I found it interesting how a single experience could be broken down into the three different interpretations. It seems to me that all these students did was study abroad, and the attitude that they brought with them determined which “approach” they took. In the “learning through experience” paradigm, there is a self-conflicting elitist undertone that states that some cultures are “better” or “worse” than others, and that we only want to send students to the “better” places (Because what could the “worse” places have to offer?). And the student must, of course, come back better than when they left. Those that don’t come back better must not be smart enough or good enough to engage with this “better” culture.

The immersion paradigm has similar undertones that make the transformation of the student the end goal. The implication here is that the culture is there to serve the student in spiritual or emotional enlightenment, where no culture has this as their goal.

The experiential/constructivist model puts much more responsibility on the individual. Where you go, who you talk to, and what you do influence your experience. If you do not learn anything, it is because of your own unwillingness, so I find this to be the superior model.