Faculty-Led Study Abroad Programs and Learning Sustainability: A Southeast Asian Context

1. Introduction

Within the context of IR teaching and learning programs of higher education institutions, sustainability-related topics have always been an integral part of the curricula. In some universities, sustainability acts as a single elective course; meanwhile, in others, it is part of a broader IR topic. For example, in a course discussing regional dynamics of IR, a course on SARD may have a topic discussing how sustainability has been achieved with regional collaborative efforts within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the tensions arising among the states within that region.

Nevertheless, the idea of sustainability differs from other analytical and conceptual frameworks within the study of IR. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) announced the framework of Education for Sustainable Development as a global development agenda of ingraining sustainable development into the curricula of higher education institutions (Glavič, 2020; Mochizuki & Vickers, 2024; Oe et al., 2022; UNESCO, 2024; Velempini & Maruatona, 2025). Consequently, UNESCO expects students to be able to develop the relevant knowledge and skills in relation to sustainable development, considering the high probability of the globe’s sustainability measures being in the students’ hands in a couple of years (Elias & Bangkok, 2006; Glavič, 2020; Kohl et al., 2022). Therefore, in higher education institutions globally, there is a growing concern about how to best teach sustainability in a way that enables the enhancement of students’ behaviors and skills in alignment with sustainable development.

However, in the case of IR teaching and learning, an issue is immediately encountered. IR classrooms, including those that cover sustainability topics, tend to focus on theoretical, conceptual, and empirical issues through traditional teaching methods in classrooms (Bernstein, 2012; Lüdert, 2016; Campillo, Hernandez, and Cantano, 2021; Putra, 2025). Without denying the benefits of traditional teaching methods, the case of learning sustainability presents its distinct challenges. Students need to see directly with their own eyes issues that defy sustainable development to develop the behaviors and knowledge on the topic truly. As argued by many scholars in the past, this has been the reason why many universities globally adopt service-learning as a form of experiential learning, where there is a combination of both in-classroom teaching and community service (Álvarez-Vanegas et al., 2024; Aramburuzabala, 2025; Aramburuzabala & Cerrillo, 2023; Ribeiro et al., 2023). Unfortunately, such a theme remains one that is unexplored within IR academia, considering that the focus on IR pedagogy as of late has been confined to student-centered learning approaches such as simulations, debates, discussions, and posters (Duchin & Sherwood, 1990; Newmann & Twigg, 2000; Sasley, 2010; Sousa & Clark, 2019; Taylor, 2013; Wheeler, 2006).

The case is also evident in the teaching and learning processes of SARD courses. As a widely taught course in many Southeast Asian universities, SARD also struggles with the adoption of alternative pedagogies to replace stagnant and passive learning that tends to be adopted in classrooms. Therefore, although students attain greater knowledge of the sustainability concerns in the Southeast Asian region by the end of the course, the course is unable to offer direct experiences with global sustainability issues, as its focus tends to be oriented toward empirical and theoretical explanations. This is a concern, considering the trend of higher education institutions undertaking systematic changes to orient research and education practices to sustainability (Chou & Vun, 2025; Mensah, 2019; Wals, 2014). As a study in 2021 argued, “[…] universities as priority organisations and agents of change within the sphere of their social commitment” (Prieto-Jiménez et al., 2021, p. 1).

Drawing on relevant literature on experiential learning and faculty-led study abroad programs, this study argues for the relevance of short-term study abroad programs as a means to supplement what is taught within SARD classes. Considering the complex nature of the topic, which comprises dynamic tensions among Southeast Asian states due to haze pollution, the difficulty of balancing economic performances and environmental protection, as well as challenges of climate change, this study perceives that students could benefit from a short-term abroad program that helps them work on a specific case related to sustainability. As argued by many scholars in the past, experiential learning provides a unique learning atmosphere for students as they delve at the center of the community to observe by themselves, dynamics related to the substantives being taught in classrooms (Below et al., 2021; Blewitt et al., 2021; Kolb, 1984; Pipitone, 2018; Strange & Gibson, 2017). As a means to bridge the conception of experiential learning in the SARD courses, this study is informed by Amy Below, Amanda Nydegger, and Mary Jane Parmentier’s ‘Experiential Learning through Faculty-led Study Abroad Programs’ and looks to implement the program conceptions of the study into SARD courses.

Experiential learning in IR is not new. However, it is less common within the specific context of SARD. In the past, scholars have argued that service learning offered as an experiential learning experience has been able to ignite the interests of students towards sustainable development in alignment with UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development (Elias & Bangkok, 2006; Mochizuki & Vickers, 2024; Oe et al., 2022; UNESCO, 2024). This study aims to build on that by arguing how SARD courses can benefit from a short-term abroad program for those selecting the course, as a means to broaden the students’ horizon and look at the issues related to the nexus between sustainability and the Southeast Asian region beyond the lens of issues taking place within their country.

2. Learning sustainability: A literature review

Learning sustainability is not a simple task for the typical student. As Kleespies and Dierkes found in their 2022 study, a connection exists between social, economic, and environmental factors in terms of sustainability (Kleespies & Dierkes, 2022), which leads to a multitude of issues affecting various actors. Therefore, in assessing alternative pedagogy in SARD courses, this study perceives the following discourses as relevant to this study. They include the discourse on the barriers to learning sustainability, divergent methods adopted by instructors in the past, as well as the unique benefits of using service-learning within the context of understanding sustainable development. Combined, the argument presented in this section is that existing scholarship has not made the applicability of experiential learning methods available in region-specific cases, such as the SARD course, and seeks to adopt experiential methods to enhance students’ experiences.

The first discourse relevant to this study examines the numerous barriers to learning sustainability. Within this discourse, scholars acknowledge that sustainability is a complex topic, which leads to different variables affecting the success of the transfer of knowledge intended by instructors (Grund et al., 2023; Parry & Metzger, 2023; Silva-Jean & Kneippb, 2024; Stam et al., 2023). As Stam, Ewjik, and Chan found in 2023, there is a complex relationship in the topic of ‘sustainability transitions,’ and a review is needed to assess whether the learning processes have led to more sustainable behaviors among students (Stam, van Ewijk & Chan, 2023, p. 1). In a more general context, Perry and Metzger argued that the barriers to sustainable learning can be defined as comprising multiple variables, such as “[…] disciplinary silos, […] high stakes assessments, and inadequate professional learning opportunities” (Parry & Metzger, 2023, p. 1). The study is unique, as it centers on the concerns of the instructors’ lack of preparation and competencies in relation to the teaching and learning processes of sustainable development.

Nevertheless, there is also considerable work examining other variables such as emotions, social learning, agency, and curriculum as the main barriers to sustainability learning (Araneo, 2024; Grund et al., 2023; Koskela & Paloniemi, 2023; Silva-Jean & Kneippb, 2024). On the variable of emotions, for example, a 2023 study called for an “[…] educational practice where emotions can be experienced, expressed, and understood in a safe atmosphere” (Grund, Singer-Brodowski and Büssing, 2023, p. 307), after arguing that emotions affect transformative learning processes. Looking at the issues of sustainability that students found interesting, Araneo’s study found that sustainability curricula can be tweaked to ensure an alignment with students’ interests based on the general categories of sustainability-based sciences, relevant contexts, and the hope for the future (Araneo, 2024). Meanwhile, looking at the issue of sustainability learning from the lens of human agency theory, a study in 2023 argued the importance on reflecting on the concept of agency, and how such reflections can lead to “[…] countless actions in individual lives, communities, and local, national and global scenes can contribute to sustainability” (Koskela & Paloniemi, 2023, p. 164).

Despite the rich theoretical and academic discussions on the barriers of sustainability learning, there have also been considerable studies made exploring divergent methods. Scholars have explored different approaches in teaching and learning sustainability, including community-based programs, problem-based learning, collaborative mechanisms, innovative pedagogies, as well as virtual experiences (Bremner & Steed, 2025; Carrió Llach & Llerena Bastida, 2023; Gesthuizen et al., 2025; Nguyen et al., 2024; Shah et al., 2024). For example, studies on problem-based learning show that students are able to express more of their emotions due to the connection between the problem and real-life events (Carrió Llach & Llerena Bastida, 2023; Nguyen et al., 2024).

In other cases, academics have explored various methods to establish practical approaches in teaching and learning sustainability. An example, through collaborative mechanisms with relevant institutions, a 2025 study concluded that knowledge on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can be retrieved by bringing, “[ …] students from other cultures and slightly different disciplines, with one being management and the other being practice-based, together to successfully demonstrate the use of an innovative methods” (Bremner & Steed, 2025, p. 171). Meanwhile, other studies, such as Howell, introduced the use of the ‘flipped classroom’ as a means to establish “[…] reflective and active learning” (Howell, 2021, p. 1). In a more contemporary setting and incorporating modern technology, Gesthuizen, Tan, and Kidman found the effective use of virtual platforms in designing sustainable virtual buildings and landscapes, as a means to establish “[…] future-thinking mindsets” (Gesthuizen, Tan, and Kidman, 2025, p. 25).

Nevertheless, the majority of studies have focused on the more traditional methods of teaching and learning processes that help establish emotional connections with students’ surroundings. As mentioned in multiple studies looking at community service programs being implemented in higher education institutions, these studies are united by the argument that these methods allow students to actively engage with their local communities and help in “[…] fostering civic responsibility” (Shah et al., 2024, p. 1).

The last discourse on service-learning encompasses the majority of studies examining sustainability learning methods. Through a service-learning pedagogical approach, students can enhance their knowledge of the SDGs and practices that promote sustainable community development (Brower, 2011; Ribeiro et al., 2023). Indeed, numerous studies in the past have established strong connections between service-learning and the eventual development of students’ awareness regarding the elements and dynamics of sustainability (Pearce and Manion, 2016; Aramburuzabala and Cerrillo, 2023; Álvarez-Vanegas, Ramani, and Volante, 2024; Antal, 2024; Rodríguez-Zurita et al., 2025).

Specific studies would only differ in the points being investigated in relation to service-learning. In a 2024 study, academics traced the processes leading to the substantial shift in curriculum pertaining to sustainable development studies, which have now introduced more experiential learning methods (Rodríguez-Zurita et al., 2025, p. 158). Meanwhile, a 2016 study highlighted the benefits of service-learning, using the example of community-based service-learning projects conducted at Virginia Tech (Pearce & Manion, 2016). Service-learning, therefore, has established itself as one of the signature pedagogies for disseminating knowledge in sustainability studies, which many scholars have trusted in the past to raise students’ awareness (Álvarez-Vanegas, Ramani, and Volante, 2024; Aramburuzabala, 2025; Narong, 2025).

But how about the teaching and learning of sustainability in the context of a different curriculum, specifically SARD courses in IR? Unfortunately, the processes are not straightforward, as there has been no academic inquiry specifically addressing the various contexts and challenges associated with increasing the awareness of sustainability topics and concerns among IR students in the Southeast Asian regional context. In a study made in 2024, scholars acknowledged the importance of educators as the leading actor that helps to determine a successful learning system for students, stating, “Educators play a pivotal role in implementation, and unless they are trained and incentivized and this is systemized, not only Service-Learning but also ESD may fail to transform learning environments” (Álvarez-Vanegas, Ramani & Volante, 2024, p. 1). Similarly, Perry and Metzger argued, “[…] research shows that many practicing educators feel unprepared to help learners develop the competencies needed to forge more sustainable paths forward” (Parry & Metzger, 2023, p. 1). Consequently, although this study recognizes the positive impact of service-learning within the context of learning sustainability, its implementation within SARD courses under IR programs is not a straightforward process. Educators should therefore be provided with guidelines on how to adopt such methods within specific contexts.

3. Enhancing Southeast Asian regional dynamics and sustainable development learning: Adopting experiential learning

Recognizing the lack of past studies that cover the ‘how’ of learning sustainability within the context of SARD courses under IR programs, this study bridges the conception of experiential learning through short-term abroad programs, as proposed by Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier. Within the discourse of experiential learning, numerous studies in the past have argued how study abroad programs allows for greater achievement of a subject’s learning outcomes and advance students’ cross-cultural awareness (Anderson et al., 2019; Bai et al., 2016; Edmunds & Shore, 2020; Giedt et al., 2015; Mule et al., 2018; Strange & Gibson, 2017; M. Tarrant & Lyons, 2012). As some scholars have noted, however, these faculty-led programs must be carefully formulated by instructors to achieve the expected outcomes, as positive outcomes are not automatic (Parmentier and Moore, 2016; Mule, Audley, and Aloisio, 2018; Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier, 2021). Therefore, as this section aims to provide such a guideline, the ideas are inspired by the experiences of Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier in running short-term study abroad programs in Morocco and the Dominican Republic.

The first looks to construct the outline of a program, which comprises the program design and curriculum. Perhaps the most significant task is to determine the destination and length of a short-term abroad program as an experiential learning experience for students (Below et al., 2021). Some questions to consider before announcing the program include whether students have access to scholarships from within or outside the university, and in which term the program would be best offered to students. Regarding curriculum, the substantive focus would vary significantly between experiential learning programs. This should be based on the learning outcomes of a given course, to ensure alignment between what is being taught in the classroom and the actual program hosted abroad by the university. Nevertheless, as scholars have pointed out, there should be a balanced blend between subject-focused discussions and cross-cultural and interdisciplinary approaches in the program (Tarrant, 2010; Tarrant and Lyons, 2012; Bell et al., 2016; Anderson, Dore-Welch, and Johnson, 2019; Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier, 2021). Other considerations should include the coverage of the discussions and background of the students (Below et al., 2021; Mitchell & Maloff, 2016; Malewski & Phillion, 2009; Pipitone, 2018).

Besides determining the substantive coverage of experiential learning, instructors should also be aware of other responsibilities. From the onset, instructors should be able to answer several technical questions before initiating the program. In relation to the institution, it is essential to determine whether there are significant barriers and challenges within the university or department (Howard and Keller, 2009; Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier, 2021). Once a program has taken shape, it is essential for the instructors also to determine whether there are potential partnering institutions abroad that could cooperate in the conduct of this short-term study abroad program (Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier, 2021). One solution could be to ask the university’s partnerships department to compile a list of universities that are interested in cooperation, and then shortlist the potential destinations after liaising with those institutions to determine their suitability for hosting students.

Another responsibility for the instructors pertains to the technical elements of the travel. Regarding factors related to accommodation, in-city transportation, and airport pickup, these technical aspects could be overwhelming for the instructors. Therefore, as suggested in several past studies, instructors could benefit from using a third-party service or a ‘provider’ that can help arrange the technical elements in a host country where an instructor may not be very familiar (Eckert et al., 2016; Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier, 2021). A distinct benefit of using providers is that they can provide emergency support for the delegation, and help the instructors by being the actors that “[…] knows the language, understands the legal systems, and can garner additional support and resources in the case of an emergency” (Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier, 2021, p. 82).

Instructors are also placed with the burden of having multiple roles in the program. Not only is the expectation that instructors will lead the effort in determining the program outline, but they are also expected to act as a health professional for the students in times of emergency (Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier, 2021). Instructors should therefore prepare themselves to undertake roles to respond to issues related to mental health, considering how the students would be exposed to new environments and can easily encounter cultural shocks (Alkubaidi & Alzhrani, 2020; Demes & Geeraert, 2015; EL-ASRI et al., 2024; Tekel et al., 2025). One way to mitigate this, as recommended by Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier, is through the conduct of pre- and re-entry orientations. In both orientations, instructors have the opportunity to provide basic knowledge on what to expect throughout the program (subject and cultural-related), as well as prepare the students to return to their everyday lives after the completion of the program (Bai et al., 2016; Below et al., 2021; C. J. L. Campbell et al., 2015; Giedt et al., 2015; Paras et al., 2019).

The pedagogical strategy used throughout the short-term program would also need to be carefully determined by the instructors. As argued in the literature review section, multiple studies have supported the positive impacts of using service-learning as a means to enhance students’ learning experiences in the past (Aramburuzabala and Cerrillo, 2023; Álvarez-Vanegas, Ramani, and Volante, 2024; Aramburuzabala, 2025). Would there be a traditional in-class teaching experience offered in the program? Would the assignments be individual or group-based? What assignment activities would be given to the students? (Below et al., 2021; Gough et al., 2018). These are all technical elements of the short-term abroad program that instructors need to be aware of.

Finally, several key points regarding the responsibilities of students need to be highlighted. Before their departure, one significant barrier that students will need to overcome is the costs associated with the program. As a means to enhance real-life skills (Granato et al., 2024; Lien, 2007; Lien & Liu, 2010; Oduwaye et al., 2023), students would need to prepare their own funding to attend the program if a scholarship is not available (Charlotte, 2019). Consequently, they will need to enhance their creative thinking by spreading out proposals or making joint fundraising programs to ensure that the cost barrier can be overcome.

Another issue that students need to be aware of is to prepare themselves with the relevant materials related to the program. In the pre-departure program, students must ensure that they properly engage with the subject matter and culturally related topics covered to ensure they are prepared to participate in learning activities abroad. Meanwhile, throughout the program’s conduct, students are expected to be at the center of the learning process and display active participation when hosted by another university (Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier, 2021). Consequently, it is expected that students will remain active throughout the study abroad program and display respect for the unique cultural customs adopted in the foreign country.

4. Faculty-led study abroad programs: Alternative methods in learning sustainability in the context of Southeast Asian regional dynamics

The ideas introduced by Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier will be integrated into the teaching and learning process of SARD courses within IR programs. In doing so, the following will be structured as follows. First, it provides a recommendation for a program’s outline, aiming to intertwine the fundamentals of sustainability with Southeast Asian contexts for an abroad program. Following this is an elaboration of the instructors’ responsibilities and what is expected from a participating student. By providing such guidelines, this study benefits instructors who seek to adopt experiential learning and integrate creative pedagogies with service-learning in their teaching and learning practices.

5. Conclusion

Experiential learning through study abroad programs has the potential to achieve the learning outcomes of SARD courses in IR programs more engagingly and uniquely for students. As Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier mentioned in 2021, “A love of travel and cultural learning, together with a love of teaching, can provide a sound basis for developing study abroad programs with innovative ways to address IR curriculum and teaching” (Below, Nydegger and Parmentier, 2021, p. 88). Such a prospect is indeed necessary in a study that engages with the topic of sustainability, which primarily requires an understanding of complex, interrelated topics related to emerging issues. However, as part of a broader IR program, the sustainability topics offered in SARD courses, mainly in Asian higher education institutions, often fall under the one-way teaching method that is commonly employed in many IR courses.

This study identifies the issue of teaching and learning sustainability topics within SARD courses as its main problem. The teaching of sustainability presents distinct challenges, as students need to witness firsthand the challenges that undermine sustainability practices across the region. However, with the existing teaching and learning systems, classroom teachings are unable to offer direct experiences of the world on sustainability issues due to their focus on empirical and theoretical explanations. Therefore, drawing from relevant literature on experiential learning and faculty-led short-term study abroad programs, this study bridges the idea of experiential learning, as proposed by Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier, and its potential to be adopted in the teaching and learning process of SARD courses. As argued by scholars in the past, experiential learning provides students with a unique learning environment, allowing them to observe firsthand the sustainability issues faced by communities and discuss potential solutions with their peers.

By adopting the mechanisms of experiential learning, faculty-led study abroad programs provide a feasible learning platform for students, considering several elements that the literature argues are important. Regarding the program’s outline, this study proposes several ideas for intertwining sustainability and Southeast Asia as the focus of the study abroad program. Despite sustainability being a minor topic within an SARD course, the program offers the option to select several emerging sustainability challenges in the Southeast Asian region, which helps ignite students’ curiosity and understanding of the region. These include issues such as haze pollution, IUUF, and climate change, which are unique to the Southeast Asian context. As the literature also shows, it is essential to incorporate topics related to cultural awareness within the substantive content, considering that the study abroad program will take place in a country with which students may not be familiar.

After selecting an appropriate theme for the study abroad program, the discussion then delves into the instructor’s responsibilities. Still related to the program outline, instructors are mandated to determine the timing of the program, which includes how long it will last and when the experiential learning program will be offered to the students. Related to this is the program’s destination, where instructors should be able to liaise with partnering universities and correspond with them regarding the proposal for a short-term study abroad program. After resolving the issues of time and destination, instructors should also consider the technical responsibilities of conducting this type of program, which typically require them to determine accommodation and transportation arrangements (although these technical tasks can be delegated through a third-party service). Lastly, instructors also have the responsibility of determining the best pedagogical strategy to be employed during the course of the program, as well as conducting pre- and re-entry orientations to prepare students well before their departure.

Third, this study zooms in on the students themselves. As participants in an experiential learning program, students also have certain expectations. At the first level, this includes cost-related responsibilities, in which students are expected to undertake fundraising projects and submit proposals to help finance their travels. Interestingly, as experiential learning can take the forms of service-learning, problem-based learning, and project-based learning, students would benefit from the independent learning that they will need to undertake before departing for the host country, as they delve deeper into the divergent cultural customs adopted in foreign countries, as well as research topics relevant to sustainability in the Southeast Asian context. The students’ active participation throughout the experiential learning course allows them to practice skills expected of IR graduates, including teamwork, critical thinking, and communication skills.

Ethics statement

Ethics statement is not needed for this study.