There are many untested, long-held assumptions within the field of study abroad concerning the impact of program elements such as study duration, language of instruction, program models, and student housing choices. One assumption embraced within the field is that direct enrollment (or full immersion) programs are more effective at achieving a full range of outcomes than other program models. However, the field lacks rigorous, longitudinal outcomes assessment research to support this conclusion. This study offers evidence that refutes this assumption. There are considerable variables in study abroad program designs; however, this article focuses on the learning context. Most definitions of program models as defined by learning context may be plotted along a continuum. At one end of the continuum is the "island" program which replicates most aspects of the American college/university learning context in a self-contained context, a bubble, within the host country. Frequently, "island" programs transport US faculty to the host-country to provide all instruction. In the middle of the continuum are "hybrid" programs for which the home institutions offer support and services and which encourage students to take coursework offered by the program as well as courses taught by host-country faculty at the local university. At the end of the continuum are the "direct enrollment/full immersion" programs in which American students directly apply for admission to and participate in the courses and extra-curricular offerings of the host institution. The direct enrollment experience often provides American students with minimal orientation, and support services are offered through the host university's office for visiting foreign students. In this study, the authors define and compare the impacts of two types of programs on the program model continuum: (1) the facilitated direct enrollment model; and (2) the hybrid model. (Contains 7 tables.)