Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 2092-674X (Print)
ISSN : 2092-6758 (Online)
Asia-Pacific Collaborative education Journal Vol.9 No.2 pp.79-93

Exploring the Potential of an International Student Exchange Program Based on Experiential Learning: Focusing on the APEC Edutainment Exchange Program (AEEP)

Jiyon Lee
Jiyon Lee is a research fellow of BK (Brain Korea) 21 Plus Agency at Pusan National University in Korea. She received the Ph. D in education from Pusan National University. Her research interests include online learning communities, community of practice, experiential learning, systems design, and international cooperation in education.
Received Date: October 10, 2013, Revision received Date: October 25, 2013, Accepted Date: October 30, 2013


This paper explores the APEC Edutainment ExchangeProgram (AEEP) as a model for international studentexchange. This program has been conducted in the APECregion since 2007 to respond to the increasinginternational demand for youth exchange. The AEEP is based on PBL (project based learning)-oriented experiential learning, and includes multinationalteam activities with support systems formed by human andphysical resources. Accordingly, this paper reviewed priorresearch on international student exchange programs andexperiential learning, as well as the AEEP. While the AEEP cases reviewed here focus on theparticipants in the Asia-Pacific, this paper demonstratesthe potential of this program to be applied to similarsituations elsewhere.



 With the acceleration of globalization and informatization, the cross-border exchange and mobility of human beings and goods is expanding more than ever. A study on international youth exchange found that, each year, about 34,000 Korean young people are involved in exchange activities through programs offered by the Korean Ministries of Education, Foreign Affairs, and Gender Equality and Family(Yoon, 2012). However, it can be easily assumed that the actual number is even higher than the official estimate, since many students participate in activities like volunteer work, internships, and field trips through similar programs offered by NGOs, institutes, enterprises, and other private sector entities.

 Meanwhile, with the recent sizable increase in multicultural families in Korea, the nation is making efforts to provide various services to children of those families. According to the statistical data of the Korean Ministry of Education (MOE) (The Hankyoreh, Aug. 4, 2013), the number of students from multicultural families is 55,767, a ratio that is approaching 1% of all students in Korea. The adaptation of multicultural families and their children to mainstream society is a big issue not only in Korea, but in other countries as well since the growth of multicultural societies is a major global trend in a world where humans and goods move more easily.

 In this context, Lee (2007) pointed out that most current international exchange programs for youth have several key problems, like a narrow focus on cultural experiences in basic experienceoriented programs, lack of management of postactivities, and lack of interest in students from multicultural families as the target of exchange.

 Also, with respect to multicultural education, many studies assert that diverse educational methods need to be applied not only for multicultural students, but also for the majority students (Banks, 2003; Kang, 2010; Won et al., 2010).

 This paper presents an alternative way to conduct international youth exchange, through a special program, for PBL (project based learning)-based multicultural student team activities called the APEC Edutainment Exchange Program (AEEP). Basically, the program involves handson activities for experiential learning by multinational teams, composed of elementary, secondary, and university students, mainly in the Asia-Pacific region.

 AEEP is an international student exchange program that was organized by Korea in response to ideas on student exchange gathered and discussed by scholars and experts from the APEC member economies at the APEC Future Education Forum in 2007 (Kim et al., 2009). In the same year, the initial program was conducted in Thailand with a temporary framework, and then, its pilot-test was officially implemented with support by the APEC Education Foundation in 2008 (IACE, 2008). As of 2012, it had taken place nine times, attended by about 1,400 participants from twelve APEC member economies. In particular, under the name of the “APEC Future Education Festival,” AEEP was conducted as a special event linked with the 5th APEC Education Ministerial Meeting (AEMM) in Korea in May 2012 (KEDI, 2012). At that event, elementary, secondary, and university students from twelve APEC member economies took part, guided by teachers and experts. In the same year, AEEP included multicultural students from Korea for the first time since the program was developed. Those students performed PBL-based multinational team activities with Chinese, Japanese, Philippine, and Vietnamese students overseas (IACE, 2012).

 Accordingly, this paper aims to explore the potential of the APEC Edutainment Exchange Program (AEEP) as an alternative way to develop the global capacity of participating students and to enhance multicultural education for all students. To achieve this goal, first, through the literature review on the experiential learning and the international student exchange program, we identified the current situations and their implications. Second, the AEEP’s structure and its activities were investigated in more detail. Third, we took stock of two different AEEP cases conducted in Korea and overseas. Through these processes, we would like to draw some implications for international youth exchange utilizing AEEP.

International Student Exchange Program

 At present, whether or not by choice, people from various cultural backgrounds are becoming involved in many different kinds of cross-border exchange at an increasing rate. This is the result of efforts by most of countries in the world to boost myriad exchange and cooperation activities for mutual co-existence and prosperity. ‘Exchange’ is considered a tool for sustaining our lives and for self-development, and furthermore, it is a value-added activity for attaining a high standard of living (Lee, 2007). One form of exchange has been described as “voluntary activity” by Kim (2007), who suggested that, in light of this international trend, future education involves developing ways of living harmoniously with other countries’ citizens.

 In its various aspects, the characteristics of international student exchange have been described by many scholars from areas like education, tourism, and youth-related fields.

 Sowa (2002) suggested developing international student exchange programs as a strategy for internationalizing higher education in the United States, and cited advanced research indicating the merits of such programs. According to Sowa’s research, there are several advantages: (1) increasing students’ knowledge, understanding, and foreign language skills regarding other countries; (2) providing students with opportunities to live overseas; (3) forming international networks of participating students and their countries able to promote “international relations”; (4) bringing economic benefits to the host economy.

 According to Yoon’s research, international exchange allows youth opportunities to build human networks, enhance communication, enlarge understanding of other countries’ cultures, reflect on their own lives, and explore careers (Yoon, 2012). Similarly, Ryu and Kang (2012), who conducted a study on the participants of the Asia-Pacific Jamboree Program held in August 2010, indicated that international exchange programs for youth have a positive effect on participants’ self-esteem and happiness.

 While international student exchange programs offer benefits like these, Yoon (2012) pointed out the limitations faced by sociallydisadvantaged students when it comes to participating in those programs. Lee (2007) also identified the following problems in exchange programs: (1) simple experience and cultural experience-oriented programs, (2) lack of management after exchange is completed, (3) lack of experts and lack of international exchange on the part of instructors, (4) apathy towards exchange for multicultural youths, (5) lack of information, (6) inadequacy of pre-training, and (7) difficulty in obtaining confirmation from schools. As suggested earlier, the demand for quality programs beyond ‘simple experience or cultural experience-oriented programs’ has been pointed out in much research, and improving international student exchange programs is becoming a critical issue.

 In the meantime, various international situations regarding international student exchange are described in the research of Yoon et al. (2011). First, ‘Youth in Action,’ the European Union’s representative international youth exchange program, supports global exchange for youths with well-systematized programs run by the EACEA1, a special agency under the EU. Examples include ‘Youth in Action,’ ‘European Voluntary Service,’ and the ‘SOCRATES programme.’ Second, in the United States, most exchange programs are related to education and culture exchange. Depending on the participants, there are language exchange programs, such as students from Islamic countries experiencing classrooms of the U.S., or in the other direction, education and culture experience programs in which American students study abroad to experience totally different cultures for a semester or a year, as well as other leadership programs. Third, in Japan, there is a greater focus on friendly exchange with other countries’ youth, with primary representative activities like visits to industrial facilities and schools, homestays, and participation in discussion and research with foreign students.

 1 Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Experiential Learning as a Theoretical Foundation of AEEP

 In the AEEP, because experiential learning is a crucial element, understanding it as a theoretical concept is very important.

 All learning basically comes about from experience, but it is hard to clearly define the concept of experiential learning because experience is described in many different ways (Moon, 2004). For instance, Wurdinger (2005) suggested “experiential learning is a reactive process in which occurs by reflecting on previous experiences.” Wilson and Beard (2003), who proposed the Learning Combination Lock model, defined experiential learning as “the insight gained through the conscious or unconscious internalization of our own or observed interactions, which build upon our past experiences and knowledge.” Later, Beard and Wilson (2006) newly defined it as “the sensemaking process of active engagement between the inner world of the person and the outer world of the environment.”

 Meanwhile, Moon (2004) presented the meanings of experiential learning, rather than a definition.

 · Experiential learning is not usually mediated.

 · The material of learning is usually direct experience.

 · There is often a sense that it is a specially good form of learning.

 · Reflection is usually involved.

 · There is usually an ‘active’ phase of the learning.

 · There is usually some mechanism of feedback present.

 · There is usually an intention to learn.

 These “connotations” of experiential learning offered by Moon (2004) provide several relevant considerations, such as direct experience, sense, reflection, feedback, and purposed learning. Similarly, Wurdinger (2005) asserted that it is core to discover students’ interests as materials of experiential learning, and also stressed real-life experiences in selecting themes.

 Regarding factors of experiential learning, researchers such as Kolb (1984) and Clark, Threeton, and Ewing (2010) presented factors through models and through the outcomes of a literature review, respectively.

 One of the preeminent scholars on experiential learning, Kolb (1984) explained learning as a continued process based on experience, and proposed the model known as the “Process of Experiential Learning.” According to this model, the experiential learning process is a four-stage cycle including concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Clark et al. (2010) claimed that “experiential learning is a process and not just simply providing learners with the opportunity to take part in an activity,” and they stressed reflection and application allowing students to apply their lessons learned to other situations.

APEC Edutainment Exchange Program

 In fact, the issue of developing 21st-century skills for the next generation, along with youth exchange for sharing knowledge and experience to achieve this, has been crucial within the APEC region for a long time. In particular, APEC leaders stressed cross-border education cooperation at the 20th APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting held in Russia in 2012. However, compared with the ongoing demand, programs or quality-assured activities for international student exchange are not adequate or diverse enough to fulfill these needs.

 The AEEP started from these kinds of needs. The history of AEEP has been associated with a Korean APEC project called “APEC Future Education Consortium (AFEC) (IACE, 2005),” one of the APEC Education Network (EDNET)’s official projects endorsed in 2004. The AFEC “seeks to address the challenges of today’s Knowledge and IT-based society and to set up an ideal model for future education (IACE, 2005).” To achieve this goal, the APEC Future Education Forum has been held annually since 2005, and represents one important means for gathering and discussing ideas and visions for future education and international cooperative education. The idea for the AEEP first emerged through discussion of an ideal model for future education among scholars and educational administrators from APEC member economies.

 The main participants of the AEEP are elementary, secondary, and university students. In addition, teachers, experts, scholars, and entrepreneurs take part as mentors and facilitators. Essentially, students in the AEEP become members of multinational teams and take part in PBL activities on issues related to a common area of interest.

 According to Kim et al. (2009), who conducted a study on the development and implementation of AEEP, an international student exchange program, it has the following features: (1) supporting systems to bridge gaps between students from different backgrounds such as culture, language, and religion, (2) project-based activities allowing students to learn through the process of problem solving relating to school subjects, integrated real-world problems, and global issues, (3) activities with a blended approach in which students take part in online pre-activities, face-to-face experiential learning activities, and online post-activities, and (4) multicultural team activities based on volunteerism and cooperation.

 The AEEP incorporates PBL-based experiential learning and involves a series of steps and sub-activities.

Steps and Activities of AEEP

 The basic model of AEEP is shown in Table 1. As can be seen, it includes three steps and their associated activities (Kim et al., 2009; IACE, 2008b).

Table 1. Steps and activities of AEEP


 The online pre-activities start with registration and self-introductions of all participants. After registering, the participating students take part in online pre-training. This conveys a basic knowledge of the AEEP and the partner economy’s language and culture, forms teams in accordance with the participants’ individual interests, and has participants acquire information related to their team project.

 In addition, each team comes up with a draft plan, including the objectives of the team project, the process and individual tasks for implementing the project, requirements, expected outcomes, mode of presentation, and so forth.

Experiential Learning Activities.

 The core of this step is on-site experiential learning tailored to the teams’ project plans. Before the experiential learning, the team presents the draft plan prepared in the previous step and finalizes the plan according to the mentors’ feedback. Also, teambuilding activities take place through icebreakers and games, and team members are allocated into individual tasks.

 During on-site experiential learning, each team collects and investigates relevant data, visits and meets with experts and stakeholders, and analyzes collected data and information.

 The teams also submit interim reports and get the mentors’ feedback. In accordance with the feedback, the teams make slight revisions in the direction and activities of their projects.

 Besides, all participants write daily reflection notes to have some time for introspection of their own activities, thoughts, and feelings.


 During the post-activities, all teams prepare for team presentations to share their project outcomes. They also prepare for an exhibition of the team outcomes in various formats like videos, posters, musicals, performance, drawings, mock-ups, etc.

 At this time, the mentors assess the outcomes and team presentations, and the best teams are awarded.

 Other activities may include various contests and events that utilize the teams’ outcomes and by-products from the AEEP activities, as well as forums or seminars for teachers and university students on issues related to the AEEP themes. Lastly, students can join the ALCoB (APEC Learning Community Builders), a representative human network in the APEC region (Kim, Lee, & Choi, 2006), and propose new project ideas and themes for future activities.

Progress of AEEP

 Since the initial activity and the pilot test with support from the APEC Education Foundation were completed, nine rounds of AEEP have been conducted by the Institute of APEC Collaborative Education (IACE), which systematized the AEEP model. In the meantime, about 1,400 students and teachers and experts as mentors have been involved, coming from twelve economies in APEC.

 In the AEEP pilot test, held in Korea, there were 57 participants in all, from China, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, Thailand, Viet Nam, and Korea. Among them, 37 high school students received partial or full scholarships, and 20 university students volunteered to be mentors for the high school students. Since then, activities for small and large groups of students have been conducted at least twice a year in Korea and overseas: Russia (2010), Thailand (2011), the Philippines (2011, 2012), Indonesia (2011), the United States (2012), Korea (2012), China (2012), Japan (2012), and Viet Nam (2012).

 In 2012, the AEEP had a significant turning point when it was invited to two major events. The first was to conduct the program as a special event in conjunction with the 5th AEMM in Gyeongju, Korea in May 2012 (KEDI, 2012). The other was a special multicultural education-based AEEP for multicultural students in Gokseong, South Jeolla Province, in August and September of the same year.

 So far, the concept, features, steps and activities of AEEP have been described. In summary, AEEP has the salient principles of play, experiential-learning-based PBL activities, blended methods, self-directedness, reflection, collaborative learning, and a holistic approach.

Case 1: special event at the 5th APEC Education Ministerial Meeting

Overview of the Event

 In 2012, AEEP was held under the name of “APEC Future Education Festival” as a special adjunct event of the 5th APEC Education Ministerial Meeting in Gyeongju, Korea (KEDI, 2012). The APEC Future Education Festival was hosted by Korea’s MOE and organized by IACE. An overview of the program is shown below.


 - To experience for all participants about global issues and participating economies’ culture

 - To provide university students with the opportunities of global career exploration

  Dates: May 18 (Fri) ~23 (Wed), 2012

  Location: Gyeongju, Korea

  Participants: 237 (Overseas: 60, Domestic:177) 


 - Elementary & secondary students:Environment & Green Growth and Tourism / Regional Economic Integration (REI)

 - University students: Wanna be a Career Explorer!

  Main activities: Pre-, Experiential Learning, and Post-activities

 Unlike previous AEEPs at which university students served as mentors and facilitators, this time they directly participated in the PBL activities, advised by entrepreneurs and experts. Therefore, the AEEP was implemented in two different categories: (1) Teacher-Student and (2) Enterprise-University Students.


 Considering that APEC is significantly involved with growth issues, green energy, and regional economic integration in the region, IACE determined two main AEEP themes related to the environment and economics. A tourism-related topic was also added, taking into account the event venue, Gyeongju, which is a major historical and world heritage site.

 According to the themes, Korean and foreign participants were selected, pre-workshops for the domestic participants were implemented, and an advisory committee for the whole program was formed. The advisory committee consisted of five theorists, practitioners, and educators with much experience regarding the AEEP. They played a core role in providing feedback, monitoring, and evaluation of the whole program.

 In addition, Korean MOE and IACE planned to award a Korean Education Minister’s certificate and entrepreneurs’ scholarships to the best teams and individuals.


 For the AEEP, various tools and systems were needed to support the management of the teams as well as students’ and mentors’ activities. Furthermore, the blended approach of the AEEP involves development of on- and off-line tools and systems allowing participants to access those materials on demand, anytime and anywhere.

 The following tools and systems were developed for the event.

  Workbooks (portfolios) for students (offline)

  Individual students’ and mentors’ reflection notes (offline)  

  Pre-training course (online)

  Web-based support system for all activities

  Ubiquitous technology-based support system for onsite experiential learning (2 iPads per team)


 The AEEP started with pre-activities that included online training, team formation, preparation of teams’ draft plans, domestic preworkshops, and individual preparation for on-site experiential learning.

 In the experiential learning activities, each team visited research centers, institutes, tourism attractions, etc., and met with researchers, experts, entrepreneurs, and even members of the public to seek their projects’ solutions. They also analyzed and classified the data collected, made interim presentations to get feedback, and prepared final presentations to share their outcomes with all.

 Tables 2 and 3 show the main activities for the team projects.

Table 2. Overview of Teacher-Student AEEP Projects

Table 3. Overview of Enterprise-University Student AEEP Projects

 In addition, all the participants had the opportunity to visit schools and historical sites, as well as take part in the cultural exchange activities prepared by all participants.


 In order to assess participants’ satisfaction with the program, students’ reflection notes were analyzed.

 Most of the participants indicated being positively affected by the AEEP itself. The following comments from an advisor, a teacher, and a student exemplify their satisfaction.

 “Thailand supports the AEEP, and especially, we hope our students who are here will be allowed to continue to take part in the AEEP.”

 (Comment from a Thai advisor)

 “Even though I’ve done lots of international exchanges, the AEEP activity was my first time where international teachers and students implemented projects together. I’m very glad that one of my students who hadn’t had a chance to participate in international exchange before showed his talent in this area.”

 (Comment from a Korean teacher)

 “I’m so happy to do the team project with multinational friends.”

 (Comment from a Korean middle school student)

 In particular, one foreign teacher conveyed his intention to link the AEEP with the regular school curriculum.

 “The participating students learned how to cooperate on doing team projects. And I would like to link the cooperative edutainment concept with the STEM Week activities. I believe it is a good method to give our students a great learning opportunity. So, I plan to discuss it with the STEM Initiative leaders.”

 (Comment from a U.S. teacher)

Case 2: Gokseong Global Overseas Multicultural Experiential Learning

Overview of the Program

 For the first time since the program was developed, students from multicultural families in Korea took part in the AEEP. Called the “Gokseong Global Overseas Multicultural Experiential Learning” program, it involved Korean students performing PBL-based multinational team activities with Chinese, Japanese, Philippine, and Vietnamese students from overseas (IACE, 2012). This event was supported by South Jeolla Province and the Gokseong Office of Education. Its participants included Korean elementary and middle school students from the Gokseong area.

Table 4. Overview of Gokseong AEEP Projects

 Within this context, the goals of this special event were a bit different from previous programs. An overview of the Gokseong AEEP is shown below.


 - To provide the opportunity for multicultural students to visit the economies of their ethnic heritage and for all participants to experience global cultural exchange

 - To build a global network for Gokseong Office of Education

  Dates: August 6 (Mon) ~13 (Mon)/August 12 (Sun) ~ 19 (Sun), 2012

  Locations: China, Japan, The Philippines, Viet Nam

  Participants: 397 (Overseas: 230, Domestic:167)


 - Main themes: Culture and History

 - Sub themes: Art, Food, Tourism, etc.

  Main activities: Pre-activities, Experiential Learning activities, and Post- activities


 Because this program involved elementary and middle school students from multicultural backgrounds, unlike prior participants of the AEEP, the organizer, IACE, planned several tools to assist with students’ activities such as pretraining and education, workshop, and human support systems (coordinator and advisor). Also, pre-exploration of the event venues and special lectures on multicultural education for all domestic participants took place.

 The onsite PBL-based experiential learning activities, which are the core of AEEP, were thoughtfully designed, and featured activities enabling multicultural students to explore the history and culture of their mothers’ economies.

 During the planning, the coordinators from the partner economies supported the whole process, including the selection of the participating overseas schools and students, the choice of team project themes and activities, preparation of requirements for activities, accommodations and transportation, and so forth. These coordinators included a professor and an educational administrator from China, a teacher from Japan, two educational administrators from the Philippines, and two educational administrators from Viet Nam.


 Taking into account the goals and the participants, the following tools and systems were developed.

  Pre-training courses for mentors and students(online)

  Web-based support system for all activities

  Workbooks (portfolios) for students (offline)

  Individual students’ and mentors’ reflection notes (offline)


 In the pre-activities step, activities included pre-training, workshops, and preliminary team activities such as online registration, team building, and preparing draft project proposals. In addition, mentors from the Gokseong Office of Education made site visits to investigate the four economies’ event venues in advance.

 In the second step, PBL-based experiential learning took place in China, Japan, the Philippines, and Viet Nam. The main activities involved an opening ceremony, deriving solutions for team projects, historical and cultural visits, and preparation for team presentations. Like every AEEP activity, the participants themselves came up with team project themes under the given main theme of ‘education for multicultural understanding’ and sub-themes such as history, tourism, food, art, and environment. They implemented the team projects themselves, communicating with other team members in English.

 The post-activities consisted of the final team presentations, team evaluations and awards ceremony, submission of reports, and other events.


 To examine changes in the Korean students’ attitudes about their image of the other economies and their culture, the students’ reflections were investigated. The following are reflections on four economies.

 “I deeply regret that I thought of foreigners as strangers, and I was so inflexible in this age of globalization.”

 (Comment from a student participating in China)

 “I feel very sorry because of my preconception of Japanese people. Japanese people were so much kinder than I thought.”

 (Comment from a student participating in Japan)

 “I thought the Philippines was a poor country, but its people have warm heart to overcome the poverty, and it is a nice country with a myriad of culture and outstanding techniques and buildings.”

 (Comment from a student participating in the Philippines)

 “Before I visited Viet Nam, I felt it was a poor country and had hot weather. But I now feel it is wonderful, and a good place to live.”

 (Comment from a student participating in Viet Nam)



 This study was intended to look at the AEEP, a program targeting youth in the Asia-Pacific region, which is a model of international student exchange, and to explore its potential for application in a wider range of similar situations.

 Since it was endorsed by the APEC Education Foundation in 2008, there have been a total of nine rounds of international exchange, including the initial activity in 2007. The participants have included elementary, secondary, and university students. In addition, teachers, professors, experts, and entrepreneurs, among others, have participated in the program as mentors and facilitators, depending on the theme of the activities.

 The AEEP based on PBL-oriented experiential learning consists of three steps and their sub-activities, including pre-activities, experiential learning activities, and post-activities. To briefly summarize, the first step has participating students come up with themes for their team, depending on their interests, and prepare for the onsite experiential learning activities. In the second step, the students perform PBL-oriented experiential learning activities with multinational team members, assisted by support systems composed of human and physical resources. In the third and final step, the participants share their outcomes with all the other teams and plan new AEEP projects for subsequent activities.


 In terms of experiential learning and international student exchange programs, the potential of the AEEP can be described as follows. First, with respect to experiential learning, the AEEP includes interest-based themes, onsite experiences, self-reflection, and on- and off-line support systems. In particular, the themes of the AEEP, linked with participants’ interests, can be diverse from school curriculum to global issues such as natural disasters, green growth, global economy and so forth.

 Second, with respect to international student exchange programs, it involves project-based activities (rather than basic exchange) with a systematic structure of pre-, onsite-, and postactivities that promotes continuity. The PBLoriented AEEP heightens the occurrence of learning through the process that participants address the project’s tasks. Third, the AEEP uses regional resources such as humans, physical facilities, natural environment, etc. As well known, it provides safe and quality-assured activities utilizing a learning community, ‘ALCoB.’ Therefore, it contributes to reducing the costs for the AEEP implementation, and also makes participants to be more nature-friendly and human-respectfully. Fourth, The AEEP can include participants from diverse fields and classes. We identified this through previous two cases shown in this study. Thanks to this factor, the AEEP has a big possibility to encourage more participants with various backgrounds. Last, the AEEP ultimately pursues the change of not only participants’ knowledge and skills, but also their attitude and mentality. Furthermore, it seeks the change of education and learning environment.

Future study

 As mentioned earlier, approximately 1,400 international students from various regions have participated in the nine rounds of the AEEP held so far. For the AEEP to contribute in broader fields, there are some suggestions for future study.

 First, it is necessary to target more disadvantaged groups through the program and to systematize different models according to different subjects and targets. Second, it is also important to consider how to implement ongoing management and evaluation systems to disseminate the models that are produced. Lastly, in order to run the safe and quality programs, it is required to discover good places. To do this, one strategy that can be considered is to set up an international network among appropriate sites able to perform the AEEP activities, which is recommended by participating economies. Therefore, a study on the standardization to select good sites is also necessary.


1.APEC (2012). 20th APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting statement. Retrieved September 30, 2013 from BrowseLeaders Declarations.aspx?Setting= browseLeadersDeclaration&DocType=%22L eaders%27%20Declaration%22.
2.Banks, J. A. (2003). Educating global citizens in a diverse world. Posted by School of Education at Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved September 30, 2013 from educating globalcitizensinadiverseworld.
3.Banks, J. A (2004). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp.3-29). CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.Beard, C., & Wilson, J. P. (2006). Experiential learning: A best practice handbook for educators and trainers. PA: Kogan Page Limited.
5.Clark, R. W., Threeton, M. D., & Ewing, J. C. (2010). The potential of experiential learning models and practices in career and technical education & career and technical teacher education. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 25(2), 46-62.
6.IACE (2005). APEC project progress report: APEC Future Education Consortium: Focusing on APEC network of ICT Model Schools for future education. Retrieved October 2, 2013 from p&DateRange=2005%2f06%2f01%2c2005 %2f06%2fend&Name=27th+Human+Resour ces+Development+Working+Group+Meetin g+2005&APECGroup=%22Human+Resourc es+Development+Working+Group+(HRDW G)%22.
7.IACE (2008a). APEC project proposal: APEC Edutainment Exchange Program toward building APEC Edutainment Park System for youth exchange.
8.IACE (2008b). APEC Project Evaluation Report: APEC Edutainment Exchange Program toward building APEC Edutainment Park System for youth exchange.
9.IACE (2012). Report: Gokseong Global Overseas Multicultural Experiential Learning.
10.Kang, S. (2010). Multicultural education and the rights to education of migrant children in South Korea. Educational Review, 62(3), 287-300.
11.KEDI (2012). Report on APEC Future Education Festival and APEC Future Education Forum. Technical Report 2012-42.
12.Kim, Y., Lee, J., & Choi, S. (2006). An analysis of the key factors to success of building an online-based learning community. Asia- Pacific Cybereducation Journal, 2(1), 73-78.
13.Kim, Y. (2007). APEC future education toward the Edutainment Park in the APEC region. Asia Pacific Collaborative-education Journal, 3(1).
14.Kim, Y., Lee, J., Lee, S., Lee, H., Kim, B., & Jung, J. (2009). A study on the development and application of an international student exchange program with a web-based experiential learning model: focusing on ALCoB Edutainment Exchange Program. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 15(4), 319-341.
15.Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
16.Lee, J. (2007). A research on the youth exchange in multi-culture society. Journal of Youth Protection and Guidance, 11, 5-23.
17.Moon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
18.Ryu, S., & Kang, B. (2012). The effects of adolescents' leisure experiences on selfesteem and happiness. Studies on Korean Youth, 23(4), 27-50.
19.Sowa, P. A. (2002). How valuable are student exchange programs? New Directions for Higher Education, 2002 (117). Retrieved November 10, 2012 from
20.The Hankyoreh (Aug. 4, 20130). The number of multicultural families' students is above 50,000… Almost 1% of all students in Korea.
21.Won, J., Kim, J., Lee, I., Nam, H., Park, S., Kim, K., & Ryu, J. (2010). Multicultural education in global era. Seoul: Social Criticism.
22.Wurdinger, S. D. (2005). Using experiential learning in the classroom: practical ideas for all educators. MD: The Rowman & Little field Publishing Group, Inc.
23.Wilson, J. P., & Beard, C. (2003). The learning combination lock: An experiential approach to learning design. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27/2/3/4, 88-97.
24.Yoon, C., Lee, M., Park, S., Park, S., & Shin, I. (2011). A study on the current situation analysis and development plan of the international youth exchange policy. National Youth Policy Institute (NYPI) Report 11-R12.
25.Yoon, C. (2012). The present situation and the policy plan of youth international exchange. NYPI YOUTH REPORT, 35_2012.11.