Content uploaded by Jessie Ho-Yin Yau
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jessie Ho-Yin Yau on Jan 27, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
Educational Action Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20
Enhancing the impacts of international service-
learning on intercultural effectiveness and global
citizenship development through action research
Stephen C.F. Chan , Grace Ngai , Jessie Ho-Yin Yau & K. P. Kwan
To cite this article: Stephen C.F. Chan , Grace Ngai , Jessie Ho-Yin Yau & K. P. Kwan (2020):
Enhancing the impacts of international service-learning on intercultural effectiveness and
global citizenship development through action research, Educational Action Research, DOI:
10.1080/09650792.2020.1860106
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1860106
Published online: 21 Dec 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Enhancing the impacts of international service-learning on
intercultural eectiveness and global citizenship
development through action research
Stephen C.F. Chan
a
, Grace Ngai
a,b
, Jessie Ho-Yin Yau
a
and K. P. Kwan
a
a
Service-Learning and Leadership Office, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong;
b
Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
ABSTRACT
This paper reports the results of an action research project on
improving students’ learning from international service-learning.
Participants were two consecutive cohorts of university students
enrolled in nine international service-learning projects. Mixed-
method ndings from the rst cohort reveal signicant increases
in their global competence and intercultural eectiveness but not
their social responsibility or global civic engagement. Targeted
improvement actions were planned and implemented accordingly
for the subsequent cohort, resulting in signicant increases in their
social responsibility in addition to global competence and inter-
cultural eectiveness scores. No signicant increase, however, was
found in students’ global civic engagement. The ndings suggest
that action research can be an eective strategy to improve stu-
dents’ global citizenship and intercultural eectiveness develop-
ment from international service-learning, and that explicit and
intentional elements are needed in the learning and reective
activities to develop these attributes. Implications for practice and
future research are discussed.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 6 April 2020
Accepted 23 November 2020
KEYWORDS
International service-
learning; global citizenship;
intercultural effectiveness;
action research
Introduction
International Service-Learning is an experiential learning pedagogy that ‘combines aca-
demic instruction and community-based service in an international context’ (Crabtree
2008, 18). Through combining aspects of conventional study abroad and service-learning
programmes, it oers ‘an exceptional degree of integration into a target culture and an
intensive experience of community service’ (Tonkin and Quiroga 2004, 131). International
service-learning has been increasingly adopted by universities to better prepare their
students to become ‘global citizens’ with intercultural competencies to help them func-
tion eectively in a progressively interconnected world (Plater et al. 2009).
However, research has shown that exposing students to an international experience
alone may not automatically improve their intercultural competencies and global citizen-
ship (Vande Berg, Paige, and Lou 2012). Instead, it takes intentional preparation and eort
to make the exposure meaningful and benecial to both students and the host
CONTACT Grace Ngai grace.ngai@polyu.edu.hk
EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1860106
© 2020 Educational Action Research
community (Nickols et al. 2013). This is supported by an earlier study by the authors (Chan
et al. 2018) which demonstrated that while international service-learning could enhance
students’ intercultural eectiveness development, it might have no signicant eect on
their global civic responsibility and global civic engagement. Besides, wide variations in
students’ learning gains were observed across dierent international service-learning
projects.
This study is a follow-up to our earlier study and reports the results of our eort to
improve students’ learning from international service-learning using an action research
paradigm. Action research is a cyclical process of problem identication, action planning,
implementation, evaluation, and reection, with the insights gained from the initial cycle
fed into the planning of the second cycle (Riding, Fowell, and Levy 1995). It could help
educators to guide improvement eorts supported by data and is an ideal strategy for
improving teaching and learning (Dyke 2019). Our action research project aimed to
monitor and improve the impacts of international service-learning on student outcomes
by identifying the problems and issues in the program design and delivery in order to
introduce appropriate pedagogical changes to address them in subsequent oerings of
the programs. The study is guided by the following research question: ‘To what extent did
the intervention/improvement action help improve students’ global citizenship and
intercultural eectiveness development from an international service-learning
experience?’
Literature review
International service-learning and global citizenship education
International service-learning, which combines service-learning with overseas study and
international education, is widely recognized as a powerful pedagogy to achieve the goal
of nurturing students into responsible global citizens (Bringle and Hatcher 2011; Kiely
2005; Tonkin 2011) because of its culturally immersive nature, and the degree of dis-
sonance and openness to transformational learning that it can oer to students (Hartman
and Kiely 2014). The potential benets of international service-learning for students
include improved personal competencies, improved global awareness, intercultural com-
petence, and increased sense of global citizenship (Brown 2007; Nickols et al. 2013).
Global citizenship has no single and generally accepted denition within the literature
(Larsen 2014). Notwithstanding the dierences among denitions, educators generally
perceive global citizenship as a multidimensional and interconnected concept covering
awareness, responsibility, and engagement on a global scale (Schattle 2009). In fact, it
should be noted that there are at least three paradigms of global citizenship. The
neoliberalist view stresses the necessary skills and knowledge for an individual to success-
fully participate in the world. The radicalist view emphasizes the recognition of global
inequalities and a commitment to challenge and eliminate unjustied problems across
countries. The transformationalist view highlights collaborative eorts to solve global
issues (McGrew 2000; Shultz 2007).
Global citizenship is often cited as one of the most prominent goals of international
service-learning (Bringle and Hatcher 2011). However, students’ global learning may not
automatically be improved by simply exposing them to an international experience
2S. C. F. CHAN ET AL.
(Vande Berg, Paige, and Lou 2012). It has been shown that international service-
learning, if poorly planned or implemented, could potentially bring harm to students
by reinforcing stereotypes, promoting power disparities, and creating distorted inter-
pretations of social issues (Camacho 2004; King 2004). An earlier study by the authors
found that students’ skills such as intercultural eectiveness and global competence are
more easily enhanced than attitudinal values such as social responsibility and global
civic engagement. One possible reason is that many teachers did not explicitly include
global citizenship in the intended learning outcomes or syllabus of their international
service-learning subjects, and made little intentional eort to design and incorporate
eective interventions to foster students’ development through the experience (Chan
et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2007).
Educators argued that intentional eorts are required to make an international service-
learning experience meaningful and benecial to both students and the host community
(Nickols et al. 2013). Watson and Reierson (2017) suggest the following guidelines for
enhancing student learning from international experience: maximizing learning gains
through reection, managing cultural shock, minimizing risks that might occur due to
accidental and avoidable losses, promoting cultural sensitivity, committing to impact
evaluation, and promoting reciprocity and partnership. For example, King (2004)
described a case study of 14 female university students participating in an international
service-learning trip to Mexico, which found that intercultural connections and authentic
dialogues with people from host community that are culturally dierent from students’
own were essential for them to examine their own values and beliefs. In a study of 57
undergraduate students from a New York community college serving in Nicaragua, Kiely
(2005) found three main factors that inuenced students’ transformative learning from
international service-learning; these were: (1) accommodation that facilitated interactions
with locals; (2) service nature that allowed intercultural exchange; and (3) adequate
reection opportunities. In a qualitative study conducted with 44 students in
Hong Kong, it was found that students’ learning from international service-learning was
inuenced by nine major factors, categorized into three themes. Cultural immersion
factors include (1) dialogic intercultural service experiences, (2) cultural training and visits,
and (3) homestay. Subject design factors include (4) structured reection, (5) collaborative
learning, (6) students’ autonomy within a broad framework, (7) challenging, but manage-
able tasks, and (8) preparation for services. The teacher factor includes (9) teachers with
hearts for service and learning (Tong et al. 2019). These nine factors were believed to
facilitate team building, prepare students for services, promote deeper reection, demon-
strate project impacts, maximize intercultural exposures, and enhance global citizenship
development.
Action research
Action research has a long history, dating back at least to the early twentieth century and
has been practiced in many diverse and professional elds, such as education. A notable
feature of action research is that it recognizes the capacity of people living and working in
particular settings to participate actively in all aspects of the research process (Kemmis,
McTaggart, and Nixon 2013). Action research adopts a methodological, iterative, and
cyclical process of problem identication, action planning, implementation, evaluation,
EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 3
and reection, with the insights gained from the initial cycle fed into the planning of
the second cycle (Riding, Fowell, and Levy 1995).
Action research in education is research undertaken by practitioners in order to
improve their practice (Hendricks 2019; O’Brien 1998). A fundamental value of action
research is that teachers, by nature of their professional responsibilities, learn to improve
their practice and engage in research to discern what represents an improvement (Corey
1954). Advocates argue that action research serves to establish habits of ‘self-monitoring’
that enables teachers to continue to learn from the experience and become better at
teaching throughout their career (Biott 1983; Rudduck 1985).
Action research oers several advantages. For instance, it makes available scientic
data rather than preferences or intuitions for educators to guide improvement eorts, and
hence educators could propose ideas and theories that can be supported by data.
Moreover, implementing action research addresses both the learning of students and
the professional growth of teachers because action research is an ideal strategy for
students to learn eectively and for teachers to teach eectively. Action research may
lead to actions that directly change the learning environment, and improve specic
pedagogical practices (Dyke 2019).
Action research has been applied in the eld of service-learning for improving student
learning. In a study conducted in the University of the Free State (UFS) in South Africa,
action research was used on two service-learning modules in the academic year of 2002 as
rst cycle and 2003 as action cycle. It was found that students were more actively involved
in the learning process after implementation of relevant action plans. The study has
shown that the action research approach could stimulate students’ critical thinking and
help contribute to the scientic management of nursing education (Seale, Wilkinson, and
Erasmus 2005). In another study conducted in Taiwan, action research was used to
investigate the multicultural experience of graduate students who enrolled in an SL
course. It was found that students had improved interacting skills with service recipients
after some interventions (Liu and Lin 2017). Since there have been scant studies on the
use of action research paradigm in the eld of ISL, more action research studies are
needed to investigate the eectiveness of ISL and improve students’ learning.
Methodology
Research setting
The study was conducted in a large public university in Hong Kong, involving ve
service-learning subjects covering nine oshore projects from a broad spectrum of
disciplines that were taught by the same subject teachers and conducted at the same
service sites in the two years. All of the subjects carried three credits and consisted of
semester-long lectures, seminars, and workshops, and 40 hours of oshore community
service that was closely linked to the academic focus of the subject. Students’ reec-
tion was required, and their performance and learning were assessed according to
a letter-grade system. The nature of the service projects varied, ranging from English
teaching, public health promotion, to installation of small-scale energy systems using
solar panels. Those projects also covered a range of service beneciaries, including
primary school village children, households in deprived urban areas, and rural village
4S. C. F. CHAN ET AL.
dwellers. The oshore service sites include Cambodia, Vietnam, Rwanda, and Mainland
China. (Although the racial demographic of Mainland China is very similar to
Hong Kong, historical and linguistic factors create an environment which is culturally
very distinct.) Data were collected in two cycles, in the 2016/17 and 2017/18 academic
years. The total enrolments were 319 and 312 for the rst and second cycles, respec-
tively. The proposal for the study was reviewed and approved by the university’s ethics
committee and the investigators were given permission and access to the target
participants.
The research team consisted of six teachers from the ve subjects and was led/
coordinated by two of the authors, who were also teachers of one of the subjects. The
team was supported by an education expert and a research support sta. The research
questions and design were discussed and agreed on by the entire research team, includ-
ing all teachers. The teachers were also the primary responsible party for reviewing and
reecting on the ndings of the respective subjects and projects, developing improve-
ment actions based on the evidence collected, implementing the changes, and examining
the impacts and outcomes.
Research design
The study adopted a mixed methods design, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative
data to address the research questions.
Quantitative
The quantitative part adopted a pretest-posttest design. Global citizenship was measured
using a short version of the Global Citizenship Scale (GCS). The GCS was originally
developed by Morais and Ogden (2011) and validated with 348 undergraduate students
in the United States. The short scale version (GCS-SS) was developed and validated with
university students in Hong Kong; results showed that the short version was reasonably
reliable and valid (Lo et al. 2014, 2019). The GCS models the conceptual and operational
denition of global citizenship as a three-dimensional construct through three subscales
measuring social responsibility, global competence, and global civic engagement. The
validated GCS-SS has four, ve and six items on each of the subscales, respectively.
Students were asked to indicate, on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 3 = neutral;
5 = strongly agree), their extent of agreement with each of the declarative statements
describing various aspects of global citizenship. The intention is that, to understand and
measure a respondent’s global citizenship development, both the overall and the sub-
scale scores should be taken into account.
The Intercultural Eectiveness Scale (IES) (Portalla and Chen 2010) was used to measure
students’ level of intercultural competence prior to and after completing the international
service-learning project. The IES measures the respondents’ competencies in interacting
eectively with people from a dierent culture. It was validated with 246 students in the
United States. It comprises twenty items in total. Students were asked to indicate, on
a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 3 = neutral; 5 = strongly agree), the extent to which
they agreed with each of the statements regarding their attitude and behaviors when
interacting with people from dierent cultures.
EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 5
For both cycles, the pre-survey was administered in class by the course instructor or
sta members from the Oce of Service-Learning of the university at the beginning of
the semester. The post-survey was administered by the course instructor on or after the
last day of the international service-learning project. In all of the administrations, the
purpose of the survey was clearly explained to the students, with the assurance that
their response would not aect their assessment grades. Students were given fteen to
twenty minutes to complete the questionnaires. They were asked to return it immedi-
ately afterwards. Email invitations were sent at least twice to follow up with non-
respondents to urge them to complete and return the questionnaire via email. Data
were analyzed using SPSS version 24 software. Paired t-tests and Cohen’s eect size
(Cohen’s d) were conducted to detect if there were any statistically signicant changes
in students’ pre-test and post-test scores as measured by GCS-SS and IES for both
cohorts, respectively. After that, a series of two-way repeated measures ANOVA was
conducted on all projects to determine whether there were signicant dierences
between the two cohorts in their respective pre-post changes in the mean GCS-SS
and IES scores as a result of the action research project.
Qualitative
The qualitative part of the study took the form of individual semi-structured interviews.
Students were asked to explain, among other things, how their views and beliefs had
changed after participating in international service-learning and what they had learned
from the experience. In addition, students in the second cohort were asked to reect on
how, if at all, the intentionally planned improvement actions undertaken by the respective
subject teachers might have contributed to their learning.
For each of the project, two to four students were selected for the interviews depend-
ing on the class size. Students were invited to attend an interview by email and were
asked to reply within seven days. They were promised an HK$200 (~USD$25.6) coupon
upon completing the interview. A total of 44 and 40 students attended the interview for
the rst and second rounds, respectively.
The interviews were conducted in the language preferred by the students
(Cantonese, Mandarin, or English) according to the pre-set protocol. Prior to the inter-
view, participants were briefed on the purpose of the study. Voluntary participation and
condentiality of data were emphasized. Written informed consent was obtained from
all participants. Each interview lasted about 1 to 1.5 hours; they were audio-recorded
with the permission of the interviewees to facilitate subsequent transcription and data
analysis. The interviews were rst transcribed verbatim in the language in which they
were conducted. Data were then analyzed independently by two members of the
project team to identify the categories and themes of the feedback obtained.
Divergent opinions and views between the two members about the categorization
were discussed until an agreement was reached. Detailed coding was then done,
major themes were identied, and possible relationships between constructs were
investigated by cross-tabulation. Direct quotes from the participants were selected to
support and illustrate the categories and themes identied. The software NVivo was
used to analyze the qualitative data and to facilitate the cross-tabulation of the parti-
cipants’ responses.
6S. C. F. CHAN ET AL.
The action research process
After the rst cycle of evaluation of the 2016/17 cohort, the quantitative and qualitative
results were written up and the aggregated results were made available to all team
members. For reasons of sensitivity, subject-specic data were made available only to
the respective teacher(s) for that subject. A project-wide team meeting was held to
discuss the salient features or good practices in facilitating students’ learning in interna-
tional service-learning, students’ interviews from the rst cycle about eective aspects of
an international service-learning project and their suggestions for improvements. The
teacher team members also shared their frontline experiences and intuitions during the
meeting. Afterwards, smaller focus meetings were held to discuss and interpret the results
regarding each specic subject, and to explore possible enhancement actions and
changes for the second cycle (the 2017/18 cohort). In addition, after the rst cycle of
evaluation, two toolkits were developed for teachers’ use to facilitate students’ (1) global
citizenship and (2) intercultural competence respectively (Yau, Tong, and Kwan 2018;
Tong, Yau, and Kwan 2018). Apart from that, a discussion session was organized for all
project team members to allow them to share strategies to enhance students’ global
citizenship development through international service-learning.
After the second cycle of evaluation from the 2017/18 cohort, the quantitative and
qualitative results were written up and similarly made available to the project team.
A project team meeting was held to discuss the ndings and implications. Teacher
team members were asked to document problems or issues identied from the rst
cycle of evaluation, improvement actions taken, observations on what worked and
what did not work.
Results
Demographic information
Of the 319 students enrolled in the rst cohort, their mean age was 20.34 (SD = 1.44). One
hundred and eleven (37.9%) of the respondents were male and 182 (62.1%) were female.
One hundred and fty-seven (49.2%) participated in international projects and 162
(50.8%) participated in Chinese Mainland projects (even though Hong Kong is part of
China, linguistic, political and historical factors make for a very dierent context in
Mainland China, and signicant cultural boundaries need to be crossed during these
projects). Of the 312 students enrolled in the second cohort, their mean age was 20.68
(SD = 1.70). Eighty-eight (28.2%) of the respondents were male and 185 (87.5%) were
female. One hundred and fty-two (48.7%) participated in international projects and 160
(51.3%) participated in Chinese Mainland projects.
Major ndings and lessons learnt from the rst cycle of evaluation
Table 1 shows that in the rst cycle, there were statistically signicant increases in
students’ overall score on the Global Citizenship Scale (pre-test = 3.40; post-test = 3.50;
t = −3.70; p < 0.001; eect size (Cohen’s d) = 0.27) and their score on the Global
Competence subscale (pre-test = 3.58; post-test = 3.84; t = −7.24; p < 0.001; eect size
EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 7
(Cohen’s d) = 0.51). The changes in the Social Responsibility and Global Civic Engagement
subscale scores, however, were not statistically signicant at.05 level. Furthermore, there
was a statistically signicant increase in students’ score on the Intercultural Eectiveness
Scale after their international service-learning experience (pre-test = 68.11; post-test
= 70.94; t = −5.97; p < 0.001), with an eect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.37.
The results suggested that, through international service-learning, students were
immersed in a dierent culture for an extended period of time and were able to improve
their ability to interact with people from dierent cultural backgrounds. The ndings were
corroborated by the qualitative interviews, in which students reected on how they devel-
oped a deeper understanding of the history and culture of the host community through
interacting with the service recipients and the locals, and became more open-minded and
understanding towards others’ cultural norms and expectations (Chan et al. 2018).
However, there was little evidence from the rst cycle of evaluation to support the
belief that international service-learning will invariably facilitate students’ global citizen-
ship development. Although there was a signicant increase in students’ overall Global
Citizenship Scale score, the increase was mainly attributed to the large increase in the
Global Competence subscale score. There were no signicant increases in the Social
Responsibility and Global Civic Engagement subscales. Qualitative interviews with stu-
dents revealed that many students did not know what global citizenship entailed and very
few of them reported improvements in this aspect.
Results from the rst cycle of evaluation revealed the diculty in changing students’
attitudes and beliefs in a short period of time (Chan et al. 2018). Furthermore, although
global citizenship is deemed an important goal of international service-learning, many
teachers participating in the study noted that they had not explicitly included global
citizenship in the intended learning outcomes or syllabus of their subjects, and made little
intentional eort to design and incorporate eective interventions to foster its develop-
ment through the international service-learning experience. In addition, some items on
the measurement of the global civic engagement dimension might not be applicable to
the Hong Kong context. Civic engagement may take many dierent forms in dierent
communities.
Table 1. Changes in students’ mean scores on global citizenship and intercultural effectiveness
development in the first cycle.
Measures
Pre-test
Mean [SD]
Post-test
Mean [SD] t-value p Effect size(cohen’s d)
Global Citizenship Scale
Social responsibility 3.41 [0.76] 3.40 [0.79] 0.385 0.691 0.01
Global competence 3.58 [0.47] 3.84 [0.54] −7.24 <0.001** 0.51
Global civic engagement 3.23 [0.59] 3.26 [0.67] −0.61 0.541 0.05
Overall 3.40 [0.36] 3.50 [0.38] −3.70 <0.001** 0.27
Intercultural Effectiveness Scale 68.11[7.46] 70.94 [7.71] −5.97 <0.001** 0.37
** Significant at the 0.001 level.
8S. C. F. CHAN ET AL.
Reection and improvement actions
A series of research team meetings (whole group or in subject groups) were held after the
rst cycle of evaluation to discuss the results and explore possible ways to improve
students’ learning in the next round of implementation. The meetings were facilitated
by the education expert, who also served as a ‘critical friend’ to the teachers. Participating
teachers shared their experiences and reected on the problems revealed in the rst cycle
of evaluation. A major nding was that while all teachers espoused the value and
importance of nurturing students’ global citizenship and intercultural eectiveness
through ISL, these were not evident in their enacted value or practice. The recognition
informed the improvement actions to be planned and undertaken by the respective
subject teachers, drawing upon international best practices identied from the literature.
The major issues or problems identied, and improvement actions undertaken by the
dierent subject teachers to address them are shown in Table 2.
Second cycle of evaluation
Table 3 shows there were statistically signicant increases in students’ overall score on the
Global Citizenship Scale (pre-test = 3.43; post-test = 3.58; t = −6.71; p < 0.001; eect size
(Cohen’s d) = 0.43), as well as their score on the Social Responsibility subscale (pre-test
= 3.41; post-test = 3.63; t = −4.70; p < 0.001; eect size (Cohen’s d) = 0.32) and the Global
Competence subscale (pre-test = 3.62; post-test = 3.90; t = −9.08; p < 0.001; eect size
(Cohen’s d) = 0.69). There was a statistically signicant increase in students’ score on the
Intercultural Eectiveness Scale after their international service-learning experience as
well (pre-test = 69.54; post-test = 72.71; t = −6.67; p < 0.001; eect size (Cohen’s d) = 0.45).
Table 2. Examples of improvement actions undertaken to address issues and problems identified in
first cycle of evaluation.
Issues or problems Improvement actions undertaken
●Lack of awareness or understanding of civic learning
outcomes, global citizenship and intercultural effec-
tiveness as important goals of international service-
learning
●3-hour lecture on delivering the concept of global
citizenship and intercultural effectiveness, such as
Bennett’s Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett
1986)
●5 lessons (2-hour each) on human geography, cultural
and historical background of the local community
●13 weeks of global classroom (3-hour each) to enhance
collaboration between students from Hong Kong,
Cambodia, and the United States
●Nightly written reflection to approach and address the
themes of global citizenship and intercultural effec-
tiveness in particular
●Limited understanding of the history and culture of
the served community
●One-day visit to local attraction, local museums and
cultural heritage sites
●Half-day local city hunt activity
●Little opportunity to interact closely with local people
of the served community
●One-day visit to a local secondary school followed by
informal sharing sessions with the locals
●Half-day home visit with local families
●Half-day cultural exchange activities with local peers
●One-day team building activities with local peers
EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 9
Comparison of results between the two cohorts
Table 4 shows a statistically signicant dierence between the two cohorts in their respec-
tive pre-post changes in terms of students’ Social Responsibility subscale score (Cohort 1:
pre-score mean = 3.43, post-score mean = 3.42, cohort 2: pre-mean score = 3.41, post-mean
score = 3.63, F = 10.412, p < 0.001). The mean dierence between the post-test and pre-test
scores in Cohort 2 is signicantly larger than that of Cohort 1. On the other hand, no
statistically signicant dierences were found between the two cohorts in their respective
pre-post changes in Global Competence subscale, Global Civic Engagement subscales,
overall Global Citizenship Scale, and Intercultural Eectiveness Scale scores at the .05 level.
Table 3. Changes in students’ mean scores on global citizenship and intercultural effectiveness
development in the second cycle.
Measures
Pre-test
Mean [SD]
Post-test
Mean [SD] t-value p Effect size (Cohen’s d)
Global Citizenship Scale
Social responsibility 3.41 [0.68] 3.63 [0.70] −4.70 <0.001** 0.32
Global competence 3.62 [0.44] 3.90 [0.37] −9.08 <0.001** 0.69
Global civic engagement 3.28 [0.57] 3.28 [0.59] 0.14 0.89 0
Overall 3.43 [0.34] 3.58 [0.35] −6.71 <0.001** 0.43
Intercultural Effectiveness Scale 69.54 [6.96] 72.71 [7.09] −6.67 <0.001** 0.45
** Significant at the 0.001 level.
Table 4. Students’ global citizenship and intercultural effectiveness development from ISL for both
cohorts.
GCS-Social Responsibility
Cohort Pre-score Post-score F p
Mean SD N Mean SD N
2016/17 3.43 0.76 256 3.42 0.85 256 10.412 <0.001**
2017/18 3.41 0.68 243 3.63 0.70 243
GCS-Global Competence
Cohort Pre-score Post-score F p
Mean SD N Mean SD N
2016/17 3.58 0.47 254 3.84 0.54 254 .211 .646
2017/18 3.62 0.44 243 3.90 0.37 243
GCS-Global Civic Engagement
Cohort Pre-score Post-score F p
Mean SD N Mean SD N
2016/17 3.23 0.59 247 3.26 0.67 247 .302 .583
2017/18 3.28 0.57 240 3.28 0.59 240
GCS-Overall
Cohort Pre-score Post-score F p
Mean SD N Mean SD N
2016/17 3.40 0.36 245 3.50 0.38 245 2.793 .095
2017/18 3.43 0.34 240 3.58 0.35 240
Intercultural Effectiveness Scale
Cohort Pre-score Post-score F p
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
2016/17 68.11 7.46 244 70.94 7.71 244 .249 .618
2017/18 69.54 6.96 214 72.71 7.09 214
** Significant at 0.001 level.
10 S. C. F. CHAN ET AL.
Students’ feedback for the improvement actions from the qualitative interviews
The qualitative results corroborate the quantitative ndings. More students from
the second cohort reported gains in their intercultural eectiveness, global competence,
and social responsibility; and many of them commented on the usefulness of the inten-
tional intervention introduced by the subject teachers in helping them learn from the
international service-learning experience.
After the explicit introduction about the concept of global citizenship during lectures
and debriengs, students think more about the concept and why is it important to be
a global citizen. Student A, for example, stated that he had a realization with respect to
the interdependence and interconnectedness of people, with implications on equality
and social responsibility:
‘I recall we have to reect on global citizenship in reective journal . . . I know global citizen-
ship means that we are a global citizen, everyone lives in the same globe and everyone
should be treated the same . . . Also because we are living in a relatively richer city, it is our
responsibility to help the others who live in a poorer country . . . ’
In addition, students reported that they were inspired by the teachers’ sharing. For
example, they could always make some dierences in other people’s lives with practical
actions while actualizing their dreams, as illustrated in the following quote.
‘I am inspired by XXX (a subject teacher) . . . He said that service-learning doesn’t mean you
have to give up your job/career and engage in full-time services, but you have to remember
many people need our help. It is alright to continue to chase and pursue your own career, but
always remember their existence and remember your eort and contribution could help
better their life. I think this is well-said and think this is global citizenship.’
Moreover, guest speakers’ sharing increased students’ sense of social responsibility by
changing their daily living habits, as mentioned by the following student.
‘One of the focuses in the service-learning is about environmental issues and protecting our
environment . . . we have to contribute and protect our planet because we all live in the same
planet . . . After this trip and after listening to YYY (a guest speaker), I will be more aware to be
environmentally friendly and it is our responsibility to do that and to protect our planet. I will
avoid food waste, I will turn o the lights and air-condition when I’m not using it, I will avoid
using straws. I will become more treasured about the resources that we have.’
Another student explained how nightly reection could help him frequently reect on
intercultural competence and global citizenship.
‘Reection is heavily focused in this service-learning. We have a sketchbook, and we have to
reect and write down our thoughts every day. Every day we not only have to write down
what we did that day, but how we get along and communicate with people from dierent
cultural background, and how could we help the community . . . Through frequent reection,
I learnt that it is our responsibility to help dierent people even those of dierent races.
Furthermore, students appreciated the activities, such as city hunt, that helped them to
know more about the local community and their culture.
‘It (city hunt) helps deepen my knowledge about the local culture. We have to talk and
communicate with the local people during the city hunt. We have to play some games and
explore the community. We have to ask the local people to introduce their culture to us.
EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 11
I therefore know more about the environment, background, art, and architecture of the
community’
Discussion
This study shows that action research can be an eective strategy for teachers to monitor
and improve the impacts of their international service-learning projects on students’
growth. Results show that the intervention actions have led to signicant increases in
students’ social responsibility score in the second cycle while maintaining the positive
impact on students’ global competence and intercultural eectiveness development.
These are consistent with previous studies that international service-learning improved
students’ international learning outcomes, including: increased cultural awareness (Curtin
et al. 2013; Green et al. 2011; Plumb et al. 2013), cross-cultural and international skill
development (Green et al. 2011; Marsolek et al. 2012; Walsh 2003) after immersing
themselves in a dierent culture for an extended period of time. This nding is also
supported by the qualitative interviews in the second round, in which there were
a number of students who reected on what a global citizen is and how they would
contribute to society in the future. These improvements were attributed to teachers’
improvement action in intentionally highlighting students’ intercultural competence and
global citizenship development as one of the learning outcomes and the respective
learning activities in the second round of evaluation. Moreover, this study suggests that
the impacts of international service-learning on students’ global citizenship and inter-
cultural eectiveness are not automatic. Intentional eorts are needed when designing
the learning and reective activities to help students develop these attributes.
Consistent with the rst round of evaluation, there were no signicant improvements in
students’ Global Civic Engagement subscale score. One possible reason is that some items
on the measurements of the global civic engagement dimension might not work in the
Hong Kong context. These include ‘over the next 6 months, I will contact a newspaper or radio
to express my concerns about global environmental, social, or political problems’, ‘over the next
6 months, I will express my views about international politics on a website, blog, or chat room’,
and ‘over the next 6 months, I will contact or visit someone in government to seek public action
on global issues and concerns’. These civic engagement actions are commonplace in some
parts of the world, but rather uncommon or not even possible in others. This suggests that
survey instruments should be adapted for dierent contexts. More research is needed.
In this study, not all improvement actions undertaken by the subject teachers were
found useful, at least from the students’ perspective. It appears that some work better
while others do not. A successful improvement action must be well planned in advance
with adequate support. Peer support was important because shared practices helped
teachers to think about the inadequacies of their projects and the respective improve-
ment actions that could be taken (Zuber-Skerrit 2001; O’Brien 1998). In the team meeting,
teachers exchanged their views, diculties, and problems during the action research
process. Action research also served as a peer-learning opportunity for the teachers
themselves. Teachers involved in this study reected that action research was a positive
learning experience and they learnt to be more reective during the process of teaching.
It helped them to focus and reect on specic aspects of their teaching and hence
12 S. C. F. CHAN ET AL.
implement respective improvement actions – it is a continuous quality improvement
process. This was consistent with previous literature which reported that action research
helps teachers to improve their teaching practice (Biott 1983; Rudduck 1985).
Implications and limitations
To conclude, the study supports the belief that international service-learning can have
strong positive impacts on students’ learning outcomes. After the improvement actions,
strong positive impacts were demonstrated in students’ intercultural eectiveness and
global citizenship development. The study rearms that action research serves as an
eective strategy for teachers to monitor and improve the impacts of their own
international service-learning projects on students’ learning and development.
However, it is important to note that not all improvement actions work well. For
example, one teacher team member devised an improvement action in which her
students would bring local school children to a local history museum. However, the
museum was very crowded on the day of their visit, and logistical and operational
challenges meant that they did not have sucient time at the venue. This also suggests
that any improvement actions have to be planned in advance with sucient peer
support. As learning environments and teaching methods were variables that might
impinge the results of our second cycle of evaluation, further improvement of teaching
and instruction methods could be the starting point for the next cycle of our action
research.
Based on these ndings, we make the following recommendations for future work.
First, teaching of intercultural eectiveness and global citizenship have to be made
explicit with intentional eort. It is necessary to design eective intervention to help
students achieve these qualities. Apart from the museum visits, increases in cultural
exchange activities with the local service recipients and the community followed by
reections, teachers could also consider using certain teaching methods such as the
use of issue trees, consequence maps, global citizenship self-assessment tools, and
relevant prompting questions to enhance students’ intercultural eectiveness and
global citizenship as well as stimulate them to reect on these qualities (Yau, Tong,
and Kwan 2018; Tong, Yau, and Kwan 2018). Second, it would be necessary to explore
more suitable scales for measuring global civic engagement components of global
citizenship for students in dierent cultural contexts. For scales to be applicable across
dierent groups of students, items that do not explicitly specify particular forms of
political involvement might be more appropriate as modes and practices of political
involvement could vary across cultures, countries, and political systems (Chan et al.
2018).
Several limitations of the study have to be noted. First, as this study did not involve
a control group, the possibility that the positive changes and students’ growth were due
to maturation eect cannot be ruled out. Second, all learning gains were self-reported;
there may be over- or under-reporting due to recall bias. Third, the study was conducted
based on students’ feedback only; future study should also gather feedback from instruc-
tors to evaluate students’ growth from the international service-learning experience.
Fourth, the study was conducted in one university in Hong Kong with a particular form
of international service-learning. The generalizability of the ndings to other universities
EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 13
in other countries with dierent forms of international service-learning must be viewed
with caution. Fifth, it is possible that the results are caused by the variations in teachers
and/or students’ features or factors between the two cohorts rather than the planned
improvement actions. Finally, it should also be noted that there are reservations in parts of
the research community towards survey questionnaires that purport to measure attitudes
such as global citizenship, and hence the ndings should be considered in light of these
concerns.
Acknowledgments
This project was funded primarily by a Teaching Development Grant project administered by the
Hong Kong Polytechnic University Learning and Teaching Committee with a matching fund from
the Hong Kong Polytechnic University Oce of Service-Learning, and partially by the Hong Kong
University Grants Committee (Grant PolyU4/T&L/16-19).
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Hong Kong University Grants Committee Teaching Development
Grant project [PolyU4/T&L/16-19] administered by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University Learning
and Teaching Committee with a matching fund from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University Oce of
Service-Learning.
ORCID
Stephen C.F. Chan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0985-1074
Grace Ngai http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2027-168X
Jessie Ho-Yin Yau http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1673-3474
K. P. Kwan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0823-3744
References
Bennett, M. 1986. “A Developmental Approach to Training for Intercultural Sensitivity.” International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 10 (2): 179–186. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(86)90005-2.
Biott, G. 1983. “The Foundations of Classroom Research Action Research in Initial Teacher Training.”
Journal of Education for Training 9: 152–160.
Bringle, R.G., and J.A. Hatcher. 2011. “International Service Learning.” In International Service
Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Research, edited by R.G. Bringle, J.A. Hatcher, and S.
G. Jones, 3–28. Sterling, VA: Stylus publishing.
Brown, N. 2007. “Embedding Engagement in Higher Education: Preparing Global Citizenship
through International Service-learning.” Campus Compact 20th Anniversary Visioning Summit.
Accessed 28 August 2010. http://www.compact.org/resources/future-of-campus-engagement
/embedding-engagement-in-higher-education-preparing-global-citizens-through-international-
servicelearning/4235/
Camacho, M.M. 2004. “Power and Privilege: Community Service Learning in Tijuana.” Michigan
Journal of Community Service Learning 10 (3): 31–42.
14 S. C. F. CHAN ET AL.
Chan, S.C.F., G. Ngai, J.H.Y. Yau, and K.P. Kwan. 2018. “Impact of International Service-Learning on
University Students’ Global Citizenship and Intercultural Eectiveness Development.” Paper
presented at the International Association of Research on Service-Learning and Community
Engagement, New Orleans, LA, July 18-20, in press.
Corey, S.M. 1954. “Action Research in Education.” The Journal of Educational Research 47 (5):
375–380.
Crabtree, R.D. 2008. “Theoretical Foundations for International Service-learning.” Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning 15: 18–36.
Curtin, A.J., D.C. Martins, D. Schwartz-Barcott, L. DiMaria, and B.M.S. Oganda. 2013. “Development
and Evaluation of an International Service Learning Program for Nursing Students.” Public Health
Nursing 30 (6): 548–556.
Dyke, K. 2019. “Advantages of Action Research.” Action Research - The Manual. http://www.mun.ca/
educ/courses/ed4361/virtual_academy/campus_a/aresearcher/index.html
Green, S.S., L. Comer, L. Elliott, and J. Neubrander. 2011. “Exploring the Value of an International
Service-learning Experience in Honduras.” Nursing Education Perspectives 32 (5): 302–307.
Hartman, E., and R. Kiely. 2014. “Pushing Boundaries: Introduction to the Global Service-learning
Special Section.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 21 (1): 55–63.
Hendricks, C.A. 2019. “History of Action Research in Education.” In The Wiley Handbook of Action
Research in Education, edited by C.A. Mertler, 29–52. Kategori: Pedagogikk.
Kemmis, S., R. McTaggart, and R. Nixon. 2013. The Action Research Planning: Doing Critical
Participatory Action Research. Singapore: Springer.
Kiely, R. 2005. “A Transformative Learning Model for Service Learning: A Longitudinal Case Study.”
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 12: 5–22.
King, J.T. 2004. “Service-learning as a Site for Critical Pedagogy: A Case for Collaboration, Caring, and
Defamiliarization across Borders.” Journal of Experiential Education 26 (3) (March 2004): 121–137.
Larsen, M.A. 2014. “Critical Global Citizenship and International Service Learning.” Journal of
Citizenship & Equity Education 4 (1): 1–43.
Lee, S.-Y., P. Olszewski-Kubilius, R. Donahue, and K. Weimholt. 2007. “The Eects of a
Service-learning Program on the Development of Civic Attitudes and Behaviors among
Academically Talented Adolescents.” Journal for the Education of the Gifted 31 (2): 165–197.
Liu, R.-L., and P.-Y. Lin. 2017. “Changes in Multicultural Experience: Action Research on a Service
Learning Curriculum.” Systematic Practice and Action Research 30: 239–256.
Lo, K.W.K., K.P. Kwan, G. Ngai, and S.C.F. Chan. 2014. “An Initial Exploration of the Cross-cultural
Validity of the Global Citizenship Scale in the Hong Kong Setting.” Paper presented at the 1st
International Conference on Service-Learning, November 20-21, Hong Kong.
Lo, K.W.K., K.P. Kwan, G. Ngai, and S.C.F. Chan. 2019. “Cross-cultural Validation of the Global
Citizenship Scale for Measuring Impacts of International Service-learning in Hong Kong
Setting.” Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Service-Learning,
Hong Kong.
Marsolek, M.D., J.T. Alcantara, L.F. Quintero, C.F. Jackels, P.K. Cummings, M. Wayne, C. Vallejos, and S.
C. Jackels. 2012. “Wastewater Treatment for a Coee Processing Mill in Nicaragua: A
Service-learning Design Project.” International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering 7 (1):
69–92.
McGrew, A. 2000. “Sustainable Globalization? The Global Politics of Development and Exclusion in
the New World Order.” In Poverty and Development into the 21st Century, edited by T. Allen and
A. Thomas, 345–364. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Morais, D.B., and A.C. Ogden. 2011. “Initial Development and Validation of the Global Citizenship
Scale.” Journal of Studies in International Education 15 (5): 445–466.
Nickols, Y.N., N.J. Rothenberg, L. Moshi, and M. Tetlo. 2013. “International Service-learning:
Students’ Personal Challenges and Intercultural Competence.” Journal of Higher Education
Outreach and Engagement 17 (4): 97–124.
O’Brien, R. 1998. “An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research.” http://www.
web.net/~robrien/papers/arnal.html
EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 15
Plater, W.M., S.G. Jones, R.G. Bringle, and P.H. Clayton. 2009. “Educating Globally Competent Citizens
through International Service Learning.” In The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study
Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, edited by R. Lewin, 485–505.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Plumb, E., K. Roe, J. Plumb, P. Sepe, K. Soin, A. Ramirez, E. Baganizi, R. Simmons, and J. Khubchandani.
2013. “The Use of International Service Learning Initiatives for Global Health Education: Case
Studies from Rwanda and Mexico.” Health Promotion Practice 14 (3): 334–342.
Portalla, T., and G.-M. Chen. 2010. “The Development and Validation of the Intercultural
Eectiveness Scale.” Intercultural Communication Studies 19 (3): 21–37.
Riding, P., S. Fowell, and P. Levy. 1995. “An Action Research Approach to Curriculum Development.”
Information Research 1 (1). http://www.informationr.net/ir/1-1/paper2.html
Rudduck, J. 1985. “Teacher Research and Research-based Teacher Education.” Journal of Education
for Teaching 11: 281–289.
Schattle, H. 2009. “Global Citizenship in Theory and Practice.” In The Handbook of Practice and
Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship, edited by R. Lewin,
pp. 3–20. New York: Routledge.
Seale, I., A. Wilkinson, and M. Erasmus. 2005. “A Step-up Action Research Model for the Revitalisation
of Service Learning Modules.” Acta Academica Supplementum 3: 203–229.
Shultz, L. 2007. “Educating for Global Citizenship: Conicting Agendas and Understandings.” The
Alberta Journal of Educational Research 53 (3): 248–258.
Tong, S.K.P., J.H.Y. Yau, and K.P. Kwan. 2018. “‘Accentuating the Positive Outcomes of Global Service-
Learning through Collaborative Action Research’ Project - Developing Students’ Intercultural
Competences through International Service-learning: A Toolkit for Teachers.” The Oce of Service-
Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Accessed 1 June 2018. https://www.
polyu.edu.hk/osl/sta/Toolkit/Intercultural_Competences_Toolkit.pdf
Tong, S.K.P., J.H.Y. Yau, S.C.F. Chan, G. Ngai, and K.P. Kwan. 2019. “Curricular and Pedagogical
Features Inuencing International Service-learning Outcomes.” in Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Service-Learning, Hong Kong.
Tonkin, H. 2011. “A Research Agenda for International Service Learning.” In International Service
Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Research, edited by R.G. Bringle, J.A. Hatcher, and S.
G. Jones, 191–224. Sterling, VA: Stylus publishing.
Tonkin, H., and D. Quiroga. 2004. “A Qualitative Approach to the Assessment of International
Service-learning. Frontiers.” The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 10: 131–149.
Vande Berg, M., R.M. Paige, and K.H. Lou. 2012. Student Learning Abroad: What Our Students are
Learning, What They’re Not, and What We Can Do about It. Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub, LLC.
Walsh, L.V. 2003. “International Service Learning in Midwifery and Nursing Education.” Journal of
Midwifery & Women’s Health 48 (6): 449–454.
Watson, B., and F. Reierson. 2017. “Best Practice in International Service-learning (ISL): Aspects of
Risks and Impact.” TEACH Journal of Christian Education 11 (1): 29–36.
Yau, J.H.Y., S.K.P. Tong, and K.P. Kwan. 2018. “‘Accentuating the Positive Outcomes of Global Service-
Learning through Collaborative Action Research’ Project - Educating Global Citizenship through
International Service-learning: A Toolkit for Teachers.” Oce of Service-Learning. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Accessed 1 August 2019. https://www.polyu.edu.hk/osl/
sta/Toolkit/Global_Citizenship_Toolkit.pdf
Zuber-Skerrit, O. 2001. “Action Learning and Action Research: Paradigm, Praxis and Programs.” In
Eective Change Management though Action Research and Action Learning: Concepts, Perspectives,
Process and Applications, edited by S. Sankara, B. Dick, and R. Passeld, 1–20. Australia: Southern
Cross University Press.
16 S. C. F. CHAN ET AL.
