. Practitioners working with these students may also want to reach out to the academic advising and career services offices on campus to partner in providing support to students. In addition to the implications for practice, the results of research question one also point to a number of directions for future research. As many students report subtle shifts in their perspectives and intentions, more research is needed to explore the role of Alternative Breaks within the context of students? broader life journeys and developmental paths. Most importantly, more research is needed on the connection between students? intentions to volunteer, engage in advocacy, travel or study abroad, or to change their major or career plans, and the actual follow-through behaviors. Do students maintain or follow through with these intentions one year later? Two years later? 169 What facilitates or inhibits the connection between intention and action for these students? Clearly more longitudinal research is needed on this topic. The Contribution of Specific Program Characteristics After determining the extent to which students felt that their AB experience overall influenced these outcomes, the second research question turned to a deeper exploration of the specific program characteristics that contributed to these outcomes. Before exploring the findings related to this research question, it is important to note two key limitations of this study overall. First, while the literature has identified many possible outcomes of AB programs, this study only looked at six specific outcomes ? the influence of the AB experience on students? major, career plans, or intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad or travel abroad. Although these are important outcomes, those variables that were found not to be significant predictors of these outcomes are not necessarily unimportant in AB programs, they simply were not related to any of these six outcomes. While the results of this study can guide practitioners who are looking to foster these types of outcomes, much more research is needed to determine the relationship between these program characteristics and other important outcomes of AB programs. Second, the large numbers of variables and separate analyses in this study increases the risk of error in any individual relationship explored. As such, the main focus of this discussion will be on overall trends in the results; limitations and implications for practice will also be discussed throughout the following discussion of each trend. 170 Student characteristics. Before considering program characteristics, there were a number of student characteristics that were related to the different outcomes. For example, students? class level was a negative predictor of the influence of the AB experience on their major and intentions to volunteer and study abroad. The lack of a significant relationship with the influence on students? career plans makes sense ? as students get further along in their academic career they have less time left in college to alter their existing path (e.g., their major, plans to study abroad, or volunteer activities), but they all still have their career ahead of them. Unsurprisingly, gender was another negative predictor of four of the six outcomes (career, major, study abroad and travel abroad). This is consistent with prior research on the relationship of gender with service-learning and study abroad. Multiple studies have identified women as being more likely than men to engage in community service and service-learning overall (Astin & Sax, 1998; Marks & Jones, 2004; Serow & Dreyden, 1990), and women are much more likely than men to participate in study abroad (IIE, 2011c; Salisbury, Paulson & Pascarella, 2009). Some research has also pointed to gender differences in outcomes related to study abroad and international service-learning (ISL). For example, Cook (2004) found that women participating in ISL were more likely than men to report spiritual and personal growth, and Couper (2001) found that study abroad was related to an interest in service-oriented jobs for women, but not for men. The results of the analysis of race/ethnicity were less clear-cut than those of gender. Similar to research on gender, prior research on race/ethnicity has found race to be a significant predictor of volunteering or intending to volunteer; for example, students 171 of color were found to be more likely than White students to have volunteered during their first year of college or to intend to volunteer during college (Cruce & Moore, 2007). Conversely, students of color are much less likely than White students to study abroad (IIE, 2011c). Race has also been found to influence how students make sense of their service-learning and study abroad experiences, particularly when students of color are volunteering or studying in communities where they are the racial/ethnic majority (Malewski & Phillon, 2009; Raymondi, 2004). In the current study, however, race/ethnicity was not a strong predictor of any of the six outcomes. Asian American students were more likely than White students to indicate that their AB experience influenced their intentions to study or travel abroad, and students who identified as Multiracial were more likely to say that their experience influenced their intentions to volunteer, but there were no other differences based on race/ethnicity. The analysis of race/ethnicity was limited, however, due to the overwhelming majority of White students in the sample (over 70%). The survey also did not ask whether or not students were volunteering in communities of their own race/ethnicity or of a different race/ethnicity, which based on previous research may have influenced how White students and students of color made meaning of their experiences. Further research is needed to explore the complexities of race in shaping Alternative Break experiences. The role of prior experience. Beyond simple demographics, this study also explored the relationship between prior experiences and students? ratings of the influence of their AB trips. The findings were mixed, as is the previous research. For example, this study found prior AB 172 experience to be a negative predictor of two outcomes (career and major), but the extent to which students had participated in other community service and service-learning experiences in college was a positive predictor of the same two. Prior study abroad experience was both a positive (major) and a negative predictor (study abroad). Prior research has shown that students who have volunteered in the past are more likely to volunteer in the future (e.g., Astin & Sax, 1998), but that students who have participated in prior ISL and study abroad experiences show less growth than students who have not done so previously (e.g., Carlson & Widaman, 1988; Cook, 2004; Marmon, 2007). The conceptual frameworks in this study can provide some insight into the complexity of the relationship between prior experience and outcomes. Mezirow (1991, 1997, 2000) argued that disorienting dilemmas are necessary for transformative learning to occur. Prior experiences, however, might make it less likely that a specific new experience would be disorienting as students may have already shifted their frames of reference in ways that would be facilitated by these types of experiences. At the same time, disorienting dilemmas do not always lead to transformative learning. When students encounter a situation of which they cannot make sense based on their existing frames of reference, they can either shift their frames of reference (transformative learning), or they can shift their interpretation of the situation so that it does make sense within their existing frames of reference. For some students, one disorienting experience may not be enough ? it may take multiple experiences, one building on the other, in order for transformative learning to occur. For example, in a follow-up study of students who had participated in a week-long international immersion experience, Rowan-Kenyon and Niehaus (2011) found that those students who subsequently participated in internships 173 and other study abroad experiences continued to build on their learning. One year after the initial international experience, those students showed more growth and development than had students who had not found ways to build on their experience. The relationship between prior experience and the influence of one AB trip on students? lives is clearly complex, and the basic questions about prior experience asked in this study are likely inadequate to fully understand this relationship. The results of this study do, however, point to the need for practitioners to be aware of students? previous experiences in helping them make meaning of their Alternative Break. More in-depth qualitative research is necessary to develop theory in this area. Institutional characteristics. Although primarily in the conceptual model as control variables, there was one interesting trend in institutional characteristics to note. Students at religiously affiliated institutions were less likely than students at public institutions to report an influence of their AB experience on all six outcomes. It is unclear why this would be (particularly after controlling for all of the other variables in the model), but it may be that attending a religious institution provides more opportunity for similar experiences that have already influenced students in these ways. For example, volunteerism and advocacy may already be an integral part of the lives of students who choose to attend religious institutions, so there would be less opportunity for the AB experience to influence these students. Future research might explore different ways in which religious and non-religious institutions approach structuring Alternative Breaks, and the role of religion in how students make meaning of these experiences. 174 Overall, few institutional characteristics were significant predictors of any of the outcomes measured. Interestingly, though, 4-6% of the variance in the six outcomes could be accounted for by differences between institutions. The fact that there were so few significant findings at this level might indicate that there are other institutional factors not measured by the present study that would account for this variance. For example, there may be practical ways in which different institutions approach Alternative Breaks that might contribute to student outcomes; different missions, goals, or philosophical approaches of institutions? AB programs that may align with certain outcomes; or ways in which the student culture at particular institutions facilitate different outcomes. More qualitative research at the program and institution level is needed to identify what those approaches might be. Program characteristics. The main variables of interest in this study were those related to differences between individual AB programs ? those variables representing placement quality, engagement with the ?other,? connection to social issues, reflection, program intensity, orientation, and reorientation. All of these variables were considered at both the student and the program level, representing both the individual student?s experience of the various aspects of the program as well as the aggregate from all students in the program as an approximation of the ?real? environment. The block of variables representing the program characteristics at the student level significantly improved model fit for all six outcomes, indicating that the individual student?s experience of the program environment overall was significantly associated with whether or not the student felt that the AB 175 experience had influenced their major, career plans, or intentions to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad and travel abroad. Additionally, the block of variables at the program level significantly improved model fit for three of the six outcomes (career, major, and travel abroad), indicating that there were factors above and beyond the individual?s experience of the program that were related to the influence of the AB program on students? major, career plans, or intentions to travel abroad. Similar to the institutional characteristics, however, the fact that there were so few significant level-2 predictors and that the level-2 environments were not significant overall for half of the outcomes is in contrast to the fact that the program level accounted for 4-9% of the variance in the six outcomes. There are likely other program- level factors not measured in this study that would account for much of the variance between programs. Despite this limitation, overall the finding supported the conceptual framework developed in this study. All of the major categories of program environments that were hypothesized to have a relationship with the outcome variables did have a relationship with one or more of the outcomes. Additionally, the level-1 proximal environments significantly improved model fit for all six outcomes. Placement quality. Various aspects of placement quality were positive predictors of all six outcomes at level-1 and/or level-2, consistent with previous research on the importance of high- quality service placements in both domestic and international service-learning (e.g. Eyler & Giles, 1999; Jones & Abes, 2004; Lough, 2010). The most consistent predictors within placement quality were the extent to which students felt that they were emotionally or 176 physically challenged by their AB experience ? together, these were related to all six outcomes. One aspect not measured in this study is the balance of challenge and support in the AB programs. Future research is needed to help practitioners best design an appropriate level of emotional and physical challenge. Engagement with the ?other?. In general, the relationship between the outcome variables and the frequency with which students interacted with various groups was mixed (for example, community interaction was a negative predictor of the influence of the AB experience on students? intentions to travel abroad at level-1, but a positive predictor at level-2), but the amount that students say that they learned from others was a positive predictor of all six outcomes. This echoes Dugan and Komives?s (2010) finding that conversations with peers, not just interactions, were an important predictor of socially responsive leadership. Consistent with previous research on the importance of peer learning in Alternative Breaks (Jones et al., 2012) and the importance of peer interactions in college overall (e.g. Astin, 1993; Rowan-Kenyon, Soldner & Inkelas, 2007), the amount that students said that they learned from other students in their programs was a positive predictor of four of the six outcomes (advocacy, career, major, and study abroad). Similarly, community learning was a positive predictor of five of the six outcomes (volunteer, advocacy, career, major, and travel abroad). This may reflect Jones et al.?s (2012) finding that immersion experiences help students personalize social issues, which they can only do through learning from community members. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) provide more support for the role of personal relationships in modifying intentions and behaviors. As they asserted, ?subjects will intend to perform positive behaviors with 177 respect to persons and objects they like, and to perform negative behaviors with respect to persons and objects they dislike? (p. 307). By developing positive relationships with community members, students may be able to associate those individual people with previously ambiguous social issues and may, as a result, be inspired to act in some way to address those social issues. This finding points to an important limitation of much of the study abroad literature, which often measures the amount of contact with the host culture (e.g., Casteen, 2006), and of much of the service-learning literature, which focuses on opportunities to interact across difference (e.g. Eyler & Giles, 1999). Quantity of interactions may be less important than quality. This also may be why findings in previous studies have been mixed. For example, Golay (2006) found no significant correlation between host contact and global mindedness, while Wallace (1999) found a positive relationship between host culture contact and program satisfaction, and Jones et al. (2009) found that ?face-to-face interactions and the opportunity to develop relationships with people living with HIV/AIDS made a deep impression on participants? (p. 17). Connection to social issues. The extent to which students are able to connect their AB experiences to broader social issues is perhaps the construct most closely related to transformative learning outcomes ? the ability to see the larger context of the service work may be what facilitates the disorienting dilemma for many students (for example, Eyler and Giles, 1999, identified application, or the ability of students to connect their service work to academic learning, as a significant predictor of perspective transformation and 178 citizenship). For that reason, it is not surprising that connection to social issues was a positive predictor of the influence of the AB experience on students? major, career, and plans to volunteer and engage in advocacy. Students? plans to study or travel abroad are probably the outcomes least connected to the social issues addressed by the AB projects, which may be why they are the two outcomes not related to this variable. This finding clearly points to the importance of finding ways for students to understand the broader contexts of their AB experience. Reflection. Despite the strong support in the literature for the importance of reflection (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Galaby, 2002; Jones & Abes, 2004; Kiely, 2005; Lough, 2010; McCarthy, 1996; Pagano, 2003), the reflection scale in this study (which focused on group reflection) was not a significant predictor of any of the six outcomes. It is possible that the four items in the reflection scale did not adequately capture the extent to which students reflected on their experience, or it is possible that this group reflection was better captured by other variables (such as the extent to which students learned from their peers, which was positively related to four of the outcomes). It is also possible that group reflection is simply not related to these six outcomes, although it is likely related to others, as previously identified in the literature. Despite the surprising finding that group reflection did not significantly predict any of the outcomes, there was an interesting distinction between group reflection and writing in an individual journal. The frequency with which students wrote in an individual journal was positively related to four of the six outcomes (volunteer, advocacy, major and study abroad). This is consistent with Eyler and Giles?s (1999) findings that 179 written reflection was a stronger predictor of perspective transformation than was discussion. The implications of the findings related to journal writing are limited in that it is unclear whether journal writing was mandatory or voluntary for students. Students who chose to write in an individual journal on their own may be more personally reflective in general and may be more open to transformative experiences than those who choose not to write in a journal. Similarly, students may choose to write in a journal because they are having trouble making sense of their experiences ? this, rather than the journal writing, may be the actual cause of the observed relationship. Future research is needed on journal writing (mandatory or optional) to see if the relationship persists. Similarly, future research should explore the type of journaling activity in more depth (e.g., guided journal prompts versus free form reflection). At the same time, it is important for practitioners to facilitate time for individual, written reflection, which is easy to overlook when scheduling an intense, busy week of activities. Program intensity. The relationship between program intensity and the six outcomes was mixed and somewhat contrary to prior research. Kiely (2005) pointed to the importance of high- intensity dissonance (e.g., witnessing extreme forms of poverty, hunger, scarcity, and disease? (p. 11)) in facilitating transformative learning, but in this study emotional intensity was only a positive predictor of one outcome (volunteer). Emotional intensity was also a negative predictor (at level-2) of the influence of the AB experience on students? major. Contrary to Cook?s (2004) finding that the number of service hours was positively related to growth in an international service-learning program, the number of 180 service hours reported by students in this study was not significantly related, positively or negatively, to any of the outcomes. This finding is limited in that students were only asked to provide a range (less than 1, 1 to less than 4, 4 to less than 8, 8 or more) of hours engaged in service each day, limiting the extent to which responses varied. Alternately, it could be that, similar to engagement with the ?other,? quality of the service activities was more important than quantity. The one measure of program intensity that showed a clear trend was the positive relationship between the similarity of the trip location to places students had been previously and four of the six outcomes (volunteer, advocacy, career and major). This is contrary to expectations, as prior research would indicate that a less familiar environment would cause more dissonance (e.g., Kiely, 2005), resulting in a stronger influence of the experience on students? lives. The relationship between an international program location (which is less likely to be similar to places students have travelled previously) and the influence on students intentions to study or travel abroad may explain why those were the only two outcomes not to have a significant relationship with this variable, but it is unclear why there was a significant positive relationship between trip location similarity and the other four outcomes. One possibility is that the familiarity of the location may have allowed students to engage more deeply in the actual service experience, without the distractions of unfamiliar language, culture, food, or living environment. More research is needed to further explore students? experience of place and culture in Alternative Breaks. Orientation and reorientation. Although listed as one of the eight key components of quality AB programs (Break Away, n.d. b), the comprehensiveness of the pre-trip orientation program was 181 only significantly related to the influence of the AB program on students? intentions to study abroad. It is surprising that orientation was not related to any of the other outcomes, although it may be that the benefit of the pre-trip learning was better captured in the extent to which students were able to connect their AB experience to larger social issues. The comprehensiveness of students? reorientation experience, on the other hand, was a positive predictor of all six outcomes. Students who had the opportunity to continue to engage with others around their AB experience after returning to campus were more likely to say that their AB experience influenced their lives. The direction of the causality in this relationship, however, is still unknown. It may be that students who were more influenced by the AB experience were more likely to seek out opportunities to discuss their experiences with others and to build on their experience in other ways. It is also unknown whether or not these reorientation experiences were facilitated by the AB programs or if they were experiences that individual students sought out. Similarly, it is possible that the strength of this effect across all six outcomes is simply due to the recency of these experiences, as the students were responding to the survey within a few weeks of returning to campus. Despite these limitations, the fact that the comprehensiveness of the reorientation experience was the only program environment to be related to all six outcomes does indicate that this is an area to which practitioners should pay particular attention. Trip Location After accounting for student, institution, and program characteristics, the third research question was concerned with the influence of the AB trip location (domestic or international). The results of this research question were straightforward ? students who 182 participated in international AB programs were more likely than those participating in domestic programs to say that their AB experience influenced their intentions or plans to study and travel abroad; there were no differences between international and domestic programs on any of the other four outcomes after controlling for other program differences. Although the findings from this study cannot clearly answer the question of whether or not international Alternative Break programs are worth the additional time, money, and risk, the answer to that question may depend on what one is trying to accomplish with the international AB program. Previous research on this topic has been mixed ? some studies (e.g. Couper, 2001; Crawford, 2008) point to significant differences between international and domestic travel experiences, while others (e.g., Marmon, 2007) have found that domestic cross-cultural experiences can be just as powerful as international experiences. The findings from the present study point to some similarities and some differences between the international and domestic program locations. International program locations appear to facilitate intentions toward future international experiences, but may not have any influence on other intentions or behaviors. One reason why there may not have been a relationship between the international program location and any of the non-international outcomes is that the analysis controlled for many other variables that may be different between international and domestic programs. The influence of the international programs may be accounted for by variables such as the extent to which students were emotionally or physically challenged by the experience, the amount they learned from host site staff and community members, or the 183 intensity of the experience. This study did not explore whether or not any of these measures varied based on program location. More research is needed to determine what, if any, differences exist between domestic and international AB experiences, and whether or not an international program location may have an indirect relationship with the influence of the Alternative Break experience on various aspects of students? lives. Summary, Conclusions and Implications The findings from this study show that AB programs have the potential to contribute to long-term outcomes by influencing students major, career plans, and intentions or plans to volunteer, engage in advocacy, study abroad or travel abroad. Students overwhelmingly report these influences, and a variety of characteristics of AB programs may contribute to their intentions to make significant changes as a result of their AB experience. Of particular importance are the extent to which students find the experience physically and emotionally challenging; learn from host site staff, community members, and other students; connect their AB experience to larger social issues; and write in an individual journal. Reorientation programming, or the opportunity to discuss the AB experience with others and explore options to build on the AB experience after returning to campus, also appears to be a key factor. Finally, after controlling for program differences, international and domestic trips are no different in the extent to which they influence students? major, career plans, or intentions to volunteer or engage in advocacy. Students in international programs are, however, more likely than those in domestic programs to say that their experience influenced their intentions to study or travel abroad. Interestingly, though, many students who participated in domestic AB trips also said that their experience influenced their intentions to study or travel abroad. 184 These findings support a number of implications for practice. First, practitioners should seek to create AB programs where students are emotionally and physically challenged, able to learn from others, and connect their experience to larger social issues. The findings also point to the importance of individual, written reflection and reorientation programming. Providing support to students after returning to campus may be particularly important, as the findings from this study show that many students may be wrestling with life-changing decisions after their programs end. As this was an exploratory study, it is not surprising that the findings raise more questions than they answer. More research is needed in a variety of areas, including exploring the complicated influence of race on how students make meaning of their AB experiences, the relationship between prior experience and outcomes of AB programs, the effectiveness of various types of reflection activities, and the differences (if any) between domestic and international trips. As this was the first large-scale, national survey of students who participate in Alternative Breaks, similar research is needed to explore the many other outcomes that may be associated with AB participation, such as the influence of the AB experience on students? attitudes and values. Finally, as noted above, a key limitation of this study is that it only measured students? intentions, not actual changes in their behavior. Longitudinal research is needed to follow-up with students over time to see if the intentions they report immediately after their AB experiences persist, and what in the AB program or in students? subsequent experiences may facilitate or impede this persistence. Although there are more questions left to be answered about how and in what ways Alternative Breaks influence students? lives, the findings from this study clearly 185 show the great potential for these programs to contribute to desirable outcomes for students. Investing in further research and improving practice in Alternative Breaks can be a key strategy as colleges and universities look to promote civic engagement and internationalization. 186 Appendix: Survey Instrument QCON: I state that I?m 18 years or older and wish to participate in this study. 1 I agree/consent 2 I do not agree/consent QE-MAIL: We would like to be able to follow-up with you in one year to ask about your Alternative Spring Break experience. If you are willing to answer a follow-up survey, please enter an e-mail address where you can be reached in one year here: (fill in) Providing your e-mail to participate in the follow-up (Phase 2) is not required to participate in this survey (Phase 1); however, in order to participate in Phase 2 you must participate in Phase 1. Students who participate in Phase 2 (the one-year follow-up survey) will be entered into a drawing to win an iPod touch (valued at $250) or one of three $50 iTunes gift cards (or similar prizes). Approximately 1000 students from 100 institutions are expected to participate in Phase 2. You will NOT be contacted for any other reason. ________________________________________________________________________ Section 1: About you Q1 What is your current class level? 1 First year 2 Sophomore 3 Junior 4 Senior 5 Graduate student 6 Other Q2 What college or university do you attend? (choices to be inserted once institutions are recruited for the study) Q3 What is your current religious affiliation? 1 Agnostic 2 Atheist 3 Baptist 4 Buddhist 5 Christian (non-denominational) 6 Church of Christ 7 Eastern Orthodox 8 Episcopalian 9 Hindu 10 Islamic ? Sunni 11 Islamic ? Shi?a 187 12 Islamic ? Other 13 Jewish ? Orthodox 14 Jewish ? Conservative 15 Jewish ? Reform 16 Jewish ? Other 17 LDS (Mormon) 18 Lutheran 19 Methodist 20 Presbyterian 21 Pentecostal 22 Quaker 23 Roman Catholic 24 Seventh Day Adventist 25 Unitarian/Universalist 26 UCC/Congregational 27 Other Christian (please specify) 28 Other Religion (please specify) 29 None Q4 How important is your religion in your life? 1 Not at all important 2 Somewhat important 3 Important 4 Very important Q5 How would you describe your political views? 0 No political viewpoint 1 Very liberal 2 Slightly liberal 3 Middle of the road 4 Slightly conservative 5 Very conservative Q6 What is your gender? 1 Male 2 Female 3 Transgendered Q7 Please indicate your sexual orientation. 1 Bisexual 2 Gay or Lesbian 3 Heterosexual Q8 What is your racial/ethnic identity? (Select all that apply) 1 African American/Black (not of Hispanic origin) 188 2 Asian or Pacific Islander (includes the Indian sub-continent) 3 Arab/Arab American 4 American Indian or Alaskan Native 5 Hispanic/Latino (Spanish culture or origin) 6 White/Caucasian (Persons not of Hispanic origin, having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North African, or the Middle East) 7 Race/ethnicity not included above Please specify: (open ended) Q9. Which of the following most accurate describes you? 1 My parents and I were born in the United States 2 I was born in the United States, one or both of my parents were not 3 Foreign born, living permanently in the US now 4 International student, in the US on a student visa 5 Other (please specify) Section 2: Prior experience Q10 Prior to your participation in the 2011 Alternative Spring Break program, had you? Q10.1 ? participated in another Alternative Break program during college (during summer, fall, winter, or spring breaks)? 1 Yes 2 No Q10.2 ? participated in any community service or service-learning activities other than Alternative Break programs? 1 Yes 2 No Q10.3 ? studied abroad? (By studied abroad, we mean travelling outside of the United States to take academic courses or participate in a program for which you received academic credit) 1 Yes 2 No Q10.4 ? travelled outside of the United States for a purpose other than academic study? 1 Yes 2 No Q10.5 ? travelled within the United States? 1 Yes 2 No 189 (if Q10.1=1) Q10.1.1 Prior to spring break of 2011, how many Alternative Break programs did you participate in? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More than 10 (if Q10.2=1) Q10.2.1 During high school, on average how often did you participate in community service or service-learning? 0 Never 1 less than once a month 2 Once a month 3 More than once a month but less than once a week 4 Once a week or more Q10.2.2 During college, on average how often have you participated in community service or service-learning? 0 Never 1 less than once a month 2 Once a month 3 More than once a month but less than once a week 4 Once a week or more Q10.2.3 During college, have you participated in a service-learning experience as part of an academic course? 1 Yes 2 No 3 I don?t know (if Q10.3=1) Q10.3.1 How many study abroad opportunities have you participated in? Q10.3.2 For how long have you studied abroad? (check all that apply) 1 Less than 1 month 190 2 More than 1 month but less than one academic term 3 1 academic term (e.g., quarter or semester) 4 More than 1 academic term but less than a full year 5 1 year 6 More than 1 year (if Q10.4=1) Q10.4.1 How many times have you travelled outside of the United States for a purpose other than academic study? Q10.4.2 To how many different countries have you travelled (not including the United States)? 0 0 1 1 2 2-4 3 5-10 4 11-20 5 More than 20 Q10.4.4 For how long have you travel abroad? (choose all that apply) 1 Less than 1 week 2 1-2 weeks 3 3-4 weeks 4 More than one month (if Q10.5=1) Q10.5.1 To how many different states have you travelled, not including the state where you currently live, within the United States? 0 0 1 1 2 2-3 3 4-6 4 7-10 5 11-20 6 More than 20 Section 3: About your AB experience Q11 To what extent has your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience influenced the following in any way? 191 Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Quite a lot Q11.1 Your intentions or plans to volunteer? Q11.2 Your intentions or plans to engage in advocacy? Q11.3 Your career plans? Q11.4 Your major or the way that you think about your major? Q11.5 Your intentions or plans to study abroad? Q11.6 Your intentions or plans to travel internationally? (If Q11.1?1) Q11.1.1 How do your plans to volunteer in the future compare to your volunteer activities prior to your Alternative Spring Break trip? 1 I plan to volunteer less than I did before my Alternative Spring Break experience 2 I plan to volunteer about the same as I did before my Alternative Spring Break experience 3 I plan to volunteer more than I did before my Alternative Spring break experience Q11.1.2 In what other ways (if any) did your Alternative Spring Break experience influence your plans to volunteer? (open-ended) (If Q11.1.1=1) Why do you plan to volunteer less after your Alternative Spring Break trip? (open-ended) (if Q11.2?1) Q11.2.1 How do your plans to engage in advocacy in the future compare to your advocacy activities prior to your Alternative Spring Break trip? 1 I plan to engage in advocacy less than I did before my Alternative Spring Break experience 2 I plan to engage in advocacy about the same as I did before my Alternative Spring Break experience 3 I plan to engage in advocacy more than I did before my Alternative Spring break experience Q11.2.2 Around what primary issue do you plan to engage in advocacy in the future? 1 Issues related to my 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip 2 Issues not related to my 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip (please specify) 3 I do not plan to engage in advocacy Q11.2.3 How else (if at all) did your Alternative Spring Break experience influence your plans to engage in advocacy? (open-ended) (if Q11.3?1) 192 For the next few questions, please think about the influence, if any, your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience has had on your career plans. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Q11.3.1 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my career plans. Q11.3.2 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me want to change career plans completely. Q11.3.3 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me want to stay with the same general career plans but alter them in some way to focus on helping others. Q11.3.4 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me want to take time off after college (or graduate school) to participate in a volunteer program such as the Peace Corps, Americorps, Teach for America, or Doctors without Borders. Q11.3.5 How else (if at all) did your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience influence your career plans? (open ended) (if Q11.4?1) For the next few questions, please think about the influence, if any, your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience has had on your major or the way you think about your major. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Q11.4.1 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me want to change my major completely. Q11.4.2 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience helped me see real-world applications of my major. Q11.4.3 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made my major seem pointless. Q11.4.4 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me want to take a new direction within my existing major. Q11.4.5 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my major. Q11.4.6 How else (if at all) did your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience influence your major or the way you think about your major? (open ended) (if Q11.5?1) For the next few questions, please think about the influence, if any, your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience has had on your plans to study abroad. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Q11.5.1 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience inspired a new desire to study abroad. Q11.5.2 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience reinforced my existing desire to study abroad. 193 Q11.5.3 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my desire to study abroad. Q11.5.4 How else (if at all) did your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience influence your plans to study abroad? (open ended) (if Q11.6?1) For the next few questions, please think about the influence, if any, your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience has had on your plans to travel internationally. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Q11.6.1 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience had no influence on my plans to travel internationally. Q11.6.2 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me more confident in travelling internationally. Q11.6.3 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience made me want to focus future international travel on learning more about people and cultures. Q11.6.3 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience inspired a new desire to travel internationally. Q11.6.3 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience reinforced my existing desire to travel internationally. Q11.6.4 How else (if at all) did your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience influence your plans to travel internationally? (open ended) Q12.1 Where was the location of your 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip? (drop-down menu populated with trip locations for each school, only show options for the school indicated in Q2) Q12.2 What social issue did your 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip address? (choose all that apply) (specific answer choices will be compiled from each participating school) 1 Homelessness 2 Hunger 3 HIV/AIDS 4 Environment 5 Other Q12.3 What type of work did you perform during your 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip? (choose all that apply) 1 manual labor (e.g., construction) 2 direct involvement with people receiving service (e.g., tutor, coach, visit) 3 prepare and/or deliver meals 4 clerical or administrative work 194 5 other (fill in) Q12.4 Was your 2011 Alternative Spring Break part of an academic course? 0 no 1 yes Q13 Thinking about your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience (not including any previous Alternative Break experiences), to what extent do you feel that you? Not at all Very Much 1 2 3 4 5 Q13.1 were emotionally challenged by the experience Q13.2 Were physically challenged by the experience Q13.3 were an active participant rather than an observer Q13.4 engaged in a variety of tasks Q13.5 felt that you were making a positive contribution Q13.6 had important levels of responsibility Q13.7 received input from on-site supervisors Q13.8 were appreciated by on-site supervisors Q13.9 developed relationships with people in the community being served Q13.10 worked directly with the community Q13.11 met community-identified needs Q13.12 To what extent do you feel that the community was involved in the design of your project? Q13.13 To what extent do you feel that the community was involved in the execution of your project? For the next few questions, please think about the community with whom you worked during your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience. By community we mean those people who were the recipients or beneficiaries of the service provided by you or the community agency with whom you worked. Q14.1 How often did you interact with the community during your 2011 ASB trip? 1 Never 2 Once or twice during the week 3 More than once or twice but less than every day 4 Once a day 5 More than once a day Q14.2 How different from yourself did you feel that the community was? Not at all different Completely different 195 1 2 3 4 5 (If Q14.2 ? 1) Q14.2.1 In what ways did you feel that the community was different from you? (choose all that apply) 1 Religion 2 Political views 3 Race/ethnicity 4 Gender 5 Sexual orientation 6 Language 7 Culture 8 Values 9 Beliefs 10 Social class 11 Other (fill in) 12 Not applicable Q14.3 How much did you learn from your interactions with the community? Nothing Quite a lot 1 2 3 4 5 For the next few questions, please think about your interactions with the host site staff during your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience. By host site staff we mean anyone working for the agency/agencies with whom you worked, either as a paid employee or a regular volunteer. Q15.1 How often did you interact with the host site staff during your 2011 ASB trip? 1 Never 2 Once or twice during the week 3 More than once or twice but less than every day 4 Once a day 5 More than once a day Q15.2 How different from yourself did you feel that the host site staff was? Not at all different Completely different 1 2 3 4 5 (If Q15.2 ? 1) Q15.2.1 In what ways did you feel that the host site staff were different from you? (choose all that apply) 1 Religion 2 Political views 3 Race/ethnicity 196 4 Gender 5 Sexual orientation 6 Language 7 Culture 8 Values 9 Beliefs 10 Social class 11 Other (fill in) 12 Not Applicable Q15.3 How much did you learn from your interactions with the host site staff? Nothing Quite a lot 1 2 3 4 5 For the next few questions please think about the other college students, including participants and any student trip leaders, but not including faculty or staff advisors, who were with you during your 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience. Q16.1 How many students, including yourself and any student trip leaders, were a part of your group? 2 Fewer than 5 3 6-10 4 11-15 5 16-20 6 More than 20 Q16.3 How different from yourself did you feel that the other students in your group were? Not at all different Completely different 1 2 3 4 5 (If Q16.3 ? 1) Q16.3.1 In what ways did you feel that the other students were different from you? (choose all that apply) 1 Religion 2 Political views 3 Race/ethnicity 4 Gender 5 Sexual orientation 6 Language 7 Culture 8 Values 9 Beliefs 197 10 Social class 11 Age 12 Major/Academic Interests 13 Other (fill in) 14 Not applicable Q16.4 How much did you learn from your interactions with the other students in your group? Nothing Quite a lot 1 2 3 4 5 For the next few questions, please consider your entire 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience, including all formal and informal activities that took place during your trip, as well as any pre- or post-trip formal or informal meetings or interactions with the other students on your trip or other 2011 Alternative Spring Break trips through your university. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Q17.1 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience allowed me to come to a greater understanding of the region where my trip took place. Q17.2 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience allowed me to come to a greater understanding of the social issue being addressed by my trip. Q17.3 I was able to connect my 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip to my academic coursework. Q17.4 I was able to connect my 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip to other things I have learned outside of the classroom. Q17.5 I was able to see the larger context of the social issue addressed by my 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip. Q17.6 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip helped me connect real people to the social issue being addressed by the trip. For the next few questions, please consider only the time during Spring Break 2011 when you were away on your trip. Please indicate how often you, personally, engaged in the following activities: 198 0 1 2 3 4 Never Once or twice More than once Once a day More than during the week or twice but once a day less than every day Q18.1 Discussed the impact of your group?s service work with other students on your trip Q18.2 Discussed the impact of your group?s service work with staff or volunteers at your host agency or organization Q18.3 Discussed the impact of your group?s service work with members of the community Q18.4 Spent time individually reflecting on your experiences Q18.5 Spent time with the entire group reflecting on your experiences Q18.6 Wrote in an individual journal Q18.7 Wrote in a group journal Q18.8 Engaged in activities with others in your group to help you reflect on your experiences Q18.9 Attended presentations about the social issue being addressed by your trip Q18.10 Discussed your experiences with a faculty or staff advisor 1 Never 2 Once or twice during the week 3 More than once or twice but less than every day 4 Once a day 5 More than once a day 6 Not applicable ? no faculty or staff advisor present on the trip Q18.11 Discussed your experiences with a student trip leader 1 Never 2 Once or twice during the week 3 More than once or twice but less than every day 4 Once a day 5 More than once a day 6 Not applicable ? no student trip leader present on the trip 199 For the next few questions, please consider only the time during Spring Break 2011 when you were away on your trip. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Q19.1 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience allowed me to experience something totally new Q19.2 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip was an intense experience Q19.3 Seeing the direct impact of the social issue being addressed by my trip was challenging for me. Q19.4 I experienced strong emotions during my 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience Q19.5 I sometimes found myself confused by what I observed during my 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience Q19.6 My 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience caused me to re-examine my beliefs about the root causes of social issues Q19.7 During my 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience I was challenged by practical issues, such as getting around an unfamiliar area or dealing with unfamiliar food Q19.8 I was challenged by a language difference between myself and the community with whom we were working Q19.9 Approximately how many hours on average per day would you say you engaged in direct service during your 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip? 1 Less than 1 2 At least 1 but less than 4 3 At least 4 but less than 8 4 8 or more Q19.10 Approximately how many hours total would you say you engaged in other educational programs (lectures, tours, etc.) during your entire 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip? 1 None 2 1 to 5 hours 3 More than 5 hours but less than 10 4 More than 10 hours but less than 20 5 20 hours or more 200 For the next few questions, please think about the time before you and your group left for your Alternative Break trip and the entire time during the trip itself. During this time, did you have an opportunity to: 0 No 1 Yes Q20.1 Learn about the mission and objectives of the agency or organization with whom you were working during your 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip? Q20.2 Learn about the history of the location you travelled to for your 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip? Q20.3 Learn about the culture of the location you travelled to for your 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip? Q20.4 Receive training in skills that would be necessary for the project you would work on during your 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip? Q20.5 Learn about the social issue being addressed by your trip? Q20.6 Discuss culture shock that you might experience on your trip? Q20.7 Discuss cross-cultural communication skills? For the next few questions please consider the time after you returned from your 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip. Since returning from your trip, have you had an opportunity to: Q21.1 Discuss your experiences with the other students who were with you on the trip? 1 Yes 2 No, but I do have specific plans to do so soon 3 No, and I have no specific plans to do so in the near future Q21.2 Discuss your experience with other students from your college or university who went on different trips? 1 Yes 2 No, but I do have specific plans to do so soon 3 No, and I have no specific plans to do so in the near future Q21.3 Discuss or share your experiences with others on your campus who were not part of the 2011 Alternative Spring Break program? 1 Yes 2 No, but I do have specific plans to do so soon 201 3 No, and I have no specific plans to do so in the near future Q21.4 Has anyone affiliated with your 2011 Alternative Spring Break program provided you with information on reverse culture shock? 1 Yes 2 No, but I expect to receive this information soon 3 No Q21.5 Has anyone affiliated with your 2011 Alternative Spring Break program encouraged you to find ways to engage in future community service or service-learning activities? 1 Yes 2 No, but I expect someone to do so soon 3 No Q21.6 Has anyone not affiliated with your 2011 Alternative Spring Break program encouraged you to find ways to engage in future community service or service-learning activities? 1 Yes 2 No, but I expect someone to do so soon 3 No Q21.7 Has anyone affiliated with your 2011 Alternative Spring Break program encouraged you to find other ways to build on your Alternative Break experience? 1 Yes 2 No, but I expect someone to do so soon 3 No Q21.8 Has anyone not affiliated with your 2011 Alternative Spring Break program encouraged you to find other ways to build on your Alternative Break experience? 1 Yes 2 No, but I expect someone to do so soon 3 No The next few questions are about the location of your trip. Q22.1 Would you consider the location of your trip to be: 1 Local (i.e., in the same general location as your college or university) 2 Domestic (i.e., within the United States but in a different location than your college or university) 3 International (If Q22.1?1) Q22.2 Had you previously travelled to this location for any purpose? 202 1 Yes 2 No Q22.2 How similar was this location to places you have travelled previously? 0 not at all similar 1 mostly different, but similar in a few ways 2 somewhat similar 3 very similar (if Q22.2?0) Q22.2.1 In what ways was this location similar to places you had travelled previously? (select all that apply) 1 region of the world 2 physical landscape 3 language 4 culture 5 food 6 other (fill in) Q25 Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about the time since you returned from your Spring 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Q25.1 My relationship with my family has been strained Q25.2 My relationship with my best friend(s) has been strained Q25.3 My relationship with my boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other has been strained Q25.4 I have felt isolated from my closest college friends Q25.5 I wish I was still on my Spring 2011 Alternative Break trip Q25.6 I no longer feel like I know where I fit in back on campus Q25.7 I have found myself having difficulty completing my academic work (e.g. reading for class, homework assignments, studying for tests) Q25.8 I am finding it difficult to motivate myself to do the things I was interested in prior to my Alternative Break trip Q25.9 I feel pressure from friends to think and act the way I did before my Spring 2011 Alternative Break experience Q25.10 I am worried that my friends and family may react negatively if I express new opinions based on my 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience Q25.11 I feel like my AB experience was like a dream world Q25.12 I feel overwhelmed by the scope of the social issues I learned about during my 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience Q25.13 I feel like I am not able to make a difference after my 2011 Alternative Spring Break experience Q25.14 Friends and classmates are interested in what I experienced on my 2011 Alternative Spring Break trip Q25.15 My friends and I no longer seem to share the same interests 203 References American Council on Education (2002). Beyond September 11: A comprehensive national policy on international education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/2002_beyond_911.pdf. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2009). Center for Liberal Education and Civic Engagement. Retrieved from: http://aacu.org/civic_engagement/overview.cfm Astin, A.W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan. Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A.W. & Sax, L.J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251-263. Astin, A.W., Sax, L.J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long-term effects of volunteerism during the undergraduate years. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 187-202. Barbour, J. (2006). The Moral Ambiguity of Study Abroad. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(7), B24. http://chronicle.com/article/The-Moral-Ambiguity-of- Study/18702/ Barlas, C. (2000). Towards a changing paradigm: Transformative learning and social change action. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, CA. Bates, J. T. (1997). The effects of study abroad on undergraduates in an honors international program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. Belenky, M.F. & Stanton, A.V. (2000). Inequality, development, and connected knowing. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 71-102). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Black, H.T., & Duhon, D.L. (2006, January/February). Assessing the impact of business study abroad programs on cultural awareness and personal development. Journal of Education for Business, 81(3), 140-144. doi:10.3200/JOEB.81.3.140-144 Break Away. (2008). Break Away: The alternative break. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/btcreal/755/Break_Away.pdf 204 Break Away (n.d. a). Alternative breaks. Retrieved from http://alternativebreaks.org/Alternative_Breaks.asp Break Away (n.d. b). The eight components of a quality alternative break. Retrieved from: http://alternativebreaks.org/8components.asp Bringle, R.G. & Hatcher, J.A. (2011). International service learning. In R.G. Bringle, J.A. Hatcher, & S.G. Jones (Eds.), International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research (Vol. 1: IUPUP Series on Service Learning Research) (pp. 3-28). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bryan, W.R. (2005). Effects of a study abroad experience on student views of Whiteness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Butcher, A. (2002). A grief observed: Grief experiences of East Asian international students returning to their countries of origin. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6, 354-368. doi:10.1177/102831502237641 Campus Compact. (2007). President?s declaration on the civic responsibilities of higher education. Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/resources/declaration/Declaration_2007.pdf Campus Compact: Who We Are. (2011). Retrieved from: http://www.compact.org/about/history-mission-vision/ Carson, J.S., Burn, B.B., Useem, J. & Yachimowicz, D. (1990). Study abroad: The experience of American undergraduates. New York: Greenwood Press. Carson, J.S. & Widaman, K.F. (1988). The effects of study abroad during college on attitudes toward other cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 1-17. Carter, K.A. (2006). Did we make a difference?: Contributors to intercultural sensitivity development in undergraduate students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola University, Chicago, IL. Casteen, L.D. (2006). Immersion and reentry: The undergraduate experience of foreign study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Chaison, D.B. (2008). International service-learning approaches: Factors of social engagement for minority students at a large mid-western university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Cheap Tickets Travel Deals: Volunteer Vacations. (n.d.) Retrieved from: http://www.cheaptickets.com/blog/category/volunteer-vacations/?fGS=1&strf=9 205 Chieffo, L., & Griffiths, L. (2004). Large-scale assessment of student attitudes after a short-term study abroad program. Frontiers: The International Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 165-177. http://www.frontiersjournal.com/issues/vol10/vol10- 10_ChieffoGriffiths.pdf Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship. (2005). Global competencies and national needs: One million Americans studying abroad. Retrieved from http://www.nafsa.org/_/Document/_/lincoln_commission_report.pdf. Cook, L.A. (2004). The relationship between expectation-experience growth discrepancies and satisfaction among students participating in international service-learning programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Cooper, J.R. (2002). Social responsibility and types of service learning: A comparison of curricular service learning, co-curricular service learning, and traditional community service. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI. Corporation for National and Community Service. (n.d.). About Serve.gov. Retrieved from: http://www.serve.gov/about.asp Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2009). Education abroad programs and services: CAS standards and guidelines. In CAS professional standards for higher education (7th ed.) (pp. 1-16). Washington, DC: Author. Couper, G.E. (2001). The psychology of travel: A theoretical analysis of how study abroad and positive regression affect personal growth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University. Crawford, B.J. (2008). Exploring intercultural competence growth by non-mobile university students through interactions with dissimilar others. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Jyv?skyl?, Finland. Cruce, T.M. & Moore, J.V. (2007). Examination of the predictors of community service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 48(6), 655-673. doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0063 Denson, J., Vogelgesang, L.J., & Saenz, V. (2005, April). Can service learning and college climate of service lead to increased political engagement after college? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Dessoff, A. (2006, March-April). Who?s not going abroad? International Educator, 15(2), 20-27. http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/alandesssoffarticle.pdf 206 DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dockter, M.K. (2004). An international service-learning experience for physical therapy students: Its meaning and effect on civic engagement and leadership skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND. Donahue, T. (2009). The making of global citizens through education abroad programs: Aligning missions and visions with education abroad programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Drews, D. R. & Meyer, L.L. (1996). Effects of study abroad on conceptualizations of national groups. College Student Journal, 30(4), 452. Dugan, J.P. & Komives, S.R. (2010). Influences on college students? capacities for socially responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 525- 549. doi: 10.1353/csd.2010.0009 Elble, A.E. (2009). The effect of a public health service-learning/study abroad program in Swaziland on the cultural awareness of university undergraduate students. Unpublished masters thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Etzioni, A. (1992). Normative-affective factors: Toward a new decision-making model. In M. Zey (ed.), Decision making: Alternatives to rational choice models (pp. 89- 111). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Ewers, J. (2009, April 8). Congress sends Obama a bill to boost community service. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/04/08/congress-sends-obama- a-bill-to-boost-community-service.html Eyler, J. & Giles, D.E. (1999). Where?s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ferrence, R.A. & Bell, S. (2004). A cross-cultural immersion in the U.S.: Changing preservice teacher attitudes toward Latino ESOL students. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 343-350. doi: 10.1080/10665680490518605 Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Forgues, D.M. (2005). A study of the relationship of study abroad and students? attitudes toward diversity and culture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Statue University of New York, Buffalo, NY. Fowler, F.J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 207 Franke, R., Ruiz, S., Sharkness, J., DeAngelo, L. & Pryor, J. (2010). Findings from the 2009 Administration of the College Senior Survey (CSS): National Aggregates. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/Reports/2009_CSS_Report.pdf Gabali, C.G. (2002). Ethical perspectives on an international service learning program: A comparative content analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Golay, P.A. (2006). The effects of study abroad on the development of global-mindedness among students enrolled in international programs at Florida State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Grusky, S. (2000). International service learning: A critical guide from an impassioned advocate. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 858-867. doi:10.1177/00027640021955513 Hadis, B. F. (2005). Gauging the impact of study abroad: how to overcome the limitations of a single-cell design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 3-19. doi:10.1080/0260293042003243869 Hashimoto, Y. (2007). ?Becoming activated?: Transformative learning and education for social change through an undergraduate course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Hecht, D. (2003). The missing link: Exploring the context of learning in service-learning (pp. 25-49). In S.H. Billig and J. Eyler (Eds.), Deconstructing Service-Learning: Research Exploring Context, Participation, and Impacts. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing. Hutchins, M.M. (1996). International education study tours abroad: Students' professional growth and personal development in relation to international, global, and intercultural perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Institute for International Education. (2011a). Open doors 2011 fast facts. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/~/media/Files/Corporate/Open- Doors/Fast-Facts/Fast-Facts-2011.ashx Institute for International Education. (2011b). Study abroad by U.S. students rose in 2009/10 with more students going to less traditional destinations. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press- Releases/2011/2011-11-14-Open-Doors-Study-Abroad Institute for International Education. (2011c). Profile of U.S. study abroad students, 1998/99-2009/10. Retrieved from: http://www.iie.org/Research-and- Publications/Open-Doors/Data/US-Study-Abroad/Student-Profile/2000-10 208 Ivory, B. T. (1997). The re-entry crisis of students returning to campus following a volunteer alternative break experience: A developmental opportunity. College Student Affairs Journal, 16(2), 104-112. Jackson, M.J. (2006). Traveling shoes: Study abroad experiences of African American students participating in California State University?s international programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in today?s higher education. In B. Jacoby & associates (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. (pp. 3-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jacoby, B. (2009). Facing the unsettled questions about service-learning. In J. Strait & M. Lima (Eds.), The future of service-learning: New solutions for sustaining and improving practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Jones, S.G. & Steinberg, K.S. (2011). An analysis of international service learning programs. In R.G. Bringle, J.A. Hatcher, & S.G. Jones (Eds.), International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research (Vol. 1: IUPUP Series on Service Learning Research) (pp. 89-112). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Jones, S.R. & Abes, E.S. (2004). Enduring influences of service-learning on college students? identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 24, 149- 165. doi:10.1353/csd.2004.0023 Jones, S.R. & Hill, K.E. (2003). Understanding patterns of commitment: Student motivation for community service involvement. The Journal of Higher Education, 74, 516-39. doi:10.1353/jhe.2003.0036 Jones, S.R., Robbins, C.K. & LePeau, L.A. (2009, November). Crossing Developmental Borders through Participation in HIV/AIDS-focused Service-Learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Vancouver, British Columbia. Jones, S.R., Rowan-Kenyon, H.T., Ireland, S.M-Y., Niehaus, E., & Skendall, K.C. (2012). The meaning students make as participants in short-term immersion programs. Journal of College Student Development, 53, 201-220. Kehl, K. & Morris, J. (2007). Differences in global-mindedness between short-term and semester-long study abroad participants at selected private universities. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 67-79. http://www.frontiersjournal.com/documents/KehlMorrisFRONTIERSJOURNAL XVWinter2007-08.pdf Kenny, D.A., Mannetti, L., Piero, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D.A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 126-137. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.126 209 Kiely, R. (2004). A chameleon with a complex: Searching for transformation in international service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(2), 5-20. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0010.201 Kiely, R. (2005). A transformative learning model for service-learning: A longitudinal case study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(1), 5-22. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0012.101 King, C.E. (2006). International service-learning in secondary education. Unpublished masters thesis, American University, Washington, DC. King, J.T. (2004). Service learning as a site for critical pedagogy: A case of collaboration, caring, and defamiliarization across borders. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(3), 121-137. King, K.P. (2004). Both sides now: Examining transformative learning and professional development of educators. Innovative Higher Education, 29(2), 155-174. doi:10.1023/B:IHIE.0000048796.60390.5f Kraft, R.J. (2002). International service learning. (pp. 297-314). In Kenny, M.E., Simon, L.A.K., Kiley-Brabeck, K., & Lerner, R.M. (Eds.), Learning to serve: Promoting civil society through service learning. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Krathwohl, D. R. (1998). Methods of educational & social science research: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Lewis, T.L. & Niesenbaum, R.A. (2005). Extending the stay: Using community-based research and service learning to enhance short-term study abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9, 251-264. doi:10.1177/1028315305277682 Longo, N.V. & Saltmarsh, J. (2011). New lines of inquiry in reframing international service learning into global service learning. In R.G. Bringle, J.A. Hatcher, & S.G. Jones (Eds.), International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research (Vol. 1: IUPUP Series on Service Learning Research) (pp. 69-85). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Lough, B.J. (2010). Predictors of intercultural competence among international volunteers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University, St. Louis, MO. Luke, D.A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Malewski, E. & Phillion, J. (2009). International field experiences: The impact of class, gender, and race on the perceptions and experiences of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 52-60. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.007 210 Marks, H.M. & Jones, S.R. (2004). Community service in transition: Shifts and continuities in participation from high school to college. The Journal of Higher Education, 75, 307-339. doi:10.1353/jhe.2004.0015 Marmon, E.L. (2007). Transformative learning in local, cross-cultural situations: Surprising dilemmas, reflections, and stories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. McCarthy, M.D. (1996). One-time and short-term service-learning experiences. In B. Jacoby & associates (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. (pp. 111-34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McElhaney, K.A. (1998). Student outcomes of community service learning: A comparative analysis of curriculum-based and non-curriculum-based alternative spring break programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12. doi:10.1002/ace.7401 Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformative theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 3-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Moely, B.E., McFarland, M., Miron, D., Mercer, S. & Ilustre, V. (2002). Changes in college students? attitudes and intentions for civic involvement as a function of service-learning experiences. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 18-26. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0009.102 NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2009). U.S. House of Representatives passes Simon Study Abroad Bill. Retrieved from: http://www.nafsa.org/press_releases.sec/press_releases.pg/house_passes_simon/ National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Digest of Education Statistics 2008, Chapter 3. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009020 Neururer, J. & Rhoads, R.A. (1998). Community service: Panacea, paradox or potentiation. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 321-329. 211 Orahood, T., Kruze, L., & Pearson, D.E. (2004). The impact of study abroad on business students? career goals. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 117-130. http://www.frontiersjournal.com/issues/vol10/vol10- 07_OrahoodKruzePearson.pdf Pagano, M. (2003). University students? learning during an international service learning program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Parks Daloz, L.A. (2000). Transformative learning for the common good. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 103-123). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pisano, R.H. (2007). Transforming students through service in study abroad: A case study of an international service-learning program in Ecuador. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. Raudenbush, S.W. & Bryk, A.S. (2008). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Raschio, R.A. (1987). College students? perceptions of reverse culture shock and reentry adjustments. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 156-162. Raymondi, M.D. (2004). Latino students explore racial and ethnic identity in a global context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York ? Binghamton University, Vestal, NY Rhoads, R.A. & Neururer, J. (1998). Alternative spring break: Learning through community service. NASPA Journal, 35(2), 100-118. doi:10.2202/1949- 6605.1039 Rowan-Kenyon, H., Soldner, M., & Inkelas, K.K. (2007). The contributions of living- learning programs on developing sense of civic engagement in undergraduate students. NASPA Journal, 44(4), 750-778. Rowan-Kenyon, H.T. & Niehaus, E. (2011). One year later: The influence of short-term study abroad experiences on students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48, 213-228. doi:10.2202/1949-6605.6213 Salisbury, M.H., Paulsen, M.B., & Pascarella, E.T. (2009, November). To See the World or Stay at Home: Applying an Integrated Student Choice Model to Explore the Gender Gap in the Intent to Study Abroad. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Vancouver, British Columbia. Salisbury, M.H., Umbach, P.D., Paulsen, M.B., & Pascarella, E.T. (2009). Going global: Understanding the choice process of intent to study abroad. Research in Higher Education, 50, 119-143. doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9111-x 212 Serow R., & Dreyden, J. (1990). Community service among college and university students: Individual and institutional relationships. Adolescence, 25, 553-566. Smith, D.B. (2008). The impact of international experience on the global mindedness of extension agents employed by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Sutton, R.C. & Rubin, D.L. (2004). The GLOSSARI project: Initial findings from a system-wide research initiative on study abroad learning outcomes. Frontiers: The International Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 65-82. http://www.frontiersjournal.com/issues/vol10/vol10-04_SuttonRubin.pdf Sutton, S.B. (2011). Service learning as local learning: The importance of context. In R.G. Bringle, J.A. Hatcher, & S.G. Jones (Eds.), International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research (Vol. 1: IUPUP Series on Service Learning Research) (pp. 125-144). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Terenzini, P.T. (1994). Assessment with open eyes: Pitfalls in studying student outcomes. In J.S. Stark & A. Thomas (Eds.). Assessment and program evaluation. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Printing. Uehara, A. (1986). The nature of American student reentry adjustment and perceptions of the sojourn experience. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 415- 438. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(86)90043-X Van Der Meid, J. S. (2004). Asian Americans: Factors influencing the decision to study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 9, 71-110. http://www.frontiersjournal.com/issues/vol9/vol9-04_vandermeid.pdf Vogelgesang, L.J. & Astin, A.W. (2000). Comparing the effects of community service and service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 25-34. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0007.103 Wallace, D.H. (1999). Academic study abroad: The long-term impact on alumni volunteer activities, world and personal perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA. Williams, T. R. (2005). Exploring the impact of Study Abroad on students? intercultural communication skills: Adaptability and sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(4), 356-371. doi:10.1177/1028315305277681 Wilson, A.H. (1987). Reentry: Toward becoming an international person. Education and Urban Society, 20(2), 197-210.