Improving Study Tour Product Introduction from The Aspects Of Push Factors And Program Design In Educational Tourism

A case study of short-term study tour programs in China market

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the existent short-term study tour programs in the USA for Chinese junior secondary school students offered by extracurricular training schools in China and propose an improvement for website product introduction. Economic development, international trade, as well globalization, and the consequent need to improve the competitiveness of their children in the job market increasingly make Chinese parents choose short-term study in the USA. Therefore, a number of extracurricular training schools that offer such “study abroad” programs have come into existence, with the quality of their offers varying to a degree. Additionally, those schools and their programs are being criticized for not fulfilling the objectives that the parents set, and do not provide value for their money. By conducting a literature review and a detailed analysis of study programs’ introduction, this research intends to reveal the link between push factors, study programs’ objectives and their present product design, with an aim to propose program introduction improvement to enhance the training schools’ competitiveness.

Key words: Push factor, China, USA, Short-term study program introduction, Educational tourism.

Introduction

A Chinese proverb once said, “Man who travels far knows more,” and this traditional Confucian value is still largely upheld by Chinese parents. According to U.S. Open Doors Report (2018) statistics, America is the number 1 educational tourism destination for international students. And in 2018, over 363,341 Chinese students study, both short term and long term, in America ( Institute of International Education (IIE), 2018). As a leading politica power, and cutting-edge scientific shrine internationally ( Cohen,2004 ) and a melting pot with diverse cultures, U.S. is the first and foremost choice for Chinese students to further their study and research. The benefits and disadvantages of overseas short term (one semester or less) study tour programs has been thoroughly examined by some writers (e.g., Mills, Deviney et al. 2010; Martinsen, 2010; Reynolds-case, 2013; Stone and Petrick, 2013). However, information can be hardly found on the context of Chinese Junior secondary school students choosing short-term study tour programs. According to China International Educational Tourism Development Report, in 2018, over 1.05 million students took part in short term study tour programs in their summer and winter holidays with an over $ 3 billion business market. The majority, over 70% of the market share, is initiated by public and private schools, the rest 30% is occupied by training schools, travel agencies and professional study tour institutions. Most of the current participants in short term study tours are from junior and senior high schools, accounting for 69.3%. Among them, junior secondary school students accounted for 38.2% with an average tour cost of $ 3500 .

Junior secondary school students are the main target clients of the short-term study tour programs. Since they are young and the short-term study tour decisions are made by their parents, so it is important to find out what kinds of roles parents are playing, what kinds of factors and expectations that push parent make the decision, and how parents using push factors to evaluate the products. And there is almost nothing related researches available about those. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the “push” factors that impact Chinese parents decision-making and the relationship between the factors and the product introduction design for short-term study tour programs. The specific questions that driving our investigation are: What are the “push” factors from the home country? By analyzing the popular short term study tour programs, can we give a checklist of product introduction for marketers? Are there any improvements that we can make?

Literature Review

Students’ overseas short-term study tour program

In China, since the beginning of Reform and Opening Up in 1978, people have witnessed a rapid and almost 40-year economic growth, with the assistance of a stable political environment, which has provided them the option to afford overseas study (Sun and Hagedorn, 2013). Political policy changes such as “one-child in a family” policy have also increased family’s possibilities to support the only child ( Sun and Hagedorn, 2013). The Chinese compulsory education comprises 6 years primary and 3 years junior secondary school education, each school year has a 2-month summer holiday and 1-month winter holiday. This semester and holiday curriculum design makes Chinese parents prefer to choose faculty-guided short-term study tour programs for their children to go to USA with the expectation that their children can cultivate cross-cultural awareness, gain firsthand foreign experiences, shapen future outlooks and get exposure to authentic English environment as English is the second language in China. And the short-term study tour program is also considered as a prelude to long-term overseas study when they get themselves into college in the future.

Educational tourism is an important sub-type form of tourism (Bhuiyan, Islam et al. 2010). Ritchie (as cited in Stone and Petrick ,2013) put educational tourism into two different categories: school, college, and university tourism, in which experiences gained from travel are secondary to school formal learning (“education first”); and edu-tourism, including many youth study tours, considered as general travel for education (“tourism first”). Short-term study is also a kind of educational tourism. Donnelly-Smith (Fall, 2009) concluded short-term study tour experiences as “those in which students are engaged for fewer than eight weeks”(P.12) while Orpettlong and Akande et al (2010) state short term as “any form of oversea tour from 2 weeks to 3 months”. Hagadorn (2002) defines these study tour programs as lasting less than three months (typically 10 days to two weeks) and be credit-giving programs. Within this article, short-term study tour program is specifically defined as a 2-weeks (the most accepted study period) educational tourism combination of study and tour activities in USA for junior secondary school Chinese students.

Parents’ decision-making of study tour programs

A few researchers Juvan and Lesjak ( 2011); Doyle et al.(2010); Taylor and Rivera ( 2011) have studied some main motivational factors why students want to study abroad. Kakkad and Nair (2015) research shows that parents have the greatest influence on such issues while making decisions about overseas studies (p104). Bodycott (2009) clearly stated “that parents were driven not only by push factors beyond their own education experience, but also seeking study abroad as a short-cut to make sure the best for their child”. although from the children aspect, the involvement has been increased in recent years. The study abroad option is not a regular buy and demands a higher level of involvement from both the parents and their kids (Nicholls and Harris et al.1995). Bodycott and Lai (2012) indicated that in their children’s oversea study decision-making process, Chinese parents play an important role. In order to make a nicer decision, international students weigh what is vital for them and make a trade-off among the features consciously or unconsciously (Soutar and Turner, 2002). By the same token, the decision-making parents do the exact trade-off on choosing short term study tour programs for junior secondary school students.

Factors influencing parents’ decisions

Choice to study abroad is a sophisticated and a multi-lateral decision making process (Sun and Hagedorn 2013) and is influenced by push-pull factors. Push factors are those that happen within home country and initiate a student’s decision making. These may include booming economic, stable social and political forces within the source country (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002).

Azmat and Osborne et al. (2013) invented a conceptual model(see figure 1) rooted from earlier study by Mazzarol and Soutar (2002), which focuses on the push and pull factors relating to home country and country of destination respectively. Push and pull factors are set in a social psychological framework.

[image: image1.png]

Figure1: A model of Conceptual framework of students’ aspirations and expectations.

Adopted from (Azmat and Osborne et al.2013, p108 ).

To junior secondary students’ short-term study tour, their parents have the similar understandings. Parents who make this investment hope that 2-weeks short-term study tour programs can provide their children a better foreign environment for “open eyes”, participate in a foreign course that is not easy to get in China, bridge the East and West culture differences and hopefully nurture an aspiration for future study abroad. And 2018 China International Educational Tourism Development Report finds out the similar push factors and expectations why parents send their children for short term study tours. They include (1) broaden horizon; (2) practice English; (3) learn to be self-independence; (4) experience cultural differences; (5) study and make cultural communication; (6) prepare for long-term oversea study.

Program evaluation is a must-done consumer behavior phase to target consumers toward targeted program (Peng et al., 2000). Hooley and Lynch (1981) state that program suitability counts everything. Prospective students will compare program offered with those being promoted by competing institutions in order to check their suitability (Krampf and Heinlein, 1981) (as cited in María Cubillo and Sánchez et al.2006). In this sense, Binsardi and Ekwulugo (2003) show that product and promotion variables have increasing importance in the choice.

Study tour program design

Mills and Deviney et al., (2010) believes that, given the relatively short time period involved in study tour program, course design and delivery becomes critical to student success. According to his research, five parts of course design, delivery, and effectiveness assessment should be examined before participating. These include (1) identifying learning objectives and preparing a course syllabus that provides an academic anchor and helps to set the focus for the course; (2) required pre-trip meetings that involve both faculty and students in areas such as team building, preparation of key sites to visit and related academic/experiential activities, and expectations regarding behaviors for serving as ambassadors; (3) trip implementation with use of time to the fullest extent possible to explore historical, political and cultural attributes of the country and end-of-day group meetings for discussion and self-reflection of the day’s activities; (4) preparation for the return trip to the home country and how the events up to this point can be applied to the end-of-trip formal self-reflection paper and ways the skills and experiences from the program can be related to career goals plus tentative plans for a post-trip meeting within three to five months following the end of the trip; and (5) outcomes assessment of the trip by the participating faculty.

The junior school students’ short-term study tour decision is usually made by parents. Push factors in China International Educational Tourism Development Report can be considered as the motivations, and program evaluation is crucial to be the key to decision making, it can be concluded that a good product introduction should cover both sides.

Discussion

Checklist for short term study tour programs

Today online product introduction from training schools’ websites is a very important open source for parents to get first-hand information. Parents’ decision largely depends on the advertisement and marketing from the program providers. In this context, Ivy（2001）indicated that “educational institutions need to create and maintain a distinctive image in the market place”. and positioning .The course design and the production interpretation from parents becomes a critical component of promotion success.

In this part, according Mills and Deviney et al., (2010) conclusion and China International Educational Tourism Development Report, this paper sets a check-list from aspects of push factors of parents and program design to evaluate whether a program is well-designed or not. This check-list is suggested to examine the present online product introduction. Two most popular programs from China’s leading training school are investigated and suggestions about product introduction improvement are given.

Table 1: Check-list for product introduction based on parents’ push factors and Mills’ successful program design

Check-list

• items
• Course design
• Pre-program
• On-going program
• Post-program
• Broaden horizon
• Practice English
• learn to be self-independence
• Experience cultural differences
• Study and make cultural communication
• Prepare for long-term oversea study
• Identify learning objectives
• Prepare a course syllabus set the focus for the course
• Pre-trip meetings for team building
• Trip implementation to explore historical, political and cultural attributes of the country
• End-of-day group meetings for discussion and self-reflection of the day’s activities
• End-of-trip formal self-reflection paper
• Post-trip meeting related to career goals plus tentative plans
• Outcomes assessment of the trip by the participating faculty and feedback to parents.

Source: ( China International Educational Tourism Development Report,2018 ) and ( Mills and Deviney et al , 2010)

Since 2005, New Oriental Global Study Tour has been providing Chinese students the opportunity to combine their passion for education and for travel. As the leading Chinese brand in overseas study tours, in the past 14 years, New Oriental Global Study Tour has sent more than 150,000 to 40countries with over 100+ short term study tour programs. As the high-end study tour brand of New Oriental Education & Technology Group, New Oriental Global Study Tour, it claims it is the first choice for over 80% of students in China ( New Oriental Global Study Tour 2019）. In this study, three main and most popular 2-week short term study tour programs for junior secondary school students are studied to find whether the programs can meet five components criteria ( Mills and Deviney et al , 2010) . The general introduction about the two main types of programs include (1) Summer school, a chance for Chinese students to experience extra-curricular subjects within local schools during summer vacation; (2) Summer Camps, fun, activity based camps for students to join-in with local and international peers, growing their skills in communication, team-building, leadership and helping them socialize on an international level (New Oriental Global Study Tour, 2019).

Table 2: Program schedule of summer school and summer camp

Summer school

(2-week Los Angeles private school immersion, 1 on 1 study partner and Harvard, Yale study tour)

Summer camp

(2-week University of Southern California STEM camp, science-centred course and coast to coast tour)

• Day 1 Gathering and facualty-led new friends making, flight Peking to Los Angeles
• Day 2-5 School day of STEM class and field trip, home stay in American family
• Day 6 shopping in OUTLETS
• Day 7 Exploration to Universal Studio
• Day 8 Flight to Boston self-organized activities
• Day 9 School tour to Harvard, MIT, and Yale University, communication activities
• Day 10 City tour of New York, visits to Statue of Liberty, Wall Street, Fifth Avenue
• Day 11 City and school tour in Philadelphia, visit and communication in Wharton Business College
• Day 12 Visit to White House, Capitol, Lincoln Memorial, Thomas Jefferson Memorial, Museum visits to American Museum of Natural History and Smithsonian Institutions National Air and Space Museum
• Day 13 Flight back to China
• Day 14 Feedback and review

• Day 1 Gathering and facualty-led new friends making, flight Peking to New York.
• Day 2 City tour of New York, visits to Statue of Liberty, Wall Street, American Museum of Natural History
• Day 3 School tour to Harvard, MIT, and Yale University, communication activities
• Day 4 Flight to Boston, visit to MIT and city tour
• Day 5 Visit to Hollywood, star avenue
• Day 6-10 Visit to University of Southern California, summer camp studying Scratch, Vex IQ , Java,Vex EDR computer courses
• Day 11 Exploration to Universal Studios Hollywood
• Day 12 Visit to California Science Center and UCLA
• Day 13 Flight back to China
• Day 14 Feedback and review

Source: ( New Oriental Global Study Tour,2019).

From the above description, the production introduction of programs schedule of summer school and summer camp from New Oriental Global Study Tour.

Table 3: the mentioned and missing items in production introduction

Check-list

Summer school

Summer camp

Course design

Item (1)

Item(2)

Item (3)

Item(4)

Item (5)

Item (6)

Pre-program

Item(7)

Item (8)

Item (9)

On-going program

Item(10)

Item (11)

Post-program

Item(12)

Item (13)

Item (14)

Mentioned

(√ )

(√ )

(√)

(√ )

(√ )

( )

( √)

(√ )

( )

( √)

( )

( )

( )

( )

Not mentioned

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( √)

( )

( )

( √)

( )

(√ )

( √)

(√ )

(√ )

Mentioned

(√ )

(√ )

(√)

(√ )

(√ )

( )

(√ )

(√ )

( )

(√ )

( )

( )

( )

( )

Not mentioned

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

(√ )

( )

( )

(√ )

( )

(√ )

(√ )

(√ )

(√ )

From the above study, the conclusions as follows:

• The programs are mostly well fit the demands of course design and has a clear learning objective.
• The five days school class has a well-designed course syllabus with a focus.
• The tour has a trip implementation to explore historical, political and cultural attributes of the country.
• But the following are missed or not mentioned:
• In course design, both programs have no description of the future influence on students’ further study;
• In pre-program, no team-building and preparations are organized;
• In on-going program, the everyday discussions and self-reflection are missed;
• The trip of day 13, 14 cannot be counted as a part of study tour, and there are no reflective papers, post-trip meetings and assessments mentioned.

Conclusion and Suggestion

The online product introduction is an open door for parents to get firsthand information about different programs and it is important for marketers to know what the parents want. If the introduction can well-fit the parents’ expectation, there is no doubt that the production will gain an competitive advantage. In light of the above study, two improvements can be done. (1) The activities before and after program should be well-organized, it helps ease the students into activities and enhance the learning. And descriptions about these activities should be written in online product introduction; (2) A portfolio of students journey should be documented, and meeting and assessment after programs should be well organized, many parents choose short term program with an expectation that one day, their children will further their study with a long-term oversea experience. Tracking today’s program participants can be very helpful to transform them into potential customers.

Reference

1. Azmat, F., Osborne, A., Le Rossignol, K., Jogulu, U., Rentschler, R., Robottom, I., & Malathy, V. (2013). Understanding aspirations and expectations of international students in Australian higher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 97-111.
2. Bhuiyan, M. A. H., Islam, R., Siwar, C., & Ismail, S. M. (2010). Educational tourism and forest conservation: Diversification for child education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 19-23.
3. Bodycott, P. (2009). Choosing a higher education study abroad destination: What mainland Chinese parents and students rate as important. Journal of research in International education, 8(3), 349-373.
4. Bodycott, P., & Lai, A. (2012). The influence and implications of Chinese culture in the decision to undertake cross-border higher education. Journal of studies in International education, 16(3), 252-270.
5. China International Educational Tourism Development Report in 2018,April 4, 2019
6. Retrieve from http://edu.china.com.cn/2018-04/16/content_50889703_4.htm
7. Cohen, 2004: History and the Hyperpower BBC, April 2008: Country Profile: United States of America
8. HYPERLINK ‘http://www.researchtrends.com/issue8-november-2008/geographical-trends-of-research-output/’ ‘Geographical trends of research output’. Research Trends. Retrieved March 16, 2014.
9. Doyle, S., Gendall, P., Meyer, L. H., Hoek, J., Tait, C., McKenzie, L., & Loorparg, A. (2010). An investigation of factors associated with student participation in study abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5), 471-490.
10. Donnelly-Smith, L. (2009). Global learning through short-term study abroad. Peer Review, 11(4), Hagadorn.(2002).Faculty-Led Short-Term Study Abroad Programs 2002 Heiskell Award Honorable Mention: Study Abroad.Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Insights/Best-Practices-Resource/Award-Winners/Study-Abroad/Brookdale-Community-College-2002
11. Juvan, E., & Lesjak, M. (2011). Erasmus Exchange Program: Opportunity for professional growth or sponsored vacations?. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 23(2), 23-29.
12. Institute of International Education.(2018) “International Student Totals by Place of Origin,2012/13-2017/13.Open Door Report on International on International Educational Exchange.Retrieved https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students/Places-of-Origin
13. Ivy, J. (2001), “Higher education institution image: a correspondence analysis approach”,
14. The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 15 Nos 6/7, pp. 276 82.
15. Ministry of Education.(2019). CHINA.ORG.CN.9-year Compulsory Education.
16. Retrieved from http://www.china.org.cn/english/education/184879.htm
17. Martinsen, R. A. (2010). Short‐term study abroad: Predicting changes in oral skills. Foreign Language Annals, 43(3), 504-530.
18. Mills, L. H., Deviney, D., & Ball, B. (2010). Short-term study abroad programs: A diversity of options. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 6(2), 1.
19. Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. (2002). “Push-pull” factors influencing international student destination choice. The International Journal of Educational Management. 16(2), 82-90. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ viewPDF.jsp?contentType=
20. Article&Filename=html/Output/Published/Emerald FullTextArticle /Pdf/0600160203.
21. María Cubillo, J., Sánchez, J., & Cerviño, J. (2006). International students’ decision-making process. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2), 101-115.
22. Nicholls, J., Harris, J., Morgan, E., Clarke, K., & Sims, D. (1995). Marketing higher education: the MBA experience. International Journal of Educational Management, 9(2), 31-38.
23. New Oriental Global Study Tour.Our Products. (2011-2018). Retrieved from http://en.youxue.xdf.cn/ourclients.html?type=Products
24. Orpett Long, S., Akande, Y. S., Purdy, R. W., & Nakano, K. (2010). Deepening learning and inspiring rigor: Bridging academic and experiential learning using a host country approach to a study tour. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(1), 89-111.
25. Kakkad.P and Memorial.N（2015）A STUDY ON THE FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS’DECISION TO STUDY ABROAD.Retrieved from
26. http://www.bvimsr.com/documents/publication/2015V7N2/04.pdf
27. Ritchie, B. W., Carr, N., & Cooper, C. P. (2003). Managing educational tourism (Vol. 10). Channel View Publications.
28. Soutar, G. N., & Turner, J. P. (2002). Students’ preferences for universities: A conjoint analysis. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 40-45.
29. Stone, M. J., & Petrick, J. F. (2013). The educational benefits of travel experiences: A literature review. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 731-744.
30. Sun, J., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2013). Studying overseas: Factors impacting intention of female students in mainland China. Journal of International Students, 3(2), 140-154.
31. Taylor, M., & Rivera Jr, D. (2011). UNDERSTANDING STUDENT INTEREST AND BARRIERS TO STUDY ABROAD: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY. Consortium Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 15(2).
32. Yang, M. (2007). What attracts mainland Chinese students to Australian higher education. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 4(2), 1-12.