Rural (field) immersion as a pedagogical tool to enhance the general self-efficacy of business students in India

Abstract: Business schools in India have recently added a short-duration rural immersion program as a curricular component with the objective of delivering learning outcomes like enhancing contextual awareness, social sensitivity, communication capabilities, teamwork along with developing their general self-efficacy. As this form of pedagogical intervention has become popular only during the last few years, a need was felt to understand the effectiveness of such programs in enhancing the general self-efficacy of participating students. The study adopts a quantitative approach to explore the effectiveness of the rural immersion program in enhancing the general self-efficacy of business students. This study reveals that, in general, students participating in a rural immersion program exhibit a higher mean score for general self-efficacy as compared to students who did not participate. Variations in the findings were noted for different demographic groups, except for the gender of the participating students. Statistically significant difference in the mean scores for general self-efficacy was observed for students from rural backgrounds, but not for the students with urban backgrounds. It was higher for students coming from rural backgrounds as compared to students from urban backgrounds. Similarly, students enrolled in specialized programs indicated a higher mean score for general self-efficacy, but not the students enrolled in the general program. Findings from the study will inform designers of rural immersion programs to make them more focused, better meet student needs, and deliver enhanced learning outcomes.

Keywords: rural immersion, field immersion, service-learning, pedagogical innovation, general self-efficacy

Authors:

Sushil Kumar Dixit, PhD, Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management, New Delhi, India, skd.dixit@gmail.com

Samant Shant Priya, PhD, Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management, New Delhi, India, samantsp@gmail.com

Sajal Kabiraj, corresponding author, PhD, Faculty of Business and Hospitality Management, LAB University of Applied Sciences, Lahti, Finland, Sajal.Kabiraj@lab.fi

Meenu Shant Priya, PhD, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, India, meenushant@gmail.com

1. Introduction

In emerging economies, field immersions like rural immersion, social immersion, or international immersion are increasingly being used by business schools as a pedagogical tool. Field immersion combines place-based experiential learning with civic engagement to deliver transformative learning outcomes like a shift in worldview, problem-solving, capacity building, and behaviour transformation (Pederson et al., 2022). These learning outcomes collectively lead to enhanced general self-efficacy (GSE) of students.

Business schools have traditionally focused on producing graduates for roles in business and economics. Over time, their mandate has expanded to include creating new knowledge, offering innovative solutions to complex human and environmental challenges, and contributing to social development (Bachrach et al., 2017). They are expected to build business acumen that benefits not only students and organizations but also society. A key capability in this context is social sensitivity- the ability to understand and connect with diverse communities. In emerging economies like India, where nearly two-thirds of the population lives in rural areas, this sensitivity is essential (Rathore, 2024). As Prahalad (2014) notes, significant opportunities lie in designing affordable products and services for this segment.

Recognizing this, several Indian business schools have introduced short rural immersion programs as a curricular component to build contextual awareness, social sensitivity, communication, teamwork, and general self-efficacy. Studies have found a significant positive impact on student general self-efficacy and subject-specific, profession-specific, and community service self-efficacy after engaging in service-learning (Astin & Sax, 1998; Eyler, 2002; Gerholz et al., 2018; Gonsalves et al., 2019; Gubbels & Vitiello, 2018; Gutzweiler et al., 2022; Reeb et al., 2010; Simons & Cleary, 2006; Thomas & Landau, 2002; Weiler et al., 2013; Welch Jr, 2013; Williams et al., 2002). However, these studies focused on proper long-duration service-learning/immersion programs. Given the recent rise of short-duration immersion programs as pedagogical interventions, it is important to assess how effectively they deliver the intended learning outcomes. There is a need to understand the effectiveness of such programs in delivering specific stated learning outcomes and the core general outcome, which is enhancing general self-efficacy.

In the present paper, the authors attempted to understand the effectiveness of short-duration rural immersion programs offered by Indian business schools in enhancing the general self-efficacy of the graduating students. Study offers a unique contribution beyond confirming the known effects of service-learning by examining the impact of specifically designed short-duration rural immersion programs delivered in the context of Indian business schools on students’ general self-efficacy levels.

The present study contributes to the emerging literature on experiential and place-based learning in several significant ways. First, while prior research has largely examined long-duration service-learning, this study focuses specifically on short-duration rural immersion programs in Indian business schools, an area that remains underexplored despite its rapid adoption. Second, by empirically assessing the impact of these programs on GSE, the study advances understanding of how context-specific experiential interventions shape key managerial capabilities in emerging economies. Third, it adds nuance to the discourse on the evolving role of business schools by demonstrating how structured rural exposures can cultivate social sensitivity, contextual awareness, and civic engagement, thereby aligning management education with broader societal needs. Overall, the paper provides novel evidence on the effectiveness of short, outcome-driven immersion programs and extends the service-learning literature into the unique socio-economic setting of India.

2. Backdrop of the present study

Early business schools primarily focused on finance and economics, aiming to enhance shareholder wealth while remaining largely detached from civic, political, and social responsibility concerns (Friedman, 1970; Riccoboni, 2010). The emergence of stakeholder theory broadened this narrow focus by emphasizing value creation through engagement with multiple stakeholders (Freeman, 1984), leading to greater corporate accountability for social and environmental issues (Business Roundtable, 2019; EY India, 2020; Joly, 2021; United Nations, 2015). This shift was reinforced by initiatives such as the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) launched in 2007, which encouraged business schools to embed responsible management into curricula (Doherty et al., 2015; Thomas & Cornuel, 2012). Accreditation standards further strengthened this orientation, with AACSB’s 2020 standards explicitly aligning management education with the UN Sustainable Development Goals through Standards 8 and 9. As a result, business schools have reoriented their missions toward developing socially sensitive leaders equipped with self-efficacy and adaptability to address complex societal challenges in a dynamic business environment.

In this vein, many business schools started field immersion as a pedagogical tool. These immersions are modeled on the pattern of service-learning, which is a quite impactful pedagogical intervention in higher education across contexts and disciplines (Andrews, 2007; Byers & Gray, 2012; Chan et al., 2019; Gutzweiler et al., 2022; Klink & Athaide, 2004; Macías Gomez-Estern et al., 2021; Novak et al., 2007; Rama et al., 2000; Reynolds, 2004; Salam et al., 2019). Service-learning is an experiential learning pedagogical technique that combines academic learning with community service and engagement in a variety of settings (Bartimote-Aufflick et al., 2016; Klink & Athaide, 2004; Warschauer & Cook, 1999; Yorio & Ye, 2012). Service-learning benefits both the student and community, as it provides an opportunity for students to connect their classroom learning experiences with clinical applications while working with community organizations (Dicke et al., 2004; Goldberg et al., 2006; Maddrell, 2014).

The study focuses on rural immersion programs in Indian business schools that run for 10-14 days, have clearly defined structures and learning outcomes, and are conducted in partnership with rural community organizations. These programs require students to live within rural communities, actively engage with community members, collaborate with peers, and apply classroom learning to address real rural challenges, under the joint guidance of faculty and community mentors.

3. Conceptual foundations

Self-efficacy represents an individual’s belief in their capacity to perform certain tasks. Self-efficacy affects individuals’ efforts when they are faced with barriers, obstacles, challenges, or failures. Luszczynska et al. (2005) define GSE as “the belief in one’s competence to tackle novel tasks and to cope with adversity in a broad range of stressful or challenging encounters, as opposed to specific self-efficacy, which is constrained to a particular task at hand”. It is a person’s perception to perform tasks across a wide range of contexts and a belief in his/her capacity to control their own behavior, influence the environment, and stay motivated in pursuit of his/her goals. GSE may explain a broader range of human behavior in generalized settings (Luszczynska et al., 2005). Higher levels of GSE are positively correlated with aspects like planning for the future, belief, resilience, life satisfaction, and future on-the-job performance (Azizli et al., 2015; Capri et al., 2012; Orkaizagirre‐Gómara et al., 2020; Santos et al., 2014).

Individuals’ self-efficacy can be shaped by mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological/affective states (Bandura, 1997). In the context of service-learning, mastery experience refers to successful performance of a task by an individual (Bandura, 1977). Verbal persuasion can be understood as receiving meaningful, supportive, and encouraging feedback from others about one’s capabilities to meet a challenge (Bernadowski et al., 2013). Vicarious learning is a change in the individual’s belief about their abilities to pursue desired life goals by observing and learning from the experiences of significant others (Bandura, 1977). Lastly, physiological/affective state refers to physical and emotional reactions affecting the perception of self-efficacy. Service-learning projects have significant potential to affect the self-efficacy of participants as all four enablers of self-efficacy are generally present in these projects (Bernadowski et al., 2013).

Studies have found a significant positive impact on student self-efficacy after engaging in service-learning (Astin & Sax, 1998; Eyler, 2002; Gerholz et al., 2018; Gonsalves et al., 2019; Gutzweiler et al., 2022; Reeb et al., 2010; Thomas & Landau, 2002; Weiler et al., 2013). Positive effects were also noted for subject-specific, profession-specific, and community service self-efficacy (Gubbels & Vitiello, 2018; Simons & Cleary, 2006; Welch Jr, 2013; Williams et al., 2002). It has been found that education programs can enhance GSE of the participating students (Dinther et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2023). Dinther et al. (2011) pointed out that the study of humanities helps students develop self-efficacy, while studies of science and engineering are likely to undermine student confidence. Liu et al. (2023) noted that educational programs based on social and cognitive theory are successful in enhancing students’ self-efficacy. However, there are a few studies that found that participation in service-learning has either no impact (Meyer et al., 2019) or even has a negative impact on student self-efficacy (Miller, 1997; Stewart & Alrutz, 2014).

Studies have explored the link between gender and self-efficacy in the context of service-learning. It has been found that participation in service-learning reduces the gender specific gap in the level of self-efficacy (Brown IV et al., 2023; Gutzweiler et al., 2022). Impact of duration of service-learning project on the desired outcome has also been studied, and it was found that service-learning programs of duration ranging between ten and twenty weeks have a positive impact (Horn, 2012). Most of the service-learning programs are generally spread over the duration of a semester. Very few service-learning programs have been designed and implemented for shorter durations. However, Brown IV et al. (2023) concluded that service-learning programs of shorter duration can also benefit participating students.

Thus, self-efficacy seems to play a significant role in the context of higher education both as a prerequisite and outcome of service-learning. One of the goals of designing and executing rural immersion programs by business schools is enhancing GSE of the participating students. As rural immersion programs have been designed as service-learning, it is expected that participation in these programs will significantly improve the self-efficacy of students, and the present study is an attempt to explore the effect of participation in rural immersion programs on students’ level of GSE.

4. Method

4.1 Study design

For the study, an experimental group of students who participated in the rural immersion program and another group of students who did not participate in the rural immersion program were compared on their level of GSE. We used a post-test only design with non-equivalent groups, which is a type of quasi-experimental design where intervention is implemented for one group and compared to a second group (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Shadish et al., 2002).

Quasi-experimental studies are studies that aim to demonstrate causality but do not use randomization. Quasi-experimental designs are used in situations when randomization is difficult, either because of ethical or practical reasons (Krishnan, 2019). To establish a cause-and-effect relationship, three criteria need to be fulfilled: first, the cause must occur before the effect. Second, there must be a connection between the cause and the effect. Third, no other plausible explanation should exist for the effect. In quasi-experimental designs, as the participants are not randomly assigned to groups, the possibility of alternative explanations (for example, confounding variables) is difficult to rule out (Cook & Campbell, 1979). So, while using these studies, an alternative explanation for the apparent causal association needs to be sufficiently controlled to draw valid conclusions (Harris et al., 2006). Still, in the literature, such designs are not afflicted with extensive limitations (Miller et al., 2020; Moazami et al., 2014; Shadish & Heinsman, 1997).

4.2 Participants

The study focused on business schools in India’s National Capital Region offering AICTE-approved PGDM programs with a rural immersion component. PGDM programs are MBA-equivalent, run by autonomous, standalone institutions that independently design and control their curricula to meet market needs. Admissions across these institutions follow a similar process, relying mainly on CAT scores and performance in group discussions and personal interviews, with minimal consideration of socio-economic background or motivation. As a result, the selected student cohorts are largely homogeneous in nature.

4.3 Sample

This exploratory study examined PGDM (MBA-equivalent) students from standalone business schools in India’s NCR that offer rural immersion programs. The population comprised students from the 2022–24 batch. Using stratified sampling, students were grouped based on participation or non-participation in rural immersion, reflecting the observed population distribution of 60% participants and 40% non-participants. A total sample of 340 students was selected using the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) method.

To control for extraneous variables, the study focused on a homogeneous student group with similar age, education, and abilities; excluded students with prior exposure to courses on social or rural sensitivity; collected data within one month of program completion; ensured similarity in program design across schools; and selected institutions that did not use selective criteria for program participation. The key independent variable was participation in the rural immersion program, while the outcome variable was students’ GSE scores measured using a research scale.

4.4 Data collection instrument

The instrument used for data collection was the unidimensional General Self-Efficacy Scale developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995). In samples from more than 20 countries, Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 76 to 90, with the majority around 80. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was reported in line with the earlier reported alpha values. Criterion validity has been tested and documented in various studies. The Perceived Self-Efficacy construct reflects an individual’s self-belief that they can perform difficult tasks or tackle uncertainties posed in various situations. It can affect goal-setting and consistency in putting in efforts to meet difficult challenges.

The data was collected through a Microsoft Form survey questionnaire. The questionnaire collected demographic data relating to their gender, background in terms of rural or urban, and focus of the program, along with a scale to measure GSE. The age data was not collected as all students were in the age range of 22 to 27 years. It was thought that no meaningful variation for the outcome variable could be found with such a small age range. Program chairs for the concerned program were connected who agreed to facilitate data collection from students.

4.5 Data analysis

To understand the effectiveness of rural immersion programs, researchers explored the mean GSE score difference between students who participated and those who did not participate in the rural immersion program. An independent sample t-test was conducted for the whole student group in the first stage. In the next stage, authors explored the difference in the means of GSE scores for the groups formed based on various demographical variables of interest, which are gender, background, and program focus.

An independent samples t-test requires assumptions such as a continuous dependent variable, independent observations, absence of significant outliers, approximate normality within groups, and homogeneity of variance. Although the study uses Likert-type (ordinal) data, the GSE scale is treated as continuous based as suggested by Norman (2010), allowing the use of parametric tests. Prior studies have similarly applied t-tests to GSE data. Independence is satisfied as the data come from two distinct groups of students (participants and non-participants). Outliers are not a major concern due to the Likert scale format. Normality was assessed using skewness and kurtosis benchmarks and Q–Q plots, which indicated that the normality assumption was reasonably met.

4.6 Ethical considerations

Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and the data were collected and used anonymously. Participation in the survey was voluntary.

5. Results

5.1 Sample description

337 students responded to the questionnaire, which included 202 students from the strata who participated in the rural immersion program (Experimental Group) and 135 students from the strata who did not participate in the rural immersion program (Control Group). In percentage terms, their share was 59.9% and 40.1%, respectively (see Table 1). Males represented 61.4% and females 38.6% of the total respondents. In terms of the focus of academic program of the respondents, 52.2% were from programs with a ‘General’ focus and 47.8% from programs that are focused and ‘specialized’. Generally, these business schools attract most students from urban and semi-urban areas. Students from a ‘Rural’ background are always a minority. In the sample, 68.0% respondents were from the ‘Urban’ background and 32.0% were from the ‘Rural’ background. The category ‘Rural’ also included respondents with a ‘Semi-urban’ background.

5.2 Variation in mean GSE for students

To understand whether the differences between the GSE scores of students who participated and those who did not participate indicate a significant difference in their GSE scores, means for both groups were compared by using an independent sample t-test for the whole group. The output of the independent sample t-test is presented in Table 2. Assumptions of the t-test were met as detailed above. Assumption of homogeneity of variance was also met as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variance (p =.062). GSE level was higher for students who participated in the rural immersion program (M = 32.772, Sd = 4.839) than for students who did not participate in the rural immersion program (M = 31.459, Sd = 4.153) a statistically significant difference M = 1.313, 95% CI [.312, 2.314], t (335) = 2.58, p =.01.

To know whether the difference in means for GSE for two groups is small, medium, or large, an independent sample effect size was calculated. Cohen’s d expresses the mean difference in terms of standard deviation, which makes it easy to interpret. As per Cohen’s (2013) guidelines, a d-value of 0.20 suggests a small effect size, 0.50 indicates a medium effect size, and 0.80 signifies a large effect size. The effect size for the difference in means between student groups who participated in a rural immersion program and those who did not was calculated using Cohen’s d, yielding a value of 0.287, which falls within the range considered as a small effect.

The findings suggest a statistically significant difference in the mean GSE scores between students who participated in a rural immersion program and those who did not. Specifically, the student group who participated in the rural immersion program indicated a higher mean GSE score than the students who did not participate in the program. These findings suggest that participation in a rural immersion program effectively improved GSE of students, with a small effect size.

Figure 1. Group statistics, output of the independent sample t-test, and effect size for students

5.3 Variation in mean GSE for demographic groups

To have a deeper understanding of variations in the mean scores for GSE, further analysis was done by dividing the sample data based on various demographic variables. These variables include gender, primary background, and the focus of the academic program of the students. Detailed analysis with respect to said groups is presented below.

5.3.1 Variation in mean GSE between participating and non-participating male and female students

The output of the independent sample t-test for male and female students is presented in Figure 2. From the output for the male students, it can be inferred that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was met as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variance (p =.176). GSE level was higher for male students who participated in rural immersion program (M = 32.846, Sd = 5.157) than male students who did not participate in rural immersion program (M = 31.592, Sd = 4.426) a statistically not significant difference M = 1.254, 95% CI [-.166, 2.674], t (205) = 1.741, p =.083. The effect size for the difference in mean between male student groups who participated in a rural immersion program and those who did not was calculated using Cohen’s d, yielding a value of 0.255, which falls within the range considered as a small effect.

The results indicate that a statistically significant difference did not exist between the mean GSE scores of the male students who participated in the rural immersion program and those who did not participate in the program. These findings suggest that, though the effect of participation in the rural immersion program was non-significant, it still represented a small effect for male students.

From the output for the female students provided in Figure 2, it can be inferred that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was met as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variance (p =.296). GSE level was higher for female students who participated in rural immersion program (M = 32.621, Sd = 4.143) than students who did not participate in rural immersion program (M = 31.313, Sd = 3.858) a statistically not significant difference M = 1.309 95% CI [-.062, 2.699], t (128) = 1.863, p =.065. The effect size for the difference in mean between female student groups who participated in a rural immersion program and those who did not was calculated using Cohen’s d, yielding a value of 0.327, which falls within the range considered as a small to medium effect.

The results indicate that a statistically significant difference did not exist between the mean GSE scores of the female students who participated in the rural immersion program and those who did not participate in the program. These findings suggest that, though the effect of participation in the rural immersion program was non-significant, it still represented a substantial effect for female students.

5.3.2 Variation in mean GSE between participating and non-participating PGDM (general) and PGDM (specialized) students

Output of the independent sample t-test for students from PGDM (general) program and PGDM-specialized programs in Figure 2. From the output for the students of the PGDM (general) program, it can be inferred that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not met as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variance (p =.008). So, authors look for the output in the row ‘Equal variance not assumed’. GSE level was higher for PGDM (general) students who participated in rural immersion program (M = 32.720, Sd = 5.178) than students who did not participate in rural immersion program (M = 32.043, Sd = 3.720) a statistically not significant difference M =.676, 95% CI [-0.650, 2.002], t (171.913) = 1.007, p =.315. The effect size for the difference in mean between PGDM (general) student groups who participated in a rural immersion program and those who did not was calculated using Cohen’s d, yielding a value of 0.145, which is a small effect.

The results indicate that a statistically significant difference did not exist between the mean GSE scores of the PGDM (general) students who participated in the rural immersion program and those who did not participate in the program. These findings suggest that, though the effect of participation in the rural immersion program was non-significant, it still represented a small effect for PGDM (general) students.

Output of the independent sample t-test for students of PGDM-specialized programs is presented in Figure 2. Assumption of homogeneity of variance was also met as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variance (p =.888). GSE level was higher for PGDM-specialized programs students who participated in the rural immersion program (M = 32.832, Sd = 4.455) than students who did not participate in rural immersion program (M = 30.848, Sd = 4.511) a statistically significant difference M = 1.983, 95% CI [.566, 3.400], t (159) = 2.764, p =.006. The effect size for the difference in means between PGDM-specialized student groups who participated in a rural immersion program and those who did not was calculated using Cohen’s d, yielding a value of 0.443, which is considered a medium effect.

The results of this study indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between the mean GSE scores of students of PGDM-specialized programs who participated in the rural immersion program and those who did not participate in the program. Specifically, the PGDM-specialized program students who participated in the rural immersion program indicated a higher mean GSE score than the students who did not participate in the program. These findings suggest that participation in a rural immersion program effectively improved GSE of students of PGDM-specialized programs, with a medium effect size.

5.3.3 Variation in mean general self-efficacy between participating and non-participating rural and urban background students

The output of the independent sample t-test for students with a rural background is presented in Figure 2. Assumption of homogeneity of variance was not met as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variance (p =.029). So, authors look for the output in the row ‘Equal variance not assumed’. GSE level was higher for students with rural background who participated in rural immersion program (M = 33.927, Sd = 4.811) than students who did not participate in rural immersion program (M = 31.151, Sd = 3.532) a statistically significant difference M = 2.766, 95% CI [1.169, 4.384], t (99.110) = 3.427, p =.001. The effect size for the difference in mean between student groups with rural backgrounds who participated in a rural immersion program and those who did not was calculated using Cohen’s d, yielding a value of 0.656, which is considered a high effect.

The results of this study indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between the mean GSE scores of students with rural backgrounds who participated in the rural immersion program and those who did not participate in the program. Specifically, the student group who participated in the rural immersion program indicated a higher mean GSE score than the students who did not participate in the program. These findings suggest that participation in a rural immersion program effectively improved GSE of students with rural backgrounds, with a high effect size.

Output of the independent sample t-test for students with an urban background in Figure 2. From the output for students with an urban background, it can be inferred that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was met as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variance (p =.562). GSE level was higher for students who participated in the rural immersion program (M = 32.340, Sd = 4.795) than for students who did not participate in rural immersion program (M = 31.659, Sd = 4.519) a statistically not significant difference M = 0.682 95% CI [-0.595, 1.958], t (227) = 1.052, p =.294. The effect size for the difference in mean between student groups with urban backgrounds who participated in a rural immersion program and those who did not was calculated using Cohen’s d, yielding a value of 0.145, which is considered a small effect.

The results indicate that a statistically significant difference did not exist between the mean GSE scores of students with an urban background who participated in the rural immersion program and those who did not participate in the program. These findings suggest that, though the effect of participation in the rural immersion program was non-significant, it still represented a small effect for students with an urban background.

Figure 2. Group statistics, output of the independent sample t-test, and effect sizes for demographic groups

6. Discussion

6.1 Effectiveness of the rural immersion program in enhancing GSE of students

The importance of GSE in enhancing the future well-being of the students has been recognized widely (Capri et al., 2012; Dave et al., 2011; Luszczynska et al., 2005; Santos et al., 2014). The study attempted to understand the differences in GSE levels between the students who participated in the rural immersion program and those who did not participate. It was found that the students who participated in the rural immersion program and those who did not participate demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the mean GSE score. It was higher for students who participated in the rural immersion program as compared to the students who did not participate. These findings suggest that participation in a rural immersion program effectively improved GSE of students, with a small effect size. The finding is in line with earlier studies, which supported that educational interventions based on social and cognitive theory enhance GSE of the students (Dinther et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2023).

It’s difficult to compare the findings of the present study with other studies for varied reasons. The type of immersion program that has been studied in the present study is unique from the perspective of feature characteristics as mentioned above. Such programs are of recent origin (especially in the last few years). Because of this uniqueness and recency, authors could not locate any study exploring the impact of such programs on enhancing GSE of the business students. In one of the papers, Malhotra and Pingali (2020) studied a rural immersion program being offered by an Indian business school of a similar nature. It was observed that rural immersion programs leave a significant impression on the minds of students, which becomes more prominent in the long run, influencing their decision-making to be more inclusive and socially sensitive. The program was also found to help inculcate new ways of thinking by combining global best practices with ground-level realities in solving local problems in an effective manner. Furthermore, the program also exposes students to understanding gaps in planning and execution in the presence of ‘institutional void’ and the absence of much-needed resources. Effectively, this learning enhances GSE of the participating students. As pointed out earlier, rural immersion programs are modeled on the line of service-learning programs popular in some academic disciplines. In view of the same, the outcome of rural immersion programs is expected to be on the lines of service-learning programs. It has been found that service-learning leads to enhancement of various dimensions of self-efficacy, including GSE (Dent et al., 2018; Gonsalves et al., 2019; Gutzweiler et al., 2022; Stewart & Alrutz, 2014). This view may be supported by the present study on rural immersion programs.

Thus, the authors find that the impact of the rural immersion program being offered by Indian business schools, as observed in the present study, is in line with the conclusions of earlier studies on rural immersion and service-learning.

6.2 Effectiveness of the rural immersion program in enhancing GSE of students from various demographic groups

The study further explored variation in the GSE levels between students who participated and those who did not participate in rural immersion programs coming from various demographic groups. The same students were studied based on gender, program focus, and general background.

The results indicate that a statistically significant difference did not exist between the mean GSE scores of students who participated in the rural immersion program and those who did not participate in the program for both male and female student groups. Authors feel that the reason for no difference in GSE between male and female students is that both groups are quite similar on different characteristics affecting general self-efficacy. Students from both groups come with similar social, educational, and economic backgrounds, making them homogeneous in terms of GSE-determining characteristics. Findings of the present study are close to findings of the studies that found that males and females do not show a significant difference in various dimensions of self-efficacy (Burger et al., 2010; Huang, 2013).

In India, PGDM programs are offered in two broad categories. One is the PGDM with a generic focus, which is quite similar to the MBA program offered by Western schools, and the other is the PGDM programs, which are designed to be focused on some functional aspect of management like marketing, finance, human resources, and operations. The study results indicate that a statistically significant difference did not exist between the mean GSE scores of students who participated in the rural immersion program and those who did not participate in the program from the PGDM (general). However, it was found that a statistically significant difference exists between students who participated in the rural immersion program and those who did not participate in the PGDM (specialized) group.

Authors feel that the reason for this variation is the student’s attitude at the time of joining the academic program. Students who join the PGDM (general) program have a broad and open approach toward life. These students also look for varied career options after completing the academic program. For such students, a short-term exposure to rural and community life did not create an impact leading to a significant difference in their GSE levels. However, students who join specialized programs are more focused on the functional and technical domain of management. Their approach toward life is not very open. They are not open to a broader career choice. So, exposure to a different social and community context becomes more meaningful and impactful for these students, resulting in variations in the GSE score of participating and non-participating students.

The study provided an interesting insight for students coming from different backgrounds- rural or urban. It was observed that the GSE level was higher for students who participated in the rural immersion program, as compared to students who did not participate in the rural immersion program, for students with a rural background, and this difference was statistically significant. However, the findings were different for students with an urban background. A statistically significant difference was not observed between students who participated and those who did not have an urban background.

Authors feel that the context provides a possible explanation for this variation in the mean scores for GSE between students from rural and urban backgrounds. The focus of the study is GSE. Students coming from an urban background generally got educated at English medium private schools with a lot of activities focusing on personality development, leading to a higher level of GSE. These students also grow in a more open environment with good exposure to a variety of life situations. In this situation, it is expected that students with an urban background will exhibit a higher mean GSE. On the other hand, students coming from rural and semi-urban backgrounds grow up in an environment with limited resources and exposure. Many of these students move out of their homes where they live with their parents for the first time in their lives. Generally, they are also found to demonstrate lower confidence levels when compared to students coming from an urban background. The rural immersion program provides these students with an opportunity to prepare for participation, stay with their friend, travel, and perform different activities together, solving real-life problems, and working on projects. In this situation, authors feel that the intervention provided by the rural immersion program becomes meaningful and significant for students from rural backgrounds but not for students with urban backgrounds.

6.3 Implications of the study

Findings of the present study provide significant implications for designing and implementing such interventions. It concluded that these programs are effective means of enhancing GSE levels of business students. Currently, these programs are offered by only a few business schools offering PGDM programs. In view of the success of these programs, other schools similarly placed may also initiate similar programs to enhance GSE levels of their students.

Further implications can be drawn from the understanding developed from demographic variations. First, it can be concluded that the programs are similarly effective for students of both genders. So, these can be offered with the same design and structure to students from both genders. Second, programs make much sense for students who join PGDM (specialized) programs as compared to students who join PGDM (general) programs. Schools should make efforts to expose a larger number of students from PGDM (specialized) programs to rural immersion programs. Third, these programs have a greater impact on students coming from rural backgrounds. So, business schools should strive to expose more students from rural backgrounds to such programs.

Further, it should be noted that the study is strictly limited to the rural immersion programs with the features and characteristics listed above. To make these programs more effective in enhancing GSE, different program features and characteristics can be changed, considering the findings of the present study.

Although the current study is based on samples from two types of PGDM programs being offered by business schools located in NCR in India, the findings suggest transferability to other business schools located in other parts of the country and to the students of other similar disciplines.

6.4 Limitations

While this study sheds new light on how short-term rural immersion programs can boost the self-efficacy of Indian business students, its findings are best understood as a foundational step rather than a final word. Because these programs are a relatively new addition to business school curricula, the researchers faced a significant hurdle: a near-total lack of existing literature or global benchmarks to guide their framework.

The study’s design was inherently limited by its quasi-experimental nature, utilizing a “post-test only” method with non-equivalent groups. While this approach provided valuable initial data, the authors acknowledge that it lacks the absolute rigor of a full experimental study. Furthermore, the research offers only a cross-sectional “snapshot” of the students’ growth. To truly understand if these programs have a lasting impact, future research will need to adopt a longitudinal approach, tracking students over several years to see if their increased confidence translates into success once they enter the professional workforce.

Finally, the study’s scope was geographically narrow, focusing solely on business schools within India’s National Capital Region (NCR). This leaves a major opening for future scholars to broaden the horizon by sampling students from diverse regions and different academic disciplines to see if the benefits of rural immersion remain consistent across the board.

References

Andrews, C. P. (2007). Service learning: Applications and research in business. Journal of Education for Business, 83(1), 19-26.

Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Service Participation, 39(3), 251-263.

Azizli, N., Atkinson, B. E., Baughman, H. M., & Giammarco, E. A. (2015). Relationships between general self-efficacy, planning for the future, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 58-60.

Bachrach, D. G., Bendoly, E., Beu Ammeter, D., Blackburn, R., Brown, K. G., Burke, G., Callahan, T., Chen, K. Y., Day, V. H., & Ellstrand, A. E. (2017). On academic rankings, unacceptable methods, and the social obligations of business schools. Decision Sciences, 48(3), 561-585.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.

Bartimote-Aufflick, K., Bridgeman, A., Walker, R., Sharma, M., & Smith, L. (2016). The study, evaluation, and improvement of university student self-efficacy. Studies in Higher Education, 41(11), 1918-1942.

Bernadowski, C., Perry, R., & Del Greco, R. (2013). Improving preservice teachers’ self-efficacy through service learning: Lessons learned. International Journal of Instruction, 6(2), 67-86.

Brown IV, I. D., Pointer, L., Smith, C., & Gleason, K. (2023). The impact of a short duration service-learning project on student learning outcomes. Journal of Service-Learning in Higher Education, 16, 4-19.

Burger, C., Raelin, J., Reisberg, R., Bailey, M., & Whitman, D. (2010). Self-efficacy in female and male undergraduate engineering students: Comparisons among four institutions. ASEE Southeast Section Conference Proceedings. http://se.asee.org/proceedings/ASEE2010/Papers/PR2010Bur184.PDF

Business Roundtable. (2019). Business Roundtable redefines the purpose of a corporation to promote ‘an economy that serves all Americans’.  https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans

Byers, L. G., & Gray, K. (2012). The meaning of service learning in an MSW course. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32(3), 257-267.

Capri, B., Ozkendir, O. M., Ozkurt, B., & Karakus, F. (2012). General self-efficacy beliefs, life satisfaction and burnout of university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 968-973.

Chan, S. C., Ngai, G., & Kwan, K.-p. (2019). Mandatory service learning at university: Do less-inclined students learn from it? Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 189-202.

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Elsevier Science.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin.

Dave, R., Tripathi, K., Singh, P., & Udainiya, R. (2011). Subjective well-being, locus of control and general self-efficacy among university students. Amity Journal of Applied Psychology, 2(1).

Dent, L., Maloney, P., & Karp, T. (2018). Self-efficacy development among students enrolled in an engineering service-learning section. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 25-44.

Dicke, L., Dowden, S., & Torres, J. (2004). Successful service learning: A matter of ideology. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(3), 199-208.

Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & R.Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review, 6, 95-108.

Doherty, B., Meehan, J., & Richards, A. (2015). The business case and barriers for responsible management education in business schools. Journal of Management Development, 34(1), 34-60.

EY India. (2020). Why business must harness the power of purpose. EY India. https://www.ey.com/en_in/purpose/why-business-must-harness-the-power-of-purpose

Eyler, J. (2002). Reflection: Linking service and learning – Linking students and communities. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 517-534.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.

Friedman, M. (1970, 13 September). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine,122-126.

Gerholz, K.-H., Liszt, V., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2018). Effects of learning design patterns in service learning courses. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(1), 47-59.

Goldberg, L. R., McCormick Richburg, C., & Wood, L. A. (2006). Active learning through service-learning. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(3), 131-145.

Gonsalves, J., Metchik, E. Y., Lynch, C., Belezos, C. N., & Richards, P. (2019). Optimizing service-learning for self-efficacy and learner empowerment. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 25(2), 19-41.

Gubbels, J. A., & Vitiello, S. P. (2018). Creating and teaching science lessons in K–12 schools increases undergraduate students’ science identity. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(3), https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe. v1119i1123.1594  

Gutzweiler, R., Pfeiffer, S., & In-Albon, T. (2022). ‘I can succeed at this’: Engagement in service learning in schools enhances university students’ self-efficacy. Studies in Higher Education, 47(12), 2539-2552.

Harris, A. D., McGregor, J. C., Perencevich, E. N., Furuno, J. P., Zhu, J., Peterson, D. E., & Finkelstein, J. (2006). The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 13(1), 16-23.

Horn, A. S. (2012). The cultivation of a prosocial value orientation through community service: An examination of organizational context, social facilitation, and duration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 948-968.

Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(1), 1-35.

Joly, H. (2021). Creating a meaningful corporate purpose. https://hbr.org/2021/10/creating-a-meaningful-corporate-purpose

Klink, R. R., & Athaide, G. A. (2004). Implementing service learning in the principles of marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(2), 145-153.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.

Krishnan, P. (2019). A review of the non-equivalent control group post-test-only design. Nurse Res, 26(2), 37-40.

Liu, X., Ji, X., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Trajectories of college students’ general self-efficacy, the related predictors, and depression: A piecewise growth mixture modeling approach. Heliyon, 9(5), e15750.

Luszczynska, A., Gutiérrez‐Doña, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). General self‐efficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries. International Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 80-89.

Macías Gomez-Estern, B., Arias-Sánchez, S., Marco Macarro, M. J., Cabillas Romero, M. R., & Martínez Lozano, V. (2021). Does service learning make a difference? Comparing students’ valuations in service learning and non-service learning teaching of psychology. Studies in Higher Education, 46(7), 1395-1405.

Maddrell, J. (2014). Service-learning instructional design considerations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(3), 213-226.

Malhotra, S., & Pingali, V. (2020). Rural immersion program in India: integrating management education with community. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 34(2), 13-15.

Meyer, M., Neumayr, M., & Rameder, P. (2019). Students’ community service: Self-selection and the effects of participation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(6), 1162-1185.

Miller, C. J., Smith, S. N., & Pugatch, M. (2020). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs in implementation research. Psychiatry Res, 283, 112452.

Miller, J. (1997). The impact of service-learning experiences on students’ sense of power. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 16-21.

Moazami, F., Bahrampour, E., Azar, M. R., Jahedi, F., & Moattari, M. (2014). Comparing two methods of education (virtual versus traditional) on learning of Iranian dental students: a post-test only design study. BMC Medical Education, 14(1), 45.

Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 625-632.

Novak, J. M., Markey, V., & Allen, M. (2007). Evaluating cognitive outcomes of service learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 24(2), 149-157.

Orkaizagirre‐Gómara, A., Sánchez De Miguel, M., Ortiz de Elguea, J., & Ortiz de Elguea, A. (2020). Testing general self‐efficacy, perceived competence, resilience, and stress among nursing students: An integrator evaluation. Nursing & Health Sciences, 22(3), 529-538.

Pederson, J. G., Lettner-Rust, H. G., Dowling Fink, A. D., Fink, M. L., Renee Gutiérrez, A., Kinman, E. L., Koski, C. M., Mergen, M. J., Poplin, P. L., Rhoten, M. C., Roberts, B. S., & Znosko, J. B. (2022). The field immersion framework: A transformative pedagogy for experiential civic education. Journal of Transformative Education, 20(3), 189-205.

Prahalad, C. K. (2014). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits (Revised and updated 5th anniversary edition). Prentice Hall.

Rama, D. V., Ravenscroft, S. P., Wolcott, S. K., & Zlotkowski, E. (2000). Service‐learning outcomes: Guidelines for educators and researchers. Issues in Accounting Education, 15(4), 657-692.

Rathore, M. (2024). Rural and urban population in India from 2018 to 2022 (in millions) https://www.statista.com/statistics/621507/rural-and-urban-population-india/

Reeb, R. N., Folger, S. F., Langsner, S., Ryan, C., & Crouse, J. (2010). Self-efficacy in service-learning community action research: Theory, research, and practice. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 459-471.

Reynolds, A. M. (2004). Service-learning in music teacher education: An overview. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(2), 9-17.

Riccoboni, A. (2010). Who invented the business school?  https://www.businessbecause.com/news/mba-degree/352/who-invented-the-business-school

Salam, M., Awang Iskandar, D. N., Ibrahim, D. H. A., & Farooq, M. S. (2019). Service learning in higher education: A systematic literature review. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20, 573-593.

Santos, M. C. J., Magramo Jr, C. S., Oguan Jr, F., & Paat, J. J. (2014). Establishing the relationship between general self-efficacy and subjective well-being among college students. Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education, 3(1), 1-12.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37).Windsor.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Shadish, W. R., & Heinsman, D. T. (1997). Experiments versus quasi-experiments: Do they yield the same answer? NIDA Research Monograph, 170, 147-164.

Simons, L., & Cleary, B. (2006). The influence of service learning on students’ personal and social development. College Teaching, 54(4), 307-319.

Stewart, T., & Alrutz, M. (2014). Gender and service learning: Effects on the perceived general self-efficacy of honors undergraduates. College Student Affairs Journal, 32(1), 189-203.

Thomas, H., & Cornuel, E. (2012). Business schools in transition? Issues of impact, legitimacy, capabilities and re‐invention. Journal of Management Development, 31(4), 329-335.

Thomas, K. M., & Landau, H. (2002). Organizational development students as engaged learners and reflective practitioners: The role of service learning in teaching OD. Organization Development Journal, 20(3), 88-99.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

Warschauer, M., & Cook, J. (1999). Service learning and technology in TESOL. PROSPECT-ADELAIDE-, 14(3), 32-39.

Weiler, L., Haddock, S., Zimmerman, T. S., Krafchick, J., Henry, K., & Rudisill, S. (2013). Benefits derived by college students from mentoring at-risk youth in a service-learning course. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52, 236-248.

Welch Jr, J. S. (2013). The importance of self-efficacy in ethical education for business undergraduates. Southern Journal of Business and Ethics, 5, 214-223.

Williams, N. R., King, M., & Koob, J. J. (2002). Social work students go to camp: The effects of service learning on perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 22(3-4), 55-70.

Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 9-27.

URN: http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:jamk-issn-2341-9938-91